Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:57, 28 September 2013

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yoga This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Template:WP1.0

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
March 2007 - June 2007
July 2007 - August 2007
Late August 2007
September 2007 - August 2009
August 2009 - March 2010
March 2010 - March 2012
March 2012 - March 2013
Current

Note to new users

This page is a mature, stable and very well referenced topic. It has reached this point through the collaboration of many individuals.

I am very concerned when a new user such as EGBlanchett comes along and makes a statement like "Reviewed references in first paragraph and made more precise and clear", e.g. unsupported claims that the BKWSU teaches according to "a re-interpretation of the Bhagawad Gita", makes erroneous changes to quoted material, e.g. changing a quote from adherents.com to the religion's official site, makes misuse of editing tags and seriously misplaces a reference which are already referenced elsewhere. I am sorry but none of that is "more precise and clear".

Some basic advice.

Please discuss changes first.

Experiment using your Sandbox, not an active page. (If you don't know what or where your Sandbox is, seek advice.

Learn how to use the editing tools, and how Misplaced Pages works.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do think personal quotations about the cost and accessibility of dental X-rays are not particularly encyclopedic, however, generally, the article has much improved since I first saw it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent wave of Brahma Kumari (BK) editors

We've recently wave of single purpose Brahma Kumari editors come along.

There is also off Misplaced Pages evidence to suggest that Brahma Kumari adherents are coordinating (or looking to coordinate) in order to take control of the topic directly (as per WP:TAGTEAM), by engaging non-informed editors to add inaccuracies and make the topic more ambiguous on their behalf, or by using personal attacks. Their aim is to bring the topic in line with the religion's own self-promotion (WP:ADVERT), even if it means removing non-BKWSU references as they have done.

Most of these BK supporter appear to target the paragraph in the lede, . Now, let's be honest about this, it is absolutely true. If the BKs could at least admit it was true to begin with then it would be more possible to trust in their intentions. I think it is necessary for them to establish evidence of goodwill and at least discuss their intentions first, as suggested to Danh108 already.

The 1,250 years refers to their rule of the earth during a predicted "Golden Age" on earth which they claim will come in 2036 after an imminent and unavoidable nuclear holocaust they called Destruction "purifies" the world and kills off the rest of humanity. A heaven on earth that only 900,000 of their followers will inherit.

As a starting point for discussion, would any BK care to confirm or deny this was true? If there is any doubt, I'd like to be able to refer to primary sources to do so.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As advised on previous occasions, there are numerous issues with this article. I note that you have only reverted one edit, so I take this as acknowledgement these were unjustified, unencyclopedic comments - comments without referencing or relying on primary source material....and then you wonder why you are attracting SPA pro-BK editors! If you worked with me to clean the article up I'm sure you would reduce the number of people making changes. The biased content is attracting them.

Can we focus on one issue (for now) - the last paragraph of the lede. As you state, it's attracting attention. I state "there could be a reason people aren't happy with it". From my perspective, it is heavily biased as the same Musslewhite book gives a range of 'aims' and 'aspirations' for the BK's. However it is only the most unpleasant one that has been selected. This is bias. Other aims should also be mentioned, or focusing on this negative aim over the other quite pleasant ones should be justified. I have already asked you to justify this and didn't receive a response. This time please. Thank you

Danh108 (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages page is not an advert for your religion. That's just the way it is. As stated before, in order to avoid wasting resources and conflicts, you should develop your own version of the topic in your sandbox. Once it is completed, please show us it and then we can discuss changes.

Is the paragraph is question true? Yes.

Is the paragraph in question referenced? Yes. (Not only in Musselwhite but Beit-Hallahmi, Harris, Walliss and many others. There is an overwhelming consensus which gives weight to it).

Do the Brahma Kumaris spend considerable amount of time and effort attempting to influence the media and even academia to promote themselves as they wish? Yes, even using threats and coercion to do so (Walliss pp 98-99).

In fact, in 'The Psychology of Death in Fantasy and History' edited by Piven, Jerry S. (pp 103-104) clearly states "the secret fantasy of world destruction which will wipe out all of humanity with the exception of Brahma Kumari adherents ..." and "... how it is secret from nonmembers".

Therefore, if you and other BK followers come along and start removing or hiding well referenced facts, all we can presume is that you are acting in according with the agenda recorded above and wanting to coordinate what is reported on the Misplaced Pages with your own religion's self-publicity. --Januarythe18th (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You have only partially addressed my concern. The paragraph in question makes it's statement as if this is the exclusive focus of the entire organisation. Obviously it's not, as the literature states various other aims. So we shouldn't take things out of context as has happened here. Why not state multiple aims? That would be balanced and show neutrality.

If possible, please stick to the content. For example, it's not relevant that you state "it's true". I'm interested in the reference material, not statements of bias based on your personal beliefs about what the BKWSU believe.

I also note the following text: "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavorably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram". This was included in the history section without anything to back it up...so accusations that my editing is "whitewashing" is without substance. The reality is there is a clean up job, where this type of unreferenced negative content has been included....and what is the motivation of an editor to intentional self-generate this kind of content?

Anyways, don't get too upset - you know I don't have as much time or obsession/dedication (please indicate your preferred description) as you to work on improvements. Thanks for the quotes though. Regards Danh108 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't try and provoke edit warring by reverting reasonable edits - I'm happy to discuss the lede, but the on what basis can you revert the edits where you are making unsubstantiated claims or relying on primary resource material? Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read the given reference, it's very clear. As per WP:NOT etc my responsibility goes as far as to include a verifiable reference not spoon feed you. You'll have to request the references from a library or your own religious headquarters who must have a copy, and then read them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous use of edit summaries

I am sorry but I cannot afford to spend too much time on responding to you, Danh108, but you clearly don't understand how the Misplaced Pages works and I must flag up your disingenuous use of edit summaries, e.g. here

"Lack of verifiability - which of the 9 Texan universities did this guy even ring? ANYWAY, primary resources should not be used AND this is about a living person!"

The reference comes from a reliable source, this "guy" is a published journalist on whom the Misplaced Pages relies to verify sources. He would not have to have telephoned " 9 Texan universities" because the Brahma Kumaris named the one they claimed made the statement which then stated clearly they knew nothing of the unscientific claim nor even the alleged department.

Since this was exposed, the Brahma Kumaris have official instructed their centers not to make the fraudulent claim and so I think we depend on the accuracy of the statement.

I am sorry but this example alone underlines your unsuitability for editing topics relating to your religion.

Further more, a newspaper or journal is not a "primary source" as you state, it is a verifiable source. Please do not use that excuse again. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi J18, sorry for the delay. Did you have anything to back your claim about this journalist? These days there is a wide range of places someone can be 'published', so that doesn't establish much credibility for me. I also don't find a single phone call to an archivist particularly definitive proof, particularly when it relates to something over 30 years ago. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your point is immaterial. The BKWSU themselves published a statement saying no scientist ever made the claim. Therefore we can be assured it is true.

Please allow me to help establish credibility for your agenda ...

Is it or is it not true that the Brahma Kumaris teach that they will exclusively populate and rule over a heaven on earth (Golden Age) for 1,250 years after an imminent "end of the world" scenario which they call "Destruction" and which will kill off the rest of impure humanity. -- Januarythe18th (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(And, please, no disingenuous responses about how 'Destruction' is not the end of the world but a 'Transformation'. A simple yes or no will do).

Use of Bogus/dodgy references

Hi J18, thank you for that. If the BK’s themselves have published something then at least include that reference as well and I will be satisfied.

I don’t feel the purpose of the talk page is for us to try and hash out our personal views – that is more something to do over coffee at a cafe. As stated earlier, what you have just said confirms my concern that you have sifted through the available literature with the aim of collecting quotes and information that support your own preconceived ideas and unbalanced understanding of BKWSU. In my opinion you are at least equally guilty of ‘blackwashing’ as the BKWSU is of ‘whitewashing’.

Now, regarding your 'published journalist'....thank you for raising this as I have really enjoyed a bit of online research. Your reliable journalist openly goes under the handle "Captain Porridge".

1. This individual has posted on Misplaced Pages requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s .

2. He participates in the advocacy group run by the disgruntled John Allan, respondent in the Arbitration dispute mentioned in the BK Wiki article reference , and

3. He also openly names the people supporting the Applicant in the Arbitration dispute in what appears to be an attempt to injure their reputation .

4. He writes for a student university gazette (Keimyung is the correct spelling) - hardly a credible source in itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be hard to find a more disreputable/conflicted piece of supporting evidence.Danh108 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I've restored the simple stable lead prior to all the goings on here. I suggest using sources specific to Hinduism, religion, specialists on apocalyptic movements, and religious movements centric on the role of the female, not male. I started to put context around "rule" since it's not "rule" in the sense implied as spot-quoted but it just got worse, not better, and so I've removed that. Please don't reinsert, let's keep contentions of post-apocalyptic world domination (implied as written) to the body of the article. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism says NOTHING of that, meanwhile, "female" -- a central feature -- is still missing. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is much more neutral and spares the lede from having a number of contentious issues. I have some other concerns I will mention below this - would be great to get some independent eyes on that too.Danh108 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th's editing motive - is this good faith?

I prefer to assume goodfaith. Unfortunately I have found some evidence that editors should be aware of.

1. Jan18th also represented himself as a pro-BKWSU editor when he first started editing under Jan18th, and used a writing style that appeared to have limited English language skills. In the fact pattern that is emerging, it appears this may have been a strategy to conceal his conflict of interest. The account has now evolved into labelling most other editors as BKWSU ‘adherents’ or ‘followers’, and posting unsupported allegations of sexual misconduct by the BKWSU founder and other highly contentious edits. Attempts to correct this have been immediately reverted, attempting to draw people into edit warring.

Interesting, Jan18th has corrected my use of the apostrophe, one of the hardest things to grasp in the English language - yet when he started editing he couldn't string an English sentence together. This auto-assumption about other editors as BK adherents etc and slightly aggressive style is very similar to the conduct of a past blocked editor and also similar to the style of writing material used by the Advocacy group on website brahmakumaris.info. It appears extremely likely that January 18th intentionally sort to misrepresent his identity, and now that he has slowly taken over/full control of the page, has dispensed with this subterfuge.

I would be interested to get advice from other editors about how to deal with this. Danh108 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Any editor intent jumping off the precipice will do so of their own accord, there's no need to to assist lest someone mistake the situation as you pushing them. Spend your energies on content. Ignore the rest, it's a consuming black hole. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that behind the persistent personal attacks, there is and has been long term behind the scenes coordination amongst Brahma Kumari adherents over this topic page, and that attempting to using and involve uninformed others to re-introduce inaccuracies is one of their strategies.

As per WP:BRD, Sam Miller (writer and journalist), is actually highly qualified and educated (history at Cambridge University, politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, BBC's TV and radio correspondent in New Delhi therefore his commentary would pass as a highly reliable source. The question of "secretiveness" also arises in other academic work about the Brahma Kumaris, e.g. Beit-Hallahmi, Walliss and others.

It's really not necessary to put the same stream of references after every word and argue over semantics, e.g. if Beit-Hallahmi writes "hidden from outsiders" is that not the same as Miller's "secretive? We have to accept some onus on the readers to go and actually read all the main references. It's all there. One of the reasons this topic is so well referenced is precisely because the Brahma Kumaris have challenged practically every word. You cherry pick a single reference to spitting in his book as an excuse to remove a key component. Spitting is something as just as well studied as just about any other similar cultural expression. Miller's book is a good ethnography.

Whereas I accept the need for copyediting, I fear you are being somewhat hasty Vecrumba and, perhaps, are not quite so versed in this subject matter.

Re Neo-Hinduism, which is what you removed earlier, is an important definer in this case and a well established concept or categorisation of new religions. Again, it qualifies some of the ambiguities in Brahma Kumarism liberally borrowing terminology from classical Hinduism, e.g. Raja Yoga but differing from it. The BKs are not Hindus and present themselves as being separate from it. For example, you re-introduce "service" but BKs are actually disencouraged form doing normal charity.

I am afraid I have to reject much your "simplification" of the lede as restoring a degree of confusion and lack of clarity due to its source. You using terms such as "knowledge" and "service" which for the Brahma Kumaris have highly specific meaning quite different from most readers understanding of them. Until you have defined how they are used, it would be wrong to place in such a way. The previous structure is a far more accurate and less WP:ADVERT the BKs are seeking.

Copywriting is fine but let's discuss key changes first. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In no particular order...

• I'm well aware of the history of the article.
• Well referenced is not well written. Nor do lots of references mean they are good references. The most recent extensive source on BK (Flow of Faith, 2012) is cited once. At least there's better representation of Babb.
• I really couldn't care less about allegations of conspiracies on either side. There are so many good scholarly (not written by reporters being spit on, et al.) sources on BK that writing an objective article should present no challenge whatsoever. Unfortunately, the controversy here appears to be one class of editors making BK out to be kooks (really, the title works against BK, it should be Brahma Kumaris and this should be the redirected title, different conversation) and the other class defending the faith against the onslaught. Don't accuse anyone and you won't look like you're someone's camp mate.
• Whether Neo-Hinduism, Hinduism, non-Hinduism, really, the the vast collective of sources agree BK, while a new millenarian religious movement, is in fact Hinduism; that aspects diverge from traditional does not make it not so, that divergence is the source of much of the controversy. No religion is monolithic, that BK diverges does not make it another religion.
• Really, the lede as it was earlier today, was hardly informative, was missing fundamental information, and made BK out to be a secret(ive) society of kooks bent on world entitlement and domination. What I've put back from before the article's latest cycle of edit warring is a far better place to start from, inadequacies aside.
• Some of the promotional aspects (exhaustive list of awards) probably needs to be consolidated to some degree; related activities (NGO at UN and all) are, however, fully documented in scholarly sources, their inclusion here is not an advertisement for BK. The more some editors are seen to attack BK, the longer the list of awards will get. Again, if you're looking at this as an article with "sides", IMHO, you're one of the camp members.
• As for "secretive", that can't be stuck that in the lede as the first word describing BK; that preference of word placement is grossly prejudicial. Plain and simple. The "sides" would make this into a standoff between
  1. a reputable reporter used that word on one side (apparently you), versus
  2. BK followers (rightly) finding its use (placement and emphasis) offensive--note I used "prejudicial", that's different

BTW, on my "cherry picking" regarding being spat on, come now, he titled an entire chapter in honor of the event, that's hardly me "cherry picking." Don't use that code phrase again, it brands you as a camp member.

And let's not make this into a contest of who can write the longer rebuttal. Any more time I spend on any writing this week will be to construct an appropriate lede. I'd invite you, but from my vantage point you're on one of the sides here. That's not an attack, just an observation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're editing in good faith, I suggest you demonstrate that by undoing your revert to the last stable lede until we have something better to discuss. I've explained why your objectivity (re "secretive" and its placement in the lede) is prejudicial and why your use of "cherry picked" in discussion identifies you as a combatant here. Your choice. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by Vecrumba, I prefer his version of the lede. In addition, I have repeatedly asked J18 for an explanation for why he emphasizes/selects the more unfortunate sounding quotes and labels anything positive as promotional. I find this gives a distorted view of the BKWSU when looking at the resources in a more global/summary fashion.Danh108 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As stated before, because of the history and to save all volunteers' resources, I think the only way forward is;

• for the Brahma Kumaris to compose their own alternative version of the page to be in a sandbox,

• let us see it, and then

• let us discuss where merging the two is possible.

Let's discuss this approach first before being dragged into an endless word by word argument.

The Brahma Kumari adherents who are now coordinating off Misplaced Pages and their leader specifically highlighted involved uninformed third parties, such as yourself Vecrumba, as a tactical distraction. It not my style to put in a complaint but I state this as fact which I can support with evidence. Please ask Danh108 to deny it. Immediately there we have WP:TAGTEAM, WP:SPA, WP:MEAT, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:NPA etc. Of course, it's a problem we have had on the Misplaced Pages pages of numerous cultic religions.

If you follow the history of the topic, you will see it consists of one Brahma Kumari follower coming along after another - making no other contributions to the Misplaced Pages except to this page - and either blanking, deleting, making poor quality edits, personal attacks, attacks against splinter groups, or attempting to turn it into an advert. It wastes everyone else's time and energy. They are giving the Misplaced Pages nothing.

Vecrumba, to put it frankly, you're just being used. You are welcome to get involved or throw about your weight as much as you wish but I strongly encourage you not to get sucked in by them and to argue over each and every point because it will waste your otherwise productive time. Just to read over all the existing references would take a week.

Fine, if the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University wants to control this topic, or individual Brahma Kumaris adherents want to work together on composing a Misplaced Pages page for their religion, let them work on one together in a sandbox, then show us, then we will discuss it.

What's wrong with that logic? --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Tagging

I thinking the tagging has to stay on this article for sometime. There are clearly issues in dispute. All editing basically gets stone-walled by Januarythe18th - sorry Vecrumba, looks like he will do exactly the same thing to you. I don't agree with the suggestion that this editor can come out of his camp - he prior commitments to telling his own version is pretty persistent and tends to attract the pro-BK edits he is complaining about - as you say, they don't like being painted as 'kooks'.

There is still the issue in the history section of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual relations between the organisations founder and young women. Really, this kind of editing is calculated to try and incite/irritate people. Anything that contentious should be so well referenced. J18, I'm really interested in a descent explanation for this as I find it really damages your credibility as a Wikipedian editor.

Vecrumba, I don't know how long you've covered the history of the page. I'm fairly fresh on the scene but have done quite a bit of reading. There appears to be a huge amount of similarity between Januarythe18th and the previously banned editor lucyintheskywithdada....I really respect your suggestion to focus on content, but it's hard if no one else is allowed to adjust the content except this guy. It would also explain the games he is playing.Danh108 (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Similarity with the lobbyst group BKInfo

I had come across a Forum run by some of the ex-BKs that were closely associated with BKWSU for many years. The forum is called www.brahmakumaris.info which is primarily run by a single individual.

I found a lot of similarity between what is projected about BKWSU on their main page and this Wiki Article. For example from the main page of that forum: Brahma Kumarism: a strictly millenarian (End of the World), spiritualist cult based on mediumistic teachings from a “spirit entity” adherents believe is the god of all religions. “God”, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University teaches, speaks to humanity exclusively through their psychic mediums only.

This also appears to be the portrayal of the BKWSU right through the article. This is just an observation from my side. Changeisconstant (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is additional evidence on Misplaced Pages that supports this observation. Some edits I made around the arbitration dispute in the BK article were referred to by Januarythe18th as a 'personal attack'. There is some very close association between Januarythe18th and the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info. I have the impression that someone upset/affected by that arbitration case is getting vengeance through making the BK's look like nutters on the Misplaced Pages page.

Changeisconstant, might be useful to have some extra eyes on this article for a while if you are around. It would be good for Misplaced Pages's credibility if this article could be cleaned up. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As it happens there is also a range of content that appears to be lifted from Faith & Philosophy of Hinduism by Rajeev Verma. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Faith & Philosophy of Hinduism was published in 2009 and has lifted from the Misplaced Pages

Taken at random, here is a snapshot from 2007 which predates the book by 2 years and matches it almost verbatim. How would you explain that?

You see, Vecrumba, this is why I suggest caution, an attention to details, and most of all discussion first. Your enthusiasm to help is being used.

I know it is a good argument to remove text because it apparently is taken too directly from elsewhere, but it this case the chicken most certainly came after the Wikipedian egg. --Januarythe18th (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The start of the article by "secretive" is taken from a reference that is also mentioned in Brahma kumaris info forum - http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3106 "India Today reported that author Sam Miller's book "Delhi: Adventures in a Megacity" topped the Indian non-fiction bestseller list". Starting an organization's article on Wiki by "secretive" shows strong prejudice. I am surprised to see one editor excercising so much control on an article on Wiki - it appears that BKWSU article is controlled by the BK Info group or its key contributor as such. Isn't this a disregard of Wiki practices? Changeisconstant (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Well, if one sticks to scholarly sources about religion and stays away from the sensationalism, accusations, newspaper reports and all (really, do we quote newspaper articles regarding core beliefs and practices of Judaism or Christianity or Islam?) one finds the Brahma Kumari are not secretive kooks meditating on lightbulbs on their journey to world domination. I'll put in refs, the Hindi, et al. later. FYI, this is constructed from about ten different sources (and not including the aforementioned above Verma).

Brahma Kumaris is a millenarian Hindu new religious movement founded by Dada Lekharj ("Brahma Baba") in the 1930's following a series of apocalyptic visions. It is the only major spiritual movement headed by women: the builders of society, to be rulers in a new post-apocalyptic era after the end of the current Kali-yuga age (350,000 years from now).

Brahma Kumaris made available to women a spiritual path which was traditionally open only to men. Adherents follow a lifestyle and meditative practice they call Raja Yoga, a simplified form based on ancient teachings. Followers observe complete celibacy, believing that identity lies in the soul, not the body; they meditate to forget the body and remember the soul.

At the time Brahma Kumaris was founded, women had no say in their lives. Attacked for being radical, its adherents lived and practiced in seclusion for many years. The Brahma Kumari are still seen as secretive and continue to generate suspicion and controversy: Brahma Kumaris inverts the traditional roles of man and woman—men tend to the everyday, freeing women for spiritual pursuits. While celibacy has long been a respected option for men on their spiritual path, the celibate woman denies her ordained role of wife and mother thus putting traditional social and religious structures at risk.

The movement has expanded as it exports to the West. While not considering itself feminist, Brahma Kumaris has taken on more of those pragmatic aspects in Eastern Europe, where, for example, it has come into conflict with Catholic values; the Brahma Kumari movement has also adapted—women adopt a celibate marriage and continue to live with their families. Active proselytizing has given the Brahma Kumari movement a high profile, generating distrust among mainstream Hindus. Nevertheless, the Brahma Kumari are also respected in India for the hospitals, schools, and outreach programs which they have established.

Sources vary in the estimate of followers, ranging from 100,000 to 450,000 worldwide.

It's not perfect, but discussing this may be more fruitful than edit-warring and hurling accusations over using a context-free "secretive" as the very first word to describe the movement. The sooner we jettison everything sourced from web sites and the press (other than a rudimentary "BK in the press"), the better. WP is not a blog or SEO agent to be fought over. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Musselwhite dissertation is interesting reading, however it is an organizational study of how a highly motivated religious movement self-propagates, less a study in theology. One of the problems with the article as it stands is that there isn't enough attention paid to what Brahma Kumari followers believe, what they do, and what their organizational management does (particularly with regard to attracting and inculcating new followers). Generally there's too much "does" on both sides—my impression. Driving a car is not a belief system. Renaming the article to "Brahma Kumaris" and treating it as an article on a religious movement might be helpful. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be busy for a few days, no rush on comments; in general, there's no train leaving the station. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I have to reiterate what I have said above. Because of the history and the off Wiki coordination of a BK tagteam, I'm somewhat loathed to rehash endless and often futile discussion on a word by word basis.

The way forward is simple. The Brahma Kumaris followers want the topic page to suits them. Fine, that is understandable. However, the way to produce their version first in a sandbox, let us see it as a whole, and then discuss where the two can be merged after.

I cannot see the problem in that proposal. It would require far less time and energy than it currently being wasted.

There is actually a second page specifically on Brahma Kumaris Beliefs which remains undeveloped and which would benefit from more attention from them and yourself. To fit all aspects of a religion into one page would be too demanding. If we look at a comparative, there is e.g. Scientology and Church of Scientology but not Scientologists. There is a page for Christians. Arguably there might enough academic material for a similar page on Brahma Kumari followers (not as per List of Brahma Kumaris), e.g. Walliss starts the discussion on that but it's not something that would interest me in starting.

As I said to you before, you've been deliberately provoked or encouraged by the BKs to involve yourself as they see it beneficial to use uninformed third parties who they can rely upon to introduce more ambiguities into the article and add confusion, e.g. using erroneous sources or source which they themselves had curried earlier.

In doing so, you are adding sizeable factual (not interpretive) mistakes or errors, e.g. Brahma Kumari do actually "meditate on lightbulbs" (they called them "trance lights"), they do foresee themselves as ruling the world for 2,500 years (indeed predict the Indian government will surrender to them first), the numbers/sources you quote are long out of date, and so on.

To help you understand this, I'd like to end by quoting Tamasin Ramsay, an adherent and high level Brahma Kumari representative herself but also a PhD who has written her dissertation and numerous papers on the religion. Commenting about the recently published reliable source, "Understanding the Brahma Kumaris" by Prof Frank Whaling, she says,

Frank Whaling began writing “Understanding the Brahma Kumaris” 20 years ago and it shows. While the book has a 2012 publication date, much of the data is incorrect or outdated . The current printing is also riddled with factual and historical errors. His interpretation of the Brahma Kumaris is sympathetic and Professor Whaling is a deeply kind and thoughtful scholar. However, readers are cautioned against looking to “Understanding the Brahma Kumaris” as a reference book. Those who wish to understand the formation of knowledge and culture within the Brahma Kumaris should read widely. Dr Tamasin Ramsay

The same is true of many of sources. Unless you are cautious, you risk making errors on this page. This is why I am asking you to hold back until the BKs are willing to produce a copy of what they want and then let's simply discuss that. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting us back on track Vecrumba and for putting in the time to create this lede. I will take "the baby from the bath water" above in Januarythe18th's post, and work on the lede in my sandbox. On the whole, I think this lede has a very neutral feel and is quite fair/balanced. I will have a play with it over the weekend. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, just do the complete article. Don't pussy foot about and waste every one's time. And please consider investing some of your time productive developing the "Beliefs" page rather than fighting over this one all the time. You really have not and are not offering the Misplaced Pages any productive benefits whatsoever.

The reason why I would argue against such a lede, and why it raises my concerns about your invocation or Vecrumba, is that the Brahma Kumaris are not a Hindu religion. The difference between Hindu and neo-hindu is considerable. A simple replacement of Hindu with neo-hindu would not fix the problem either.

The problem is with your intention and how you are carrying it out. You are here to serve your religion at the cost of the Misplaced Pages and other Wikipedians.

Therefore, please, save us all time and energy, produce your alternative version and let us see it. What is the problem in doing so? --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

J18, I found this interesting, WP:Potkettle, especially the line "the hypocrisy is simply staggering". It would be great if you could put your guns down, and participate in creating the new lede.Danh108 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not need a new lede. The current one is highly accurate and fits in well with the standard model.

Look, all you are attempting here, as an adherent of this religion, is a kind of war of attrition based on accusations, incremental changes, and now using others. Please save all our time and just show us what the BKs want as a end result. Develop your alternative in your sandbox. If it is fair and accurate, it may well be acceptable. However, it is WP:ADVERTISING, it is unlikely to be.

Why would you not do so? You are not showing us any evidence of a commitment to the betterment of the Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Januarythe18th, the current lead is choppy and incoherent. You can make something "accurate" and, yet, totally unintelligilble and uninformative and incomplete. As far as I can tell, splitting "beliefs" and the "university" is a needless POV split of a single topic, the subject is not so extensive that it all can't fit in one article. Really, two articles for a religious movement that's only been around since the 1930's and practiced in utter seclusion for its first decade and a half? I suggest a single article, "Brahma Kumaris" that covers both. If it gets too long it's only because one side or the other is POV loading content.

Perhaps we should just make a new "Brahma Kumaris" article and then jettison both in a clean break with the past. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, please join me in my commitment to try and work with a neutral editor - I think this will achieve the 'betterment of the Misplaced Pages as a whole' you refer to. I won't repeat the list of poor content, dodgy references, or strange editing behaviours.

Vecrumba, there is also an article in the founders name written primarily by Januarythe18th on behalf of his group. The content is fairly repetitive and may be better to amalgamate into this page as a sub-heading? When an article is as disjoint, patchwork and riddled with POV loaded content as this one, I think the suggestion of a clean break from the past is a good idea.

Regards 210.86.249.30 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, this was Danh108 - A small hiccup with my account had me logged out. Danh108 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, great job on exposing the cult. Thank you for clarifying that BKs meditate with "trance lights". I myself thought translights referred to pictures with a lamp inside. They hide its true meaning which as you show is some sort of hypnotic device. That's a great work of yours on showing how dangerous is the cult's meditation, which otherwise would seem as harmless form of spirituality. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)GreyWinterOwl

Removal of tags and BLP problem

In the circumstances, it really seems inappropriate for the tags and BLP edit to keep getting reverted. The concerns raised on the talk page have not been addressed: 1. The article is still 'under repair', hence the tags. 2. Re BLP - the source relied upon appears to be a student newspaper in a Korean University. It is an article written by someone who in the post above is shown to have connection to an advocacy group intent on controlling the content of this Wiki page. The supplemental BK publication J18 has referred to is not being provided. If another editor could offer some suggestion on these that would be appreciated. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to correct your euphemism. The article is not "under repair". The article is highly accurate, comprehensive and well referenced. It has been reviewed and accepted as being of a suitable standard for the Release Version.

You are not attempting to "repair it". As a follower you may "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" parts, but that does not mean they are inaccurate, out of place or do not represent the religion as whole. If you are unhappy with the critical aspects, we could move the bulk of to a separate page, as per Criticism of Islam if you wanted, (e.g. Criticism of Brahma Kumarism) and leave only a summary here.

As I keep saying to you, just show us how the BKWSU wants the topic to end up in your sandbox. It would not be wasted energy as any acceptable changes can be copy and pasted from there.

The more you resist this as a way forward, or refuse to develop other topics, I think the more suspect your intentions appear.

Please show a commitment to the Misplaced Pages by contributing in other areas as well, develop your editing skills and understanding by interacting with others where you do not have a direct interest. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is neither accurate:

• lede does not even mention women, focuses on world domination without the context of the role of women, starts with secretive--i can go on

nor comprehensive

• really, you can't discuss a movement without beliefs which are, oops, (in)conveniently in another article

nor well referenced

• you don't mix scholarly sources and newspaper reports with no regard to differentiation

From the first descriptive word being "secretive" (camp #1) to the last section being a mind-numbing litany of good deeds (camp #2), no objective outsider would consider this article encyclopedic.

A coming apocalypse and the order to come after is a common theme in belief systems. Is it only me that finds a Hindu spiritual movement based on, well, spirituality, without regard to traditional societal norms, fascinating? And how is it that it has morphed from being driven to practice in utter seclusion for its first decade and a half into a global cottage industry? The empirical claim is that the answer to those two questions belong in separate articles. IMHO they don't, and I believe that bifurcation is a major source of the conflict.

It would be helpful if folk would state, clearly and succinctly, what they think a single encyclopedic article about the Brahma Kumari movement should encompass. Whether or not that happens is not the point. Perhaps that will help folks focus their thoughts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many fascinating facts about Brahma Kumaris Vecrumba, that I found but most of them are conveniently hidden by the controller

of this article. For example, J18 uses a reference from http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3415 to show

lifestyle of BKs (not advocating Alcohol etc.). However the same article shows neutral opinions about BKs describing the core values

which are not picked. Example from same reference: "The BK World Spiritual University offers a range of educational programs in moral

and spiritual values aimed at building a greater awareness of the worth and dignity of the human person. The curriculum is based on the

recognition of the intrinsic goodness and spirituality of every human being. Education in spiritual principles is combined with the

development of latent qualities and the awakening of dormant personal power"..Why is this not picked from reference in Lede?

Whats going on here !!! Changeisconstant (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC) — Danh108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's bizarre that a thinking person who has posted there was (not even allegations of) "immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women", without supporting reference, but still emphatically states the article is accurate and well referenced. When a reference appears later in this paragraph (early history section), it is a resource that relies on affidavit material from a Court case that was actually lost.

the article also has BLP issues (see edit history), structure and flow problems, glorification of an Arbitration case as "legal action against critic", unbalanced selection of references from resources (cherry picking), POV pushing, use of primary and poor quality resources.....etc

I also find the evolution of the organisation particularly interesting - from utter seclusion to 'global cottage industry'. It seems to be an organisation that has managed to adapt itself to varying social/cultural contexts, and has also sometimes tried to, failed, and been rightly criticised for it. It is also fascinating that the organisation continued to grow after the death of its founders (in the early history, there was a female leader who to some extent was a 'co-founder') - generally if something is a cult, the movement/organisation dies with it's charismatic leader.

I think the whole topic is best dealt with in one article on "Brahma Kumaris". In terms of contents, I would suggest the following structure:

-Lede

-Early history

-Brahma Baba and Mateshwari (or Lekhraj Kripalani and Radhe ________ ) That is, if others think the other old article on the founder is better abandoned and amalgamated into this article.

-Expansion (some sort of map/picture?)

-Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations

-Brahma Kumaris and Health Care (e.g. the Global Hospital, the Village Outreach Ambulance, the expansion of this to another hospital in Mumbai, the Dadi Janki Foundation, values in healthcare program etc).

-Brahma Kumaris and the Environment (e.g. the use of solar power (incl currently under construction world's largest 'solar farm' 1 Megawatt Power generation plant), attending in an official capacity all the recent major climate change conferences, green policy etc)

(as these are all some of the main areas of 'expansion')

-Other Activities and recognition

-Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs

-Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris

I don't think there is a need for separate sections on 'Mediumship' or the mis-described 'legal action against critic'. The former would fit in core beliefs and the latter in the Criticisms section.

This is my view on article content. However, I'm not rigid about this and have tried to respect a lot of the existing structure. I'm interested to hear other people's views.

Danh108 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC) — Danh108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am sorry but no. Stop wasting other editors' time and energy. See comments and alternative sandbox topic created below. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox version

Dan,

I am concerned by your, and the other BK editors', total lack of any general experience on the Misplaced Pages or interaction with other Misplaced Pages (other than attempts to engage editors in supporting you).

We call this a "single purpose account", please read WP:SPA and understand.

I am sorry but, at this point, because of your (collective) intentions as BK followers, lack of any other commitment to the betterment of the Misplaced Pages or evidence of understanding how it works, or even good English skills in the case of other editors (the topic has suffered on a regular basis from "Indian English" style and devotional edits), I am not going to engage on a point by point basis.

You need to gain more experience on topics where you have no personal interest.

I've asked you politely to show some good faith and suggested a way forward, which is to make and finish a sandbox copy to your satisfaction and then let us see and discuss it.

You've shown no willingness to do so and continue making lengthy personal attacks.

• Therefore, as evidence of my further goodwill, I've made you a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic in your user pages.

Please stop wasting our energy and quickly knock up a finished copy as you would like it and let us see it. Then let us discuss changes. I will not criticise nor interfere with your efforts.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Januarythe18th. I would have concerns about your concept of "fair and accurate" given you think the current article already is. It is better you address your suggestion to Vecrumba as I am following his lead/lede on this matter. In my view that is more appropriate (to follow his suggestions) as I have stated on my user page before I started editing, I do have some level of bias. By contrast you have accidentally over time had your conflict of interest exposed against your wishes and you continue to try and set futile tasks to stall/divert other editors from touching your article.

It is amazing how everyone point and policy you site you manage to be breaching yourself in the same paragraph. I think this is the 5th time you have posted the exact same suggestion....I won't comment on what inference one might draw from that....

I will paste my thoughts on the lede in shortly.Danh108 (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing accidental about your personal attacks.

Save your energy and ours and just work on the sandbox copy of BKWSU topic for now. You need to learn the basics first.

Please gain some experience on the Misplaced Pages and interaction with other Wikipedians where you do not have a personal interest or are highly emotionally involved with the topic. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts

To give other users an idea of the problem this topic, and other others and admins are suffering, this is a list of Brahma Kumari single purpose accounts taken off one page of the history (500) over the last year. If one was to go back further, it would increase considerably. At least 4 are blocked, numerous are tagged with warnings and the list may contain WP:SOCKS.

Note most of the edits are nigh identical. Basically none of the editors benefit the Misplaced Pages in anyway at all. Their collective edit warring and futile or waste discussions costs the Misplaced Pages and other Wikipedians and prohibits development of other topics.

In truth, until recently, I do not think the majority of these constitute a conscious WP:MEAT or WP:TAGTEAM. However, the recent trend and off wiki evidence suggests that the latest editors are and that members of the Brahma Kumaris are coordinating.

Attempting some reason, problems generally arise because the religion is highly devotional, evangelistic, and indoctrinates its followers with factually erroneous and exaggerated hagiographic version of their founder's and leaders' lives in a typically cultic manner.

When faced with objective facts that have either been hidden from them, or criticisms which are dissonant the religion's aims, the followers are understandably unsettled and, being highly motivated, want to recreate what they are accustomed to or use the page as a WP:ADVERT. Reason and logic are a waste of time because they have a clear agenda.

If anyone is unconvinced by the scale and nature of the problem, and requires more evidence, I am happy to provide it.

At present, the topic is highly accurate, well referenced and needs very little development. There are a number of subsidiary page could, e.g. Brahma Kumaris Beliefs.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(* Excluding those accused of being sockpuppets) --Januarythe18th (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Januarythe18th about this. It seems highly likely there have been lots of fairly useless "pro-BK" editors flocking to the page with little skill or experience in Misplaced Pages, and managing this uses/wastes his time.

Where my views might diverge from Januarythe18th is that I think articles making unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct etc etc etc are highly likely to attract this kind of editing. I would suggest that the best long term solution to resolve this complaint is to have an article that is fair, accurate and neutral.

Other editors are putting their time and energy into doing this....hopefully those still kicking, screaming and throwing their toys will also participate in the improvement process.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nearly shocked to see this accusation. This shows a strong prejudice and control excercised by one editor on this article

(Januarythe18th). Every editor who has attempted to improve this article from its heavily biased tone towards a more neutral article as

per standards of Misplaced Pages has always been accused of belonging to some BK group or "being used". For a new editor like me, it seems very

hostile out here which is not as per WP:DNB. J18 has accused editors like us to be contributing nothing of value, being a follower or

edit warring; these generalizations are baseless claims & discouraging new editors on Wiki -I propose to remove this personal attack. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The best way for BK editors to avoid such accusation is merely to edit more widely and add benefit to the Misplaced Pages as a whole. However, I don't think they will do it because it is just maya and a distraction from evangelising. Please prove me wrong.

Alternatively, I've created a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic for you(s) to work on collaborative and let us see where you want to take the topic too this time.

Who is mbbhat and why have I received a message about it? Something about a group of BKs plotting about this topic on a forum? It does not matter, the fact is at least 4 of those accounts are already blocked by admins and a number of them did nothing more than vandalise the page. Basically none have shown any interest or benefit the Misplaced Pages in any way whatsoever, and others have created conflicts and messes in the past.

I can understand as an adherent you WP:IDONTLIKEIT but perhaps you could underline on this page which of the referenced content you believe is factually inaccurate.

Please also note, re your use of language and this edit , the policy on WP:WEASEL and avoid verbal ticks like "as such" . An accusation is an allegation and so to have both is superfluous.

Perhaps if you are a Hindi speaker you could find some updates on the serious crimes which have been carried? Thank you --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

J18, You keep coming back with questions without answering anything that has been asked of you. Before I answer any of questions, can

you confirm whether you understand Hindi or not? If not, then what made you assert that this article is highly accurate when you have

included Hindi references without understanding of what they say? Only after researching all those references, I state that just by

having references doesn't make an article accurate. On what basis did you conclude that all the crimes were carried out in BK centres?

So before you come up with same old mantra of calling all other editors BKs, please answer this simple question. With your logic of

calling everyone else an adherrent, aren't you also an old time adherrent? Majority of your edits are also on this article isn't it?Changeisconstant (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I certain would edit more widely (and in fact I do) if you people did not wasting my all my available time and energy with your war of attrition. It's a little bit selfish of you. What benefit have the "900,000" Brahma Kumaris followers brought to the Misplaced Pages at all? Two edits on Swiss telecom's companies? What great charity, and what positive impression of the religion, is it that? Why not donate to the Misplaced Pages instead of taking, demanding and wasting all the time?

As for your personal commitment to the Misplaced Pages as a whole, I'll watch with interest at how much and widely your contribute. Read up more on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The answers that you seek are all there. Please gain more experience and understanding by interacting with a wider range of Misplaced Pages than just taking a lead from the BKWSU's puppetmaster as what you've just done is prove your bad faith by being unwilling to do any research that would provide for us a more informed understanding. In addition, you are leaning towards a hateful personal attack, see WP:PERSONAL etc. I am bound to be reasonable to a limit but I am not here to educate you.

The way forward is to stop wasting other Wikipedians' time and energy, and develop your sandbox version of the topic so we can see what you want.

For interest's sake, if you believe any of the referenced material is factually incorrect, please point it out.

Either engage with the Misplaced Pages as a whole, study and learn from it, or please go away and use a blog to express your ideas instead. Thank you --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

J18, I have already pointed out couple of such inaccuaracies and corrected them in the article. I know you keep repeating about the

references provided etc., but the way the information is presented from the references does have a clearly biased approach. I can not

rule out that you may be someone who may not have good personal experience with this organization and therefore you want to take it

out here, but that is what makes this article so anti-BK sounding and not neutral at all. Therefore rather than you controlling this

article to the extent of obsession and edit warring on a daily basis, this article will improve (ofcourse with suitable references) if

general open market editing is followed as per Misplaced Pages policies. Your personal attacks will not help. For me simple examples like

you including my name in a BK group list is a baseless accusation and shows a strong prejudice. This attracts my attention even more

on to this article else I could also have spent time on other stuff. Once again, a new editor would always start somewhere so please

stop discouraging new editors by such hostility. From my point of view, every small contribution of new editors is also valuable to

Misplaced Pages community and everyone including you is a learner here. So please stop your personal attacks. You have even accused neutral

and very experienced editors like Vecrumba so your accusations are just a reflection of prejudice, and you are only making it

worse by not colloaborating with anyone. Changeisconstant (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• General comment: In my experience it's quite common for people to drop by a topic they're interested in, create an account, make a few POV edits, and then quit. I've worked a lot in areas related to Mormonism, and there are always new editors who make edits along the lines of "Mormonism is a cult" or "Mormonism is true" but I doubt that there's an organized off-wiki Mormon or anti-Mormon cabal behind these editors. It's just the way things go on Misplaced Pages. If there is substantial evidence of abuse here, I'd be happy to look at it, but otherwise I think it might be most productive to simply move forward and deal with new editors on a case by case basis. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Radhi Pokardas Rajwani

Please note, I flagged Radhi Pokardas Rajwani for speedy deletion. BK editors may want to save or develop it. It needs a lot of work. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least that flags up the co-founders full name. Thanks Januarythe18th. I would agree that Misplaced Pages is better off without this article too. Another one to amalgamate into the main article? Danh108 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede adjusted

There is still plenty of scope for additions and subtractions. Here is a rough redrafting. Januarythe18th, it would be great to get your feedback too. Some Explanation for changes below: • There were also visions of ‘a better world’ and ‘higher human potential’ as well as the ‘apocalypse’ (which is not entirely accurate as the sources I have read suggest BK’s believe there is always a human population on earth – so no final destructive apocalypse, but certainly something approaching that). • BK’s tend to ‘self describe’ as BK’s rather than ‘adherents’. If others prefer the latter, that’s fine. But sounds a bit out of place to my ears. • There are plenty of BK’s who only follow a small percentage of the lifestyle, so I have added “BK’s usually lead…..” • The meditation is purposeful – in the sense that practitioners are supposed to get the benefit of expressing their own higher potential/virtuous nature that BK’s believe is intrinsic to every human being. Adherents believe that their practical life should serve as a proof of the benefits of meditation…so I have included some information on what is probably the ‘core business’ of the BK’s, and the basis of a large amount of the courses they teach to the general public.

Brahma Kumaris is a millenarian Hindu new religious movement founded by Dada Lekharj Kripalani ("Brahma Baba") in India in the 1930's following a series of visions. It is the only major spiritual movement headed by women: the builders of society, to be rulers in a new post-apocalyptic era after the end of the current Kali-yuga age (Iron age).

Brahma Kumaris (hereafter BK’s) made available to women a spiritual path which was traditionally open only to men. BK’s follow a lifestyle and meditative practice they call Raja Yoga, a simplified form based on ancient teachings. BK’s usually lead lives focused away from materialism and sensual pleasure (including celibacy), believing that identity lies in the soul, not the body.

In Meditation BK’s focus on their spiritual identity as souls, believing that this will allow the original goodness and virtue in the soul to become more expressed in their lives. The BK’s teach that identifying with labels associated to the body like race, nationality, religion and even gender, divides people and feeds human weaknesses like anger, ego, greed, lust and attachment. The BK’s aspire to establish a culture based on what they call ‘soul-consciousness’ and believe that the present world is predominantly ‘body-conscious’.

At the time Brahma Kumaris was founded, women had no say in their lives. Attacked for being radical, its adherents lived and practiced in seclusion for many years. The Brahma Kumari are still seen by some as secretive and have caused some controversy as the movement has expanded and exported itself to the West: Brahma Kumaris inverts the traditional roles of man and woman—men tend to the everyday, freeing women for spiritual pursuits. While celibacy has long been a respected option for men on their spiritual path, the celibate woman denies her ordained role of wife and mother thus challenging traditional social and religious structure.

While not considering itself feminist, Brahma Kumaris has taken on more of those pragmatic aspects in Eastern Europe, where, for example, it has come into conflict with Catholic values; the Brahma Kumari movement has also adapted—women adopt a celibate marriage and continue to live with their families. Active proselytizing has given the Brahma Kumari movement a high profile, generating distrust among mainstream Hindus. Nevertheless, the Brahma Kumari are also respected in India for the hospitals, schools, and outreach programs which they have established.

Sources vary in the estimate of followers, ranging from 100,000 to 450,000 worldwide.

Danh108 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

BKs may "self describe as BK’s" but it irrelevant. It's also ungrammatical. I am sorry but such a suggestion for inclusion identifies again how much you don't understand the Misplaced Pages and how it works. You don't even realise how much. You're just wasting our time and energy.

I am sorry but, no. Please use your sandbox and gain more experiencing by contributing to the WIkipedia generally.

The lede is a concise overview of the topic, see WP:LEAD. It should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Therefore, we cannot write the lede until we have seen the "BK's" version of the topic they want. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See also the template for Scientology related topics and consider what others pages there might be relating to the Brahma Kumaris. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am quite open to my changes needing refinement. Rather than just taking potshots at others, it would be nice if you could also contribute. Another more experienced editor has taken out his own time to compile a substantially better lede. Please respect that and participate. Danh108 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Januarythe18th, if you can't participate in compiling even one part of the article, what is the point in suggesting I go and re-write the whole thing? Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a habit of ignoring when something has been clearly and logically explained. A lede is a summary of an article. The current lede fairly and accurately summarises the current article, and the BKWSU.

Are you intent on re-writing "the whole thing"?

You don't have to re-write the whole thing. You're just doing a little re-structuring and copyediting, aren't you? Presumably, you are mostly interested in removing things, aren't you? Therefore just start with your rough cut and have it reviewed. I made the first step for you. How more reasonable can I be?

I am sorry but I think you are being dishonest and disingenuous here. You're showing no other commitment to the Misplaced Pages, you spend most of your time making personal attacks, and your wasting other people's time and energy.

Show us what you and the BKs want. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Good start towards improving this article Danh108. Both you and Vecrumba have provided good inputs on the Lede but its important to

get into a constructive discussion on this. Januarythe18th, blocking all improvements and excercising such control on an

article as if you possess it- isn't it against the guidelines from Misplaced Pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

You continue to repeat that the article is quite accurate; that will not make it accurate as the article is clearly written

in a biased way and lacks neurtality at various places, a good collaboration is the way forward may I suggest? Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To translate that into common English, "no, the article is not written as a BK adherent would write it".

The article is highly accurate and very well referenced. You may not like the facts (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but you are not able to argue against them being facts and referenced.

What the Misplaced Pages is not, and should not become, is a flattering hagiography or an advert for Brahma Kumarism, which is what you BK followers are used to and appear to want. It's common knowledge now, and widely accepted even within the religion, that the version of the organization's history it promoted in the past is deeply flawed, if not falsified. In addition, numerous academics have also pointed out how it is secretive or habitually misrepresents its beliefs to outsiders.

What you have is a fair overview of facts relating to it creating an objective view. I appreciate that, for an adherent, this is problematic but you have to accept that the rest of the world does not share your beliefs and just sees things as they are. Instead of vague accusation, develop your own alternative article in your soapbox and then show us it.

I am trying to be as patient, polite and helpful as possible here. I've even made a soapbox copy for you, here. Please allow me to be direct. Not only is the Misplaced Pages not a place for advocacy (WP:NOTADVERTISING), it is also not a place to carry on ideological battles. (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). You have the entire internet to indulge in whatever romantic fantasy about your faith as you want, but different rules apply here.

Can I also underline that BKWSU editors are showing no other commitment to, or involvement with, the Misplaced Pages and doing little else but waste time and resources time and time again. --Januarythe18th (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello I'm new

Hello, I'm new to Misplaced Pages, I would like to participate in this article. I appreciate any advice from experienced users, thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)GreyWinterOwl

Hi GreyWinterOwl. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! You have arrived at an interesting time - by all means read the comments on the talk page and hopefully that will give you an idea of where the proposed developments on this article are at. Maybe not the nicest place to be as a first-time editor (speaking from experience - I am also relatively new). Enjoy Danh108 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page and follow links there. If you have questions, there are Wikipedians who will help you but respect that they too are volunteers. Start by showing some commitment to Misplaced Pages and learning about how the Misplaced Pages works. Invest yourself into making it better as a whole.

Try and gain a lot of experience editing on non-controversial articles and use the experience to learn how to use the tools and work within the guidelines and policies.

It's best to avoid areas where have a personal involvement. If you have one with the Brahma Kumaris, you are likely to make things worse rather than better.

--Januarythe18th (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Make things worse?" What do you mean? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)GreyWinterOwl

As a Wikipedian, I have limited responsibilities to educate you beyond the polite introduction I have given you on your user page. Please go and show some commitment to the Misplaced Pages and learn how it works as you do.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I already read the guidelines, thank you. You said that if I am involved with the BK I am likely to "make things worse". What did you mean by that? Are things already bad? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)GreyWinterOwl

I'm sorry, we've have a chain of one BK adherent after another come forward and do everything from deleting the page, to making a mess of it's formatting, to continuing on their bitter dispute with the PBK splinter group, and so on. Generally they show no commitment whatsoever to bettering the Misplaced Pages as a whole or contributing anything to any other topic, and yet they consume vast amounts of time and energy. In my opinion, they are merely intent on turning this topic into an advert for their religion. In Wikipedian terms, we would call this Meatpuppetry or a tag team approach. I apologise if I presumed you were yet another. Many even employ a fair poor standard of Indian English

The Misplaced Pages has its own arcane ways and it takes some time and effort to get up to speed on them. Perhaps you could start by offering us your honest opinion of the topic as it is now? I would welcome you further and help you find your way in the Misplaced Pages but, sadly, my limited resources are all too often wasted by them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread Moved From Vecrumba's talk page: Re Brahma Kumaris Article

Hi there Vecrumba,

I noticed your comments on the talk page and hoped you would have time to give some independent guidance on this article. I find the content is completely controlled/dictated by one editor who probably has ulterior motives for being involved on the page. He accuses me of being a cult follower etc if I make any edits. Everything I have tried to do has been 100% reverted. The article makes accusations that the founder of the group had "intimate and immoral" behaviour with young women, a fairly serious allegation, but without any supporting reference. The only support comes later in the paragraph from a primary resource document that included affidavit material (i.e. all primary) for a Court case that was actually lost. The editor "Januarythe18th" seems to want to draw me into some sort of edit war by immediately reverting edits that I consider very reasonable (as per the example I just gave). I seldom revert his reverts, but in my opinion the article is a real discredit to Misplaced Pages. There are more examples than the one I have just given. There are 5 or 10 more concerns or issues. Probably the main one is Januarythe18th's connection to the "legal action" (actually it's just an arbitration) which is almost show cased in the article. When I got into this it was taken extremely personally - I presume because Januarythe18th is personally involved and is manifesting his disgruntlement through this Wiki page. I have also had a look at at lot of the page history and I can't help but appreciate how similar the style of this editor is to some of the past trouble editors. I could go on and on....if you could assist with an extra set of eyes so I'm allowed to edit the page that would be appreciated. I also feel this article needs to be tagged because things like unsupported accusations of sexual misconduct show a very serious editing bias and in my opinion, motives that are not in-line with building the world's most awesome and free resource. Probably cherry picking/conflict of interest are most appropriate. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Plates are overflowing but I will stop by soon to see what's been going on. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Vecrumba....if you are totally overloaded, I am happy to be 'referred on' if you have a suggestion. I've had a not so good experience on Wiki with an editor who didn't even read material before making their assessment of the situation - that editor has now been booted off. But the damage was done. Many of the issues on this page are not self-evident and some thoughtful consideration (i.e. time investment) would be hard to escape. Up to you, but I thought it best to mention in advance. Regards, Danh108 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I restored the old lede, I couldn't fix the current one. If editors could work on it a bit to accentuate the role of the female and focus on the apocalypse that would be helpful. I'd use the Encyclopedia of Hinduism as a good litmus test for what's significant and what's not, certainly at least for the lede. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to gate crash the party but I just noticed Dan's first edit on returning was to lobby you here.

It's not my style to snitch so I am not going to waste my time providing copious "evidence" to discredit others but I want to flag up there is off wiki tagteam/meat puppetry going on amongst Brahma Kumari followers. Involving other editors to carry out their dirty work and blur the edges or confuse what they see as "their" topic was one of their specifically stated strategies. If you doubt this, please put Dan on the spot and ask him if it is true. If he denies it, I'll do the footwork.

One of the reasons the actual copy is in poor shame (which I agree) is that so much time and energy was wasted by these people fighting over all and every aspect of the topic. What they want it clearly a WP:ADVERT.

I made the suggestion to Dan that rather than waste a huge amount of other people's time and energy, he just create an alternative topic in his sandbox of where he sees or wants the topic to go and then we can sit down and discuss the merits of the two.

It's a very well referenced topic that does not really need much more work. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that you can tell it's an uneasy aggregate of he said/she said when it comes to the legitimacy of BK as a religious movement. It's not very readable and needs a good deal of work. I appreciate you're invested in machinations, as I've already indicated, they are irrelevant if you don't let them (real or imagined) distract you from sources. Hopefully I'll have an appropriate lede together toward the end of the week/weekend, look forward to your comments then. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Don't use "cherry picked" again unless you just want to be ignored as one of the identified combatants. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

J18, you are always welcome - you can't gatecrash an open forum, so the suggestion is not accurate.

I openly challenge you to put forward any evidence you have for your allegations - you are more than welcome to 'out me' - you have my full permission (but there is no permission for resurrecting your off-wiki attacks etc). I am not acting under any managerial direction or BK policy. But I know a lousy article when is see it, and encourage you to stick to content. If I was really tag-teaming etc, where are my friends? I wish there was someone to help me with the page. The only reason I messaged this good fellow is you have 100% stonewalled all edits I make. I had seen Vecrumba's name in archives and he then posted recently on the page, and here we are.

I'm really tiring of the WP:Advert allegation. By all means tag the article if you really believe that.

RegardsDanh108 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I accidentally failed to properly save my new lede in progress last night, might be a couple more before I post one for review. Don't waste your time defending yourself; on WP, protesting innocence is taken as the surest affirmation of guilt. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the feedback - different from how my mother taught me, but I better adjust myself to the Wiki community view of 'defending the self'.Danh108 (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no defending the self. The best you can do is defend your editorial position. Anything you reveal about yourself will be held against you by someone, and count in your favor with someone else. That's the risk you take. Unless your mother lived under belligerent military occupation her advice probably won't help (as much as it should) on WP. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did not use "cherry picking" here, Vecrumba, it was Dan.

Vecrumba, my concerns are this and you won't like what I am about to say but please read what comes after it.

Firstly, put frankly, you don't know the topic subject matter. Now, I know all the standard replies for that and the WP acronyms to go with it, however it does matter and when you come onboard and change something like neo-Hindu to Hindu, that you don't notice the 'scale' of error and how far it might reach across the article concerns me greatly.

Secondly, what the Brahma Kumaris are doing is trying to use you, and that, to their advantage. It is bad faith WP:GAMING on their behalf.

For someone who has studied this area and read basically all the references, it is to take the Hindu equivalent equivalent to taking post-modern of an architect out and call it modernism. Tell me what your interest or specialism is and I will give you are example that suits you. It is a very serious mistake.

Yes, I can agree that the topic would benefit from some copyediting. However, overall, it is actually highly accurate and well referenced. Therefore, please, I ask you humbly to please discuss this issue of gaming and just afford me one favor which is to allow the Brahma Kumaris to produce the completed version of the topic that they want 'first' and let us discuss that direction first.

Have you read John Walliss's dissertation/book on them yet? --Januarythe18th (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

My definition of humility would be to accept another editors suggestion, and to direct your energy into helping compile a new lede. It's a bit more realistic to go one section at a time. Perhaps you could work on it in your sandbox too.

J18, if you have time to reflect why you think no one else knows about this topic except you, that might be interesting. I'm still waiting on the evidence you promised for the allegations you are making....Danh108 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I posted a small request for another independent opinion on the talk page re the tags and BLP problem.

RegardsDanh108 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop wasting other people's resources and just write your alternative topic. Show us what the BKWSU wants. It's less work than all this debate which is just a "war of attrition".

In the case of a religion like the Brahma Kumaris and the Misplaced Pages, you have to remember that it is primarily Indian. On the numbers alone, it be about 99% + Indian. Therefore the article represents the religion as whole which is mostly Indian.

I accept the Brahma Kumaris may present and market themselves in slickly the West but it is very different from how they are in their home India. Consequently, the article is fair, highly accurate representational, and well referenced. See WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Vecrumba, suggest develop the separate article on Brahma Kumari members, as per Christians and I support that. I even think there is sufficient academic material now to develop it. I suggest as a starting point you develop it and the topic on Brahma Kumari beliefs and I would have no opposition to that. The main topic is comprehensive and complete. Any more work on it is merely going to reintroduce inaccuracies.

--Januarythe18th (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

As I mention at the article discussion, you need to think about the subject terms of one article, not three articles. Fragmenting the topic further is not going to stem the conflict. Once the Brahma Kumari movement has been around for 2,000 years we can talk about treating it like Christianity and Christians and Christian organizations. If you have an article only about the "organization" based on what is said about it whether scholars, reporters, or politicians, or adherents, all you're going to have are recriminations over whose mutually incompatible truth prevails. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the primary topic as an overview to the subject. To cover elements such as beliefs or patterns of membership would require more space leading to the page will become too lengthy. I would reduce the beliefs section to an introduction and expand on them on the second page. There appears to be no dispute whatsoever over their actually beliefs and they, their evolution, and their comparison to, say, orthodox Hinduism could be expanded on. I, personally, do not think there is the material to support a separate topic on pattern of adherence but I would not oppose anyone who wanted to try.

As long as we stick to clear factual accuracy, I do not see that there can be any conflict. The topic is well and widely referenced, remarkably stable and free from conflict as long as BK adherents are not attempting to usurp it. There are even few factual elements that they can do or dispute.

The BKs are coordinate as a tagteam/meatpuppets to at least influence the topic again. It is no accident that a new and inexperienced editor came directly to you. How would they know to do that and why if they were not tipped off or directed?

(See 17 December 2011 on this page, another BK editor using identical accusations).

I am happy to discuss your proposed changes objectively and impartially within an environment that is free from partisan interests. I feel that those partisan interests, and hail of personal attacks, make it almost impossible to do so. There are valid objections to be made based on the basis of accuracy and policy but it is pointless to engage in them unless we first examine this issue of the cult's influence. (I use the word "cult" academically and non-pejoratively, as they are neither a sect nor well enough established to be an orthodox religion just yet. Academically, the BKs have been excluded from categorisation as a "new religious movement" due to the time and place of their origins).

I hope you appreciate I am trying to be very reasonable and use informed points of view based on the independent academics who have studied them. I must reject their counter allegations.

As I have now said on many occasions, the first step forward is simple. Allow the Brahma Kumaris to show us the topic they want and then compare the two and see where it fits within Misplaced Pages policy. Please support me in asking them to do so and save both or all us being sucked into a vortex of bad faith and wasted time and energy. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that an article about a religious movement should be about the movement: origins, beliefs, practices; about its members (e.g., demographics); about its formal organization; and evolution of all the preceding. Most sources on religion refer to the Brahma Kumari movement, not cult. If you agree that the article should be holistic, then you are being very reasonable. But, again, I have to caution you on the litmus test of leading off with "secretive" as the most important adjective, your "factual." And contrary to your contention, BK is specifically called a NRM in sources. So, it seems you're here advocating "cult" and adherents are here advocating "religion". At least those are the appearances.

On the other hand, I don't care what the BK followers "want". If I were a follower, however, I'd look at an article on the organizational aspect of their NRM which does not even mention origins or basic principles in the lede with suspicion at best. I believe the best approach is to create one cohesive article covering everything and then if there is enough material, spin off more detail.

And we can't start with "secretive" no matter how much you argue that is factual. They are "secretive" for historical reasons which I address in my lead but which are wholly absent from the current (your preferred) lead, which makes them seem less guarded and more just another set of we're going to rule the world after the apocalypse kooks. But at this point I'm in danger of repeating myself.

If you agree to a single article on Brahma Kumaris, then I think progress can be made and everyone at the opposite poles can be satisfied even if not happy; moreover, outsiders (that would be readers) can come away with a basic understanding of the movement's origins, beliefs, practices and lifestyle, through to current proselytizing.

I'm being more than reasonable, this isn't my first comparative religion (think of it as creating course materials on Brahma Kumaris) rodeo. I just normally limit my areas of WP contribution as I have plenty of my own projects outside WP. Does this explain my position better? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, my concern is that you seems to misunderstand what I was saying. The word "cult" often is used pejoratively, I agree, but also it is also used academically in a neutral and accurate fashion. Briefly, if a minor religion is not directly a sect (that is, an offshoot of another religion), then it is a generally cult (and generally a personality cult around one person, as with the Brahma Kumaris). It's not a bad word. I was defining my use of it as being non-pejorative.

I know there are all sorts of politics around the use of the words cult and New Religious Movements in public. "New Religious Movement" has even become a euphemism for the pejorative use of the word cult. The BKs are also specifically differentiated from 'New Religious Movement' movement as they predate it and for most of their existence avoided being drawn into the cult/new religious movement debate. This is highly accurate and reflected in the references and lede.

Secondly, my response is no. There is too much material for a single topic and I see nothing contentious at having a second topics just for beliefs, or even more. If we look at Scientology, a religion on a similar scale, it has many. The BKs have never contested their beliefs all they want is for the article to be written in a more hagiographic fashion. The beliefs could be clarified and extended. The way forward as I see would be to trim the "beliefs" section down to a paragraph and then develop the beliefs page further. They don't need to be copied onto both pages.

I think my main concerns with even your first short proposal was that it re-introduced a number of considerable inaccuracies which I am happy to discuss if required. The issue of secrecy is not historical but contemporary. Indeed, the idea is entirely contradictory. It would seem the early controversies arose because they were not secretive at all.

I apologise for saying, and I know I risk offending you by doing so, but I think the mistakes you are making are purely because you don't know the subject at all and I am not sure how widely you have read on them yet. There's a risk when using superficial references such as the Encyclopedia of Hinduism that you chose when there are betters ones. I know that you can argue back and say it is "good enough" by Misplaced Pages standards but we can do better than just that.

Although they may be from "Hindustan", even the BKs themselves strongly separate themselves from Hinduism within their teachings which I take yit you have not studied yet. Jainism, SIkhism, Besant, Blatavksy and Ambedkar are all contained within that book and yet none of them are Hindu either. Do you understand what I mean? Once you get up to speed on the subject, I think that you'll find that the article is actually highly accurate and detail and that any concerns about it now are simply down to not having done so. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Knowing the social connotations and stigma attached of the word 'cult', I think it's better if we don't try and draw fine academic distinctions to justify a usage that isn't present in the majority of the refernce material. The United Nations subjects organisations to extensive scrutiny before allowing officially links to them and their subsidiary bodies.

I confirm my support for Vecrumbe's suggested way forward and state my concern that the alternatives being suggested appear to me as attempts to preserve a very POV loaded article.

I also apologise in case what I'm going to say is going to cause offense, but just because there is a disagreement doesn't mean one party to that disagreement is ignorant or lacks understanding. Even in the academic literature there are a range of views expressed. I think we need to be mindful of becoming 'self-appointed professors', where the only basis of one's 'qualification' is ownership/control of article content. To work together to create an article there needs to be some level of flexibility to manage the differences. Otherwise it can create an impression that one party is really just continuously 'grinding their own axe'....

There is some level of dispute about the beliefs section. Like the academic resources, it has a bias towards only those beliefs and views that make the BK's look like a nutty bunch from a doomsday cult. It probably gets less comment simply because there are so many parts of the article which are of even lower quality.

It is almost a bad joke to call the topic stable - the only thing 'stable' is that no one else is allowed to edit the page. I don't think that is really the true measure of stability.

For the sake of clarification, when I first got completely stone-walled back in Jan/Feb, I messaged Srikeit whose name appears as part of the article probation tag on the talk page. I went quiet for a while doing back ground reading, partly waiting for a response, partly disheartened that J18 wouldn't allow any editing. Then after another round of activity in March I 'reached out' by posting on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Unfortunately a now blocked editor offered some really lousy support/advice, so that was a total failure. Then I wanted to request a sock puppet investigation because I had found one mentioned by ex-editor History2007 when doing the COI research. But I am too slow getting around Misplaced Pages to gather material to try and substantiate that editors suspicions. When I eventually got motivated to have another go at editing the page in July, Vecrumba had posted on the talk page, so I messaged him after being stone-walled again.

RegardsDanh108 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dahn108, we haven't had a chance to discuss content, so I can't say whether we agree or not on what should be in an encyclopedic article, however, we do appear to be agreed that what is there now is not encyclopedic.

@Januarythe18th, first, we should continue on the article talk page, I'd rather not it appear that you or Dahn108 are looking to persuade me to any particular POV.

I don't see any point in arguing cult versus NRM, NRM is more prevalent. Whether or not you're using it pejoratively, why stigmatize when there are other words and your preference is not the majority scholarly use?

Since you believe there is more than enough material for one article, the proper structure is:

• primary (holistic) article and, for example,
  • article on BK beliefs and practices and practitioners
  • article on BK विश्वविद्यालय, personally, I would have used something other than "university" when founding the movement, but not my NRM

and not

• article on BK organization
• article on BK beliefs
• article on BK followers (potentially, as suggested)

The latter sets up a situation where there will be perennial enmity over the first and no one except adherents will care about the latter two, leading to conflict and lack of balance.

If you believe my proposed lead introduces "inaccuracies," discussing that would be far more helpful than arguing I'm uninformed and not up to speed. I did not just use cursory "Encyclopedia of..." sources in writing it. Nor did I describe BK as Hindu because it "appears" in some encyclopedia by that name. I should add that I studied Hinduism in comparative religion likely before you were born, so this will all go better if we discuss content and not my competence.

With respect to what "the BKs want", I would certainly resist any attempt to make the article into a sanctifying homage to their founder. However, that is not the problem--starting with the lead, on which proposed replacement, again, I'm still waiting for something more concrete other than it's wrong and I'm uninformed. If I'm not comprehending your objections, indulge me and take it a sentence at a time. There's no train leaving the station. Indeed, you don't believe there's any train that need depart for any destination.

Lastly, even if you really think BK has gone all wrong since a few hundred practiced in seclusion for their first decade and a half, that's a subject separate from origin and basic tenets. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little bizarre. Technically, there is no such thing as a "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" as in almost all nations the title requires governmental acknowledgement which, of course, the BKs teachings and method of operating do not fit into. I think it's a sort of cover or front, a grand title they decided upon for their operations to make themselves sound more important than they are and less cult like. If you dig into the subject, you'll find a lot of exaggerating goes on, e.g. the 8,500 "centres" are for the most part adherents' homes. It's as if the Vatican claimed every Christian's home was a church.

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University page fits into your model as the primary holistic article. All sorts of other pages shortcut to it, e.g. Brahma Kumaris. You could swop it with the latter but, personally, I would not start to do so because it may cause a small chaos of broken or duplicated links. I don't think there is material to write a topic purely about any legal entity within it. Dare I say it, they're too secretive about their actual structure. No academic to date has actually gotten that close.

Vecrumba, I don't think it is an unfair comparison to liken the Brahma Kumaris to the Jehovah's Witnesses (both are evangelical, millenarianist and focused on promised status in a future heaven; e.g. the JW's have their 144,000, the BKs have their 900,000. Both continue to await their promised imminent "destruction"). If we look at the Jehovah's Witnesses page, the BK page really is not that much different in tone or content. If anything the BKs should be grateful that there are so few pages, especially critical pages, about tragic events involving their religion.

Historically, the Brahma Kumaris have consumed a vast quality of Wikipedian time and energy and contributed basically nothing in return. I am asking you to put the Misplaced Pages first.

Earlier you described the Brahma Kumaris as (paraphrasing your actual words) "end of the world kooks bent on world domination who spent all their time staring at light bulbs" suggesting it was fantastically incorrect description (noto bene, you used the word "kooks" not me). Removing the derogatory tone, it's actually not. Albeit the "lightbulbs" are covered in red plastic or a photo transparency of their founder and called "trancelights", see and for examples and in modern cases, a projected point of light . 10,000s of BKs, over a period of 40 years, have indeed spent upto a one and 1/2 hours each day staring at these "lightbulbs". Ask them.

Verma lifts from the Misplaced Pages and Babbs. If you go back to Babbs you will find a clear description of the lightbulbs staring. As for "world domination", they are not "aiming" at world domination, they have been promised it by God, starting with India. Again, please ask them if it is true. If they deny it, I will provide the references to show you where they are not being honest or accurate.

The point I am trying to make here is that the article is actually highly accurate, representational, and well referenced. You have been deliberately chosen and targeted by them to make it more vague precisely because you don't have an in depth knowledge of it; BK tagteam members having planted identical seeds (ideas) with you 2 years ago (above). You need to ask, "why?" before steaming ahead on autopilot.

I am asking you again to accept that the way forward. The first step is to ask the BKs to make a full disclosure of where they want the topic to go, and allow us to look at it rather than allowing them to setting ourselves against each other and waste energy running us around. You may not believe it yet, but that is what is going on. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me pasting this conversation onto the article talk page? I would prefer to add my thoughts there. Danh108 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to transplant this entire thread, just update the title to indicated "Moved from...". Or just copy and paste and I'll archive this one later. Best, Peters VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This page now contains over 20,000 words. Please explain to me why the BKs creating their own version of the topic, and letting us see it in order to discuss the direction they want to take it in, would be more work than a 3rd party wading their way through all this?

• As evidence of my further goodwill, see here , I made a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic in Danh's user pages.

• Will you people please just show us what you want, and not waste any more of other people's valuable time and energy? Is that so unreasonable? --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Januarythe18th - From my perspective there is vastly more experienced and neutral editor who has come to the page. He is offering a very practical way forward. He is prepared to over look the fact that you are so conflicted/involved that you probably shouldn't even be editing the page, and is allowing you the chance to participate in creating an article that is encyclopedic....based on my experience with you so far, I have much more confidence in his suggestion. The only thing wasting time now is your repetitive resistance.....Danh108 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the above

Come on now. As long as you keep portraying this conversation in terms of "what the BKs want" you're the one who is not helping here; moreover, you are putting yourself in the role of ultimate judge and jury of what "BK wants" content goes into the article. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. Period.

If we don't make any progress, I'll just start rewriting the article. Respond to my propose lead sentence by sentence, or keep complaining that you don't know what the BKs want, your choice.

Frankly, my patience is not a bottomless well. If I start reorganizing/rewriting and anyone blind reverts or reverts with comments such as "the article is well sourced, accurate, et al. as is, don't muck with it", I will take that as combative behavior. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As much as I detest doing templates, this article could also do with Harvard-style references since it mixes scholarly sources, the press, and axe-grinding politicians as equally valid sources. That is lost using the short citation <ref>...</ref> style. I'd be interested in what non-combatants think. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Vecrumba, I do agree that its not a question of "what the BKs want" as is continued to be portrayed here. This should be seen

as a standard Misplaced Pages ways of editing/ improving an article by collaboration. Here we have an editor trying to excercise total control

on an article and who keeps claiming that its well referenced, accurate etc when its clearly written with a bias, rejecting all the

improvement suggestions and labelling all other editors either as a BK or "being used by BKs". This article certainly needs

improvement and neutrality; ofcourse with suitable references. It also doesn't mean that this should become an advert for

BKWSU or controlled by the organization or its followers. Rather than collaborating with a neutral editor

like you, January the 18th has continued to combat and not respect Misplaced Pages practices. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, the suggestion of a sandbox development for a tagteam of otherwise inexperienced or uncommitted editors is not unreasonable. I also think it would be good for you to develop the sandbox version as your knowledge of the religion is limited and they're deliberately using that, and you. You may not like me telling you directly, but that is what it going on. Ask them if this is true.

As evidence of your good faith, I'd like to ask you to discuss with me my reasonable concerns of WP:MEAT first, and how we can handle it, instead of riding roughshod over them and ignoring them.

How would an otherwise absolutely inexperienced editor such as Changeisconstant know what "wikipedia practices" are?

I can tell you why. It's an almost copy and paste from their puppet master in an off wiki BK forum is telling them what to say. Again, to establish good faith, ask them if this is true.

You can live in denial about what is going for whatever your purposes are, but that is what is going on and hence it is fair to put it into context and question the sincerity of it. Because of that, I am forced to reject all the euphemistic language, accusations of being a "combatant" and your threats.

Please discuss, or better show your changes first. The reason I say this is your first proposals contained, on the one hand, very sizeable inaccuracies, e.g. re-labeling the Brahma Kumaris as Hindus; and, on the other, throwing about erroneous accusations of parts of the topic being lifted directly from a source when, in fact, that later source had lifted directly from an earlier version of Misplaced Pages topic.

Of course, if you choose to introduce the likes, you must expect them to be reverted as per WP:BRD.

At the risk of offending you, I don't see any references from "axe-grinding politicians". There are newspaper reports of senior civil servant's involvement in a rape, kidnap and murder case . The Times of India is India's newspaper or record and would pass as a reliable source (WP:NEWSORG). There are many more sources in Hindi.

You won't be aware but the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is one of three All India Services and equivalent to the Indian Police Service. "Shri" is equivalent to a "Sir" in England. It's one of the toughest offices in the world to get into. I would say there concerns are a far cry from "axe-grinding".

As Dr Tamasin Ramsay, a BK follower and an academic herself reviews a recent book which would apparently pass muster as reliable source on the subject, "much of the data is incorrect or outdated. The current printing is also riddled with factual and historical errors ... readers are cautioned against looking to 'Understanding the Brahma Kumaris' as a reference book ... Those who wish to understand the formation of knowledge and culture within the Brahma Kumaris should read widely". So it is true of the hotchpotch of easily available sources on the internet. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How difficult can it be for you to give me clear feedback to my proposed lead and/or incorporation? It's a very basic overview. You harp on BK not being Hindu, yet sources do indicate that, otherwise, you've given me nothing. If we can't even start on a summary, it's pointless to work on anything else.

As for sources and lifting, if I did not make clear it's not clear these days which came first (WP or the source I mentioned--which I obviously discounted), I apologize for any lack of clarity. I ignore anything that looks like it's WP packaged and resold to unsuspecting dupes.

You would do better to honor my simple request for feedback of my proposed lead than to now add to the conflagration by casting aspersions on my "purposes" here. "They are not even Hindu, your lead sucks"—my perception at this point based on your endlessly going on defending what's there when we haven't made it past the lead—is, at least for me, not the response I'm expecting. (Lastly, I should mention that newspapers are factual for what someone said, not for what was said being factual.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point about newspaper references led me to look at the new changes made by J18 on 13-Aug-13, (perhaps in retaliation to see other

editors being involved); He has added Indian newspaper references that are primarily in Hindi. Firstly I doubt J18 even understands

Hindi (Can you confirm J18?). The reason is that most of the references are about allegations made by individuals leading to

investigations that are ongoing and there is no reference about conclusion of such investigations. Now without a single

reference proving such allegations, isn't the statement "Excluding suicides, numerous serious crimes have been carried out at Brahma

Kumari centers in India including murder, rape, poisioning and kidnapping" a misrepresentation? And this has been put at top of the

controversies list! Secondly, many of these newspaper references are as old as 2003-2007. However these were reported recently on

the advocacy group http://www.brahmakumaris.info which seems to be controlling this article. J18, you continue to claim your depth of

knowledge about this subject then why publish such old references now only when they are on BK Info web-site?? Thirdly the reference

97 is not from Times of India (leading english daily) as mentioned in the article. Its from a hindi daily. Is this well

referenced and accurate as claimed by J18 or a mess?? Changeisconstant (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

History of the article

For the last weeks, I have been reading the archives of the Brahma Kumaris article and the arbitration case, and I noticed a pattern that has been repeating itself since the beginning until now. It seems one user, which would be from the site brahmakumaris.info, was the one who mostly wrote the article as in its present form. He has been banned for a year under the account 195.82.106.244 and blocked indefintely under the account "Lucyintheskywithdada". Nevertheless, he came back dozens of times trying, and sometimes succeeding, to revert the article to his own version. The behavioral similarities between this user, and Januarythe18th, are overwhelming. I have opened a sockpuppet report about this providing some evidence I have collected on the last few days.

Link to the report: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada

GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC) GreyWinterOwl

Hmmmm....I'm not that thrilled about this. While I'm sympathetic, because I would agree with the claim, I think the timing is very unfortunate. Januarythe18th may have been contemplating getting on board with the editing process as per Vecrumba's encouragement above, and to work through an article that probably neither side involved likes, but that all are prepared to agree to compromise on (because strongly camped disputes nearly always require resolution that neither side likes - that is where the middle ground is), was in my opinion the most stable long term option for the article. As per the claim, even if successful, re-incarnations can be endless, so the 'solution' isn't as stable a collaboratively edited article.

@Vecrumba, it would still be great to get a neutral person's input into the formation of an article whatever the outcome of the investigation....hopefully you will still be available. Is there an etiquette where things are put on hold pending the outcome of this action, or does discussion around the lede just continue? Danh108 (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Plus this kind of plays into Januarythe18th's hands - no doubt the opportunity to portray himself as the victim of a cultist propaganda machine tagteam etc etc won't be missed...anyway, you will see the response soon I suppose...Danh108 (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

So, Danh108, in your view, do you think that a user repeatedly and insistently making 20 or more socks on Misplaced Pages, having been banned permanently and now also having impersonated a false character in order to bypass his ban, is not in your view showing a great disregard to all that Misplaced Pages stands for? I appreciate your concern with neutral point of view, but I think the history of this article shows that Lucyintheskywithdada's way of working is giving himself the final word about all edits, where he can make anything without asking anyone, while anyone else has to ask him permission to edit the article, to always receive "no, the article is well referenced and complete" as an answer. Is this not the experience of every editor here? Well, just look at the history and you will see this has been going on since 2006 and the user is the same! He gives orders to other editors like he is the boss and intimidates them to retreat from his articles, and now you stand on his side? That is the opposite of what Misplaced Pages is about, just read the guidelines!

About him accusing others of conspiracy, etc. don't worry! ALL of his socks said the same thing! The only thing that proves is that he is indeed another sock of Lucy, and is violating a series of Misplaced Pages rules regarding bypassing ban, sockpuppeting, impersonation and behavior.

There are millions of editors who can help the consensus here, which is exactly what Lucy does not want, and many neutral, non-BK users, gave up and left because of his behavior. I have organized all this in my report, have you read it? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello GreyWinterOwl, I have read the report and it seems clear that the article seems to be controlled by the promoter of the

brahmakumaris.info web-site and socks of the previously banned user Lucyinskywithdada - there are indeed technical as well as behavioural

similarities! One editor can not possess an article and block all other editors like being done here. I think Danh108 has shown lot of

patience here and his point is that perhaps J18 willingly works with experienced editors like Vecrumba which will certainly be good for

long term as the propensity of controlling this article would bring back some socks even if banned again and disrupt this article, like

being done now. Its unfortunate to see that J18 has even accused such neutral and experienced

editors "being used by BKs" etc which is not healthy and collaboration is the way. Changeisconstant (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Changeisconstant, you have understood my point about the timing. GreyWinterOwl, no one is disagreeing with what you have stated. As I said, I am sympathetic with the course of action taken. FYI the custom on Wiki is to indent comments using the ":" symbol. So it is easy to identify new comments/additions. The more ":"'s you add, the further the indent, until a different symbol is used to start again from the left (see above the way it arrows across).

Anyway, we will all await the result....Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How strange that a "brand new editor" (GreyWinterOwl (talk · contribs · logs)) without any other contributions can compile such a complex accusation with such historical detail. Would you care to tell us how you did so?

It's funny but even after years, I don't even know how and where to report meatpuppetry and tagteam. But then, it's not in my nature to do so and I prefer to invest whatever free time I have, that is not consumed by BKs trying to whitewash this topic, on creating new articles on other subjects. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have answered to Januarythe18th on the sock investigation page. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Januarythe18th - that is amazing you still don't know how to report that after such a long term involvement....please do clarify how many years it was that you have been editing.....!Danh108 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding to a sock investigation with statements consistent with having prior Misplaced Pages editing incarnations is nearly as clever as your declaration of personal attack when the Arbitration dispute respondent was named....Danh108 (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I should simply work on the article and annotate annotate annotate, then see who does what. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a great strategy Vecrumba. I was worried your silence might have meant you had (understandably), had enough - thinking about the content helps distract me from a situation I can otherwise find a bit frustrating....Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't worth continuing the last time I was here, but it seems that at any rate I'm far enough in this time to throw good money after bad to see what happens. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Tags

I think it's important that potential readers have their attention flagged that there is currently a consensus the article in it's current form is not of encyclopedic quality. I am re-instating the tags for COI and Cherry picking that J18 had removed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the "conflict of interest" tag for you people, seeing as you are all Brahma Kumari followers and being guided as a tagteam from a Brahma Kumari discussion forum?

I don't think they are necessary as the topic is highly accurate. Indeed, you've never even disputed it's well referenced accuracy. It's impossible to remove your repeated actions from the actions of the other Brahma Kumari meatpuppets, e.g. rather than just developing a sandbox version as you have been politely requested and facilitated, you keep inserting them to provoke a conflict, while another new user goes off and an accusation.

Why not avoid conflict and just develop the sandbox? --Januarythe18th (talk)

Good point J18 - it would seem which ever side one comes from, both agree the tags should be there!! So it is safe to say that if someone keeps removing them unilaterally, they really are NOT that sincere in their accusations Danh108 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the tags for now, as I've indicated, well-referenced is not a synonym for encyclopedic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but there's a lot of euphemistic language and Misplaced Pages jargon being misused on this page misleadingly by individuals whose lack of commitment to the Misplaced Pages as a whole makes me doubt they even fully understand how they are used here.

Wikipedian's consensus should be to the facts, not to the hive mind of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University's public relations interests.

Let's be honest about what it going on here and what you are really saying, Danh108.

Why not save us all the grief and just show us your alternative version in the sandbox? You never respond to that obvious suggestion. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did already respond directly to your suggestion. For the benefit of your memory, I was concerned that if you are struggling to discuss the lede, why would increasing the volume of content to be discussed improve your attitude? The second point I made was that I was following Vecrumba's editing suggestions, not yours, due to neutrality concerns. For that reason, your sandbox ruse was flatly rejected. Danh108 (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Which I answered, to refresh your memory, because the lede is a summary of the article.

Therefore, show us the article you want first - even in a rough form - and share with us the overview of where you want to take it. Else, how would we know what the lede fits?

I've created a sandbox version for you, please just quickly knock up a rough edit as a starting point. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article and the discussion on talk pages over last few weeks, I am also convinced that Article Tagging is important here

looking at the condition of the article and views from various editors here some of which are clearly non-adherrents and neutral.

@J18, Please respect this general view. Tags do no harm here as article is still unchanged except that they will bring more

passers-by to pitch in and thereby bringing diverse views towards a long term resulution over disputes over this article. Rather

than getting into editwarring, I strongly encourage you discuss why these Tags are not needed here on talk page. Changeisconstant (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindu or not Hindu?

OK, Vecrumba, let's put this one to rest.

Are the BKs Hindu or not?

Referring to references, Smith, Walliss, Clarke, Nesbitt & Henderson, and Kranenborg etc all have the BKs down as "neo-Hindu" (there may be others, I don't feel the need to check further).

Do the Brahma Kumaris consider themselves Hindus? No.

"The Brahma Kumaris however, consider themselves distinct from Hinduism" - Jagganath

" do not worship deities and rue the ignorance of Hindus" - Howell

"relative to the Brahma Kumaris are quite different ... Brahma Kumaris teach that all religions--including Hinduism--are thoroughly misguided and that the most misled of theologians are those who cling polemically to their scriptures." - Musselwhite

Babb's work from the 70s refers to them as "modern Hindu" which is now referred to as "neo-Hindu".

In opposition to this, you pose that a brief reference to the BKs in an Encyclopedia of Hinduism suggests that they are therefore Hindus. I don't know what the actual reference says, and you don't give it, but I point out that the Encyclopedia also has references to Jainism and Sikhism, which are not Hindu either.

Are the BKs Hindu? No.

Of course, in asking a question such as that, if this was a deep discussion, one might ask what does "Hindu" means or even if neo-Hinduism is Hindu (and many books have been written about that), but even in its most superficial level (a geographical definition, i.e. someone from "Hindustan") it fails when applied to the BKs. The BKs are an international movement now. Howell even goes as far to point out how little references there are to Hinduism in her paper.

Now, rather than standing back, saying nothing and enjoying the chaos and the waste of time and energy they are causing, the Brahma Kumari followers on this page (which is everyone except you) could just admit that, "yes, I am right" and from their point of view and the academic sources, the BKs are not correctly called a Hindu sect.

Why don't they?

Because, Vecrumba, this is their strategy; on one hand to engage editors who don't know anything about the topic to confuse and blur issues and add to the noise; while, on the other hand, piling on accusation after accusation to remove editors they don't want, using that created noise as an excuse.

Please start by reading all the references given, by which I mean the original documents not just the quotes, in order to get up to speed and gain the overview you don't have at present. If you cannot find them, please ask me and I will send you copies.

You will discover that the article is actually very highly accurate and based on perfectly good references.

Now, I can address all of your comments and suggestions to an equivalent depth but it's a little unfair to demand that I spend all this much time and energy to go over what has already been gone over many times when the answers are already there in the references. You are introducing errors, not a greater accuracy. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Vecrumba, my apologies for exposing you to this kind of treatment.

@Januarythe18th, the purpose of a lede being drafted was to open discussion on the topic, not so that you could try and "score points" on someone and repeatedly attack them claiming they "don't know anything about the topic" etc. It is fine to disagree and we already know there are different academic opinions and a range of reference materials. The article can also be written in a way that reflects this. But it's a bit immature to need the "I'm right badge" - a little humility will really help the collaboration. Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Stick to the content. It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the most informed references.

Please answer the question, is Brahma Kumari Hindu? Do you consider yourself Hindu? --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Harvard referencing?

Hi Vecrumba, I missed this earlier in the conversation: "this article could also do with Harvard-style references since it mixes scholarly sources, the press, and axe-grinding politicians as equally valid sources. That is lost using the short citation style" Is there a link you can refer me to so I can understand this better? I don't know enough to comment. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's not necessary, see WP:CITEFOOT etc. Perhaps what he actually means is parenthetical referencing, as per WP:HARV. It's more work to do but would not change anything.

Perhaps if you spent more time editing other topics and interacting with the Misplaced Pages as a whole you might learn some of these things?

I'm striking out part of you sentence because it's been shown to be grossly untrue.

Are you ready to consider developing a sandbox version of the topic yet? I cannot see anything that is actually factually incorrect about the topic. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

source book title/chapter confusion?

The isbn in the citation (currently no. 9) "Walliss, John (2002). From World-Rejection to Ambivalence. Ashgate Publishing. p33" actually comes up in worldcat as "The Brahma Kumaris as a "reflexive tradition" : responding to late modernity" with "From World-Rejection to Ambivalence: A Genealogy of the Brahma Kumaris" is a chapter of that book.. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

At present, your question or comment is not clear to me. Yes, Walliss published separate versions of his work as a paper and as a book (The book was based on his PhD dissertation). Indeed, I think there was even two separate editions of his book, one of which was from India.

Without looking more closely at it, it should be possible for all the Walliss references to be assigned to his book one version of which I have if you want to check page numbers etc. Hope that helps. Thanks for a real bit of Misplaced Pages-ing.--Januarythe18th (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti-BK POV

As far as I have been following the talk on the article, it seems all editors, except Januarythe18th, agree that the article, as in its present form, is tendentious towards an anti-BK POV, being guilty of Confirmation_Bias. It carefully ignores any positive view given by references and chooses only the ones that sound most odd. Users tried to place tags to inform readers about it, but those tags were removed by Jan18. I suggest those tags to be replaced, as per WP:CONSENSUS. I think it's the opinion of 5 editors against the opinion of 1. If Jan18 editwars, I will report his behavior. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a {{POV}} tag doesn't normally require consensus. Normally all that's needed is an explanation of how the article is slanted. —rybec 23:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Rybek, followed your advice and added tag. I am assuming the explanations on the bias throughout the talk page are enough, if you don't think so, please let me know and I will exemplify clearly. Any reverts by Jan18 will be understood as editwar and reported. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's really not what Rybec said, please don't use them in your summaries that manner. Having put in your second admin complaint (having made no more than 3 minor constructive edits to the Misplaced Pages to date), you're now merely trying to set me up. We call that WP:GAMING. The Misplaced Pages is not chess, perhaps you should read up on the rules first? You've got to establish how you think it is slanted, and perhaps you could start off by underlining any factual inaccuracies within the referenced material.

I'm sorry but given the recent history I am going to have to step in and underline past conversations. I am unrepentant about flagging up at what is going on here which is WP:MEAT, pure and simple. There is a tagteam of BK editors coordinating with one and other and being guided not just in their edits but also questionable strategies, such as invoking and using others. For example, with zero editing experience, we're expected to believe that GreyWinterOwl has the knowhow to construct complexly formatted accusations, and admin complaints.

A way forward has been proposed but soundly ignored by them. That is to prepare a their organization's preferred sandbox version of the topic, to show us what it is they want, and to discuss it from the overview, rather than carrying on this wasteful war of irritation and attrition. They have also been requested to list which references they consider to be factually inaccurate but not done so. They cant. The topic is factually accurate and very well referenced.

Please save everyone the waste of time and energy and just develop the sandbox version of BKWSU topic. Let us see it and then discuss. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18, am I the one WP:GAMING, or are you? Let me quote the description of WP:GAMING and anyone who reads can decide which one is doing that: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." (emphasis mine). GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is highly factual (no one disputes that), well referenced and neutrally objective. It's just that you are not used to objective, inclusive views involving some criticism and, I suspect, want to turn it into a WP:ADVERT.

Therefore, good faith for editors of your experience would be to accept the help offered and develop a sandbox version of BKWSU topic. Let us see it and then discuss. I'll help you with references and formatting etc. Please note, your own total of 3 very minor content edits were instantly reverted, showing that you are also inexperienced in this area and so the sandbox would be the place to start.

Where there is a tagteam operating, policies such a "consensus" take second place as the very purpose of a tagteam or meatpuppets is to manipulate it. This is nothing new to the Misplaced Pages. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

YES, the factuality of the article IS disputed. It contains claims of sexual abuse by the religious founder which are NOT supported by any reference. The current article IS ALREADY a WP:ADVERT, but only an anti-BK advert instead of a pro-BK one. What I want and observe that other users here want, is bring the article to NEUTRALITY by consensus. I'm NOT part of any tagteam, nor do I see evidence on the talk page or edits that there is one, and no admin has demonstrated to agree with your conspiracy theory. I do not know ANY of the other editors on this page. Consensus is NOT secondary here, it's a basic guideline of Misplaced Pages and you are aggressively violating it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Adherents of a religion contributing to topics on it

For the record, there is nothing wrong with adherents of any religion contributing information to a topic on it if it is it a mature, reputable religion with responsible academics operating to established standards. Indeed, for the sake of accuracy, it could even been beneficial. However, BKs have been requested to develop other pages on specific elements of it, such as their beliefs and yet they have not done so.

Why?

Because other editors are not under your command, have the same rights as editors as you have and are bound by the same guidelines as you are. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University lacks that solid academic foundation in logic and objectivity. It is not a real university. It does not operate according to academic norms; quite the opposite. It is merely the name of a young, rapidly evolving religion comprised of devoted followers who have been highly indoctrinated into a set of beliefs, often based on factually incorrect elements, by formally uneducated leaders.

As a group, they have not contributed anything of value to the topic, nor the Misplaced Pages on the whole, and yet wasted endless amounts of other editors' energy.

What they are experiencing is some kind of negative psychology reaction coming out from a highly controlled and closed environment into the light of day, another world operating by different rules. It is an unfair burden to expect the rest of us to cope with that. What counts are the references, not what their PR department wants. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you read the post of an admin on the admins noticeboard which said that you do NOT have the right to remove the right from editors of editing because of your opinion about their religious affiliation. If you think any editor here is mentally retarded and brainwashed by an evil cult, that's YOUR opinion and POV. Each editor here has the same importance, some of us are not from BK, and the consensus reached by all the other editors except you is still a consensus, and Misplaced Pages guidelines do NOT support you editwarring against it. Your point of view is NOT neutral, you are an ex-member of the organization which leaves you in a not better position than those who are members. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are entirely skewing and misrepresenting my position. Every individual has the right to their own faith so far as it does not hurt or harm others; however, faith alone does not trump academic standards or in this case Wikipedian policies. I wrote the above to respond to the obvious response regarding adherents of a religion editing on their own original and to point out how I agreed with but with reservations. If we look at the great religions of the world, they have all produced great scholar who have done great scholarly work on their religion. Unfortunately, that is not true in the case of the Brahma Kumaris so far and so normal conditions do not apply.

I don't need to say any more. This is merely a tagteam WP:CIRCUS. On one hand, we have Danh108 goading with his provocations on my talk page; on the other hand we have you as a brand new editor, apparently able to make three complex admin complaints having made only three instantly reverted topic edits.

You're all ignoring the obvious, non-controverious, non-combative way forward which is to develop a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic and allow us to discuss in the overview where you want to take this topic.

You need to be cautious and do more than just cry wolf. More than anything, you need to develop a sandbox version. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

edit request 2013-09-07

Could the maintenance tags at the top of the article be enclosed in {{multiple issues}} please? —rybec 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Or just remove them until it is properly established just why they needed. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The tags are consistent with the accusations being made by both camps. I would expect both sides would be in favour of maintaining the tags until an article that neither camp likes much (but that strikes a fair balance) can be drafted. Regards Danh108 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How best to resolve this dispute

The article has been locked by Admin seeing the dispute and edit warring going on. I believe this may be good for the article. Request all

editors to pitch in on how best to resolve this dispute. @ J18, request you to collaborate and respect Wiki Admin's direction to resolve

this dispute rather than just attacking all the editors. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The way forward is simple.

You people develop your sandbox copy of BKWSU topic and show us where you want to take the topic. Then we can discuss it as a whole.

In you wish, you could also make a simple, logical and detailed list of which references you consider to be factually wrong, e.g. BKWSU factual errors. I suggest you do so on a separate page from this one, to avoid it becoming too long and buried in banter.

Please note, some people find the use of "you people" to be offensive but I am at a lost how to address you in the plural in any other way. I am not for one minute going to entertain the illusion that you are not a hivemind operating at least partially as coordinated meatpuppets or a tagteam and being supplied with instructions and information off wiki.

You have the opportunity on the sandbox copy of BKWSU topic page to demonstrating to us that 'you' are able to collaborate together, handle complex referencing, formatting and so on, as none of you have demonstrated any serious commitment to the Misplaced Pages or learning about it so far.

Please save all your personal attacks and doublespeak for elsewhere. There's a difference between "collaboration" and a tagteam railroading their agenda through. Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better I don't respond to the flaws and WP breaches in J18's comments above. I prefer the way forward Vecrumba had suggested, going through the article piece by piece on the talk page. He had drafted a sample lede for us to consider. The reason for this preference was that Vecrumba was neutral to the article and has more experience on Misplaced Pages than all the other present editors combined. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The simplest, quickest and easiest way is if you work together and write your own version of article, and then let us see it.What parts are acceptable, can then be used. As new users, you all need the experience in a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic first because you are likely to break many things.

I think a simpler and more obvious explanation is that having been seeded with almost identical accusations by another member of the BKWSU tagteam, 2 years ago ( Riveros11, here ), Vecrumba was then cherry picked by you a month ago as a useful device or distraction.

How else would you, as a new contributor, have known to go to Vecrumba out of all the other Wikipedians at random?

Either you must think we are stupid or naive, or you have to admit you are working together.

Vecrumba is not the first editor or admin to be set up and used in such a way. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I do refute and take issue with pretty much every point January18th is making. January18th is ascribing motives and intentions to others without evidence, simply projecting his own weird conspiracy theory onto everything others do. His posts breach even the most basic religious freedoms that are typically afforded by Western democracies. 'You people' is derogatory, so are comments like 'hive mind' and it's just unhelpful if January19th can't maintain basic levels of civility.

Just one example of how ridiculous the above accusations are. Re contacting Vecrumba - he has independently commented at the top of this talk page, and I clicked his name there. Januarythe18th already know this, but just continues with making allegations....

In my view the sandbox suggestion is wasting everyone's time. If January18th won't allow even one section or sentence to be edited, I hardly think he is going to change his attitude for the whole article. January18th, I have heard you - it's about the 15th time you have suggested this (no exaggeration!). Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So any editor who focuses on this article, is according to Jan18, a tagteam member, and each editor who is not focused here, but also wants to edit the article, has been "set up by the tagteam". I don't know about other editors, but what my brain translates from that is Jan18 meaning: "the only person who can edit this article is me and I will revert anything by anyone else".

In my opinion, the way forward is just to follow wiki guidelines, act according to them. WP:BRD describes a simple process of editing, discussing and consensus. Pick up a line from the article or from a reference, discuss first, reach a neutral (and substantiated) point about it, then edit according to that.

Clear discussions about content have been difficult in this talk page, specially by lengthy and repetitive accusations: "tagteam", "SPA", "they want to turn the article into an advert." Despite the active editors here having already said, they want to bring the article to neutrality, wikipedic/encyclopedic standards. The article now is already an WP:ADVERT, but an anti-religious one. The article should not be an advert either to the religion nor to the haters of the religion.

I suggest the following: Whenever a thread is open about something of the article, we could agree of not making any accusation to each other inside that thread. Let's at least separate the threads which are to discuss content, from the ones discussing editors, it's the only way we will be able to discuss with clarity. And let's all remember the Talk_page_guidelines, a beautiful page which explains good practices within a talk page. For example: discuss content, the pyramid which shows which arguments are the best, stay on topic in each thread not to confuse the focus of the discussion, avoid unnecessarily lengthy posts. These are all main points on the Talk_Page_Guidelines. If we act by them, we can create, one by one, threads with specific ideas of the article and then come to a consensus aiming neutrality... never a pro-BK or anti-BK view.

I also suggest keeping the tags, they just tell the article needs to be neutral, which is the standard of Misplaced Pages. If no one here wants to advertise, the proof is accepting the tags. The idea of improving the article and bringing it to neutrality and encyclopedic quality, implies not being hurt by the tags, they only remind the necessity of neutrality. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting on with Content: Article structure

Hi all, I'm interested to hear what people think about what basic content should be included in the article. This was suggested in earlier discussions. I now intend to completely ignore repetitive allegations/unkind/negative comments and get on with being a Wikipedian i.e. address content. Any elaboration on the suggestions below?

-Lede

-Early history

-Brahma Baba and Mateshwari (or Lekhraj Kripalani and Radhe ________ ) That is, if others think the other old article on the founder is better :abandoned and amalgamated into this article.

-Expansion (some sort of map/picture?)

-Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations

-Brahma Kumaris and Health Care (e.g. the Global Hospital, the Village Outreach Ambulance, the expansion of this to another hospital in Mumbai, the aFoundation, values in healthcare program etc).

-Brahma Kumaris and the Environment (e.g. the use of solar power (incl currently under construction world's largest 'solar farm' 1 Megawatt Power :generation plant), attending in an official capacity all the recent major climate change conferences, green policy etc)

(as these are all some of the main areas of 'expansion')

-Other Activities and recognition

-Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs

-Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris

I don't think there is a need for separate sections on 'Mediumship' or the mis-described 'legal action against critic'. The former would fit in core beliefs and the latter in the Criticisms section. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the core beliefs should come before the other activities like BK at the UN etc. Readers should get a view of what does

Brahmakumarism mean early in the article. The section on legal action is certainly an advert for brahmakumaris.info and it should fit in

to criticisms. Last section can be named as "Controversies and Criticism" just like it stands today. Another suggestion is to include

activities like UN/healthcare/environment etc in one section (each can be subsection). Else it would appear as an advert - clearly

Brahmakumaris key focus is not on healthcare or environment  ! Changeisconstant (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic structure already follows similar models. It's perfectly good as is. All I can do is repeat previous encouragements to go develop the separate topic on Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices which I have just moved and corrected (wrong capitalisation) as per other comparables, e.g. Scientology. The Dadi Janki Foundation which is an entirely separate organisation. Ditto, so is the J Watumull Global Hospital & Research Centre. Separate organisation, separate topic, separate page. Please go ahead and develop them.

Your lack of experience shows, and this remains my biggest concern, e.g. a) Radhi Pokardas Rajwani is a non-notable individual, b) the Misplaced Pages does not report on future events (..."currently under construction"), despite its frequent advertising of it, the BKWSU has a non-notable status within a minor department of the UNO which is pretty much limited to handing in opinion papers, and why bury the beliefs right at that end? They define the religion.

You're underlining what we already know and that is, what you want is a WP:ADVERT that follows the religion's own websites and PR martketing, e.g. . Your outline makes it look like it will be a cackhanded advert riddled with policy problems. We've also not got any examples of your quality of work and ability to handle formatting and references etc, because none of you have done any substantial work on the Misplaced Pages at all.

That is why a sandbox version is your only way forward. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@J18, There is no need for a seperate BK beliefs Wiki page- you are contradicting yourself by saying that beliefs should be stated

upfront which was my point as well; lets focus on content here and no point endlessly repeating your sandbox suggestion and wasting

others' time. Beliefs are fundamental to the organization and should be part of this article. Changeisconstant (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't origins be a better section name than "early history" and "doctrine" rather than "core beliefs"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme's suggestions seem good. Or possibly just "beliefs"? Although "doctrine" seems ok too. A suggestion could be the beliefs coming first, before history, as BK is a religious movement, therefore beliefs are most relevant and what defines it the most. I'm ok with "origins", would also like to point out the possibility of simply "history". GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If one looks at other comparables, e.g. Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Scientology, ISKON etc, it's history and beliefs. "Origins" is somewhat different from "History", e.g. it would lead to a discussion of the environment and culture from which the religions arose. I'm fine about dropping "core".

Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices already exists, so you're too late, Changeisconstant. With only 3 small edits, it's too much to expect you have a broad understanding and objective view of how the Misplaced Pages works. The purpose of having a summary on the main page and a second page, as per other religions, is to stop main page becoming too long and allow for more depth and detail on the second. Please go develop it further.

The good reason for the BKs to develop a sandbox is because whilst they may share a consensus amongst themselves, none of them have sufficient editing or Misplaced Pages experiencing and have already demonstrated elementary mistakes, e.g. formatting or non-notability. If they continue to refuse and ignore this option, and refuse to gain more experience over a wider range of topics and learn policies, then it'll be proof of their bad faith and a clear agenda.

Much of this has already been discussed. It places an unfair burden on other editors to have to go over it time and time again every time another BK follower comes forward to champion their religion, or have an admin make word by word changes on their behalf. This latest wave even admits it's being supplied with information and coordinated off wiki.

There's no other way forward but a sandbox copy in the short term for very good reasons. It's a sign of their lack of experience that they do not even understand what those reasons are. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chico (Change is constant). I had put the practical things first hoping it would be less contraversial/easier to get consensus on, plus some might say 'actions speak louder than words', and are also very defining, however I think you are right - extra care needs to be taken with this article. I also agree with your point about not needing a separate beliefs article, as was Vecrumba's view. Thank you Greame for your suggestions. I don't have a strong view re doctrine/beliefs. However I would agree with Januarythe18th about the word 'origins' giving a much wider scope, where as 'history' or 'early history' seems more appropriate/specific to the intended content. I really liked the owl's suggestion about keeping separate threads for content versus bagging/criticing each other. I find I can easily miss some good points about content if they are mixed in with somewhat repetitive jabbing at other editors.

• My intention is to now start going through the article piece by piece, reaching consensus for each part that we are looking at. If any particular editor just can't cope with the consensus reached, the usual arbitration process is available for them.
• I think it's good to take up Vecrumba's suggestoin, which was a 'fresh start' approach - to completely jettison the old article (albeit one piece at a time). I think this is in line with the sandbox suggestion too.
• I think it would be good to include some of the various other random related pages that are littering Misplaced Pages - J18 found the one on "Mama", there is also a random page listing BK members that seems fairly pointless, as well as the beliefs page, the page for the founder etc. For such a small fairly non-notable organisation with about 70-80 years of history, one page should suffice.

If the majority are happy with this, the only question is where to start. I would suggest NOT the lede, only because we might end up in arbitration straight away, and this content focus has been quite refreshing. Where do others think we should start? Sorry for my delayed response. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right about the lede not being the place to start. The lede should summarise the article content. Once there is agreement on article content, then that content can be summarized down into the lede.

Talking of summaries, even if sub-pages are not incorporated back into the article, a summary of them should be included in this article WP:SUMMARY. Likewise where content is detailed, it may be hived off to a sub-article. At the moment the beliefs and practices sub-article looks very much like it duplicates most of the section of this one.

On "origins" - probably better for if/when the history needs sub-sectioning. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not starting on the lede was my point.

Dan, you have a deceptive habit of putting into others mouth what you yourself want to say. Please don't. It's you and the other BKs who want to jettison the current topic.

Graeme, the second page would make sense in a normal topic area which had been allowed to develop reasonably and logical. A brief summary of beliefs is sufficient for the primary page. The second page can go into more depth. My feeling, from past experience, their lack of engagement with it and the proposed structure is that they don't because they don't want to detail the actual beliefs and practise but develop a facade inline with their religion's PR. Hence all the usual emphasis on things like the environment and UN which they are either non-notable for or are of little real world significance.

The problem we have had in the past is that all the focus of the BKs' conflict has been on attempt to gain control, influence or fight over this page leading to it being locked up as it is now whilst other pages are neglected. None of them have any Wikipedian experience, it makes sense that they develop their skills on other pages. Therefore my persistent encouragement to develop a sandbox version first and, if they are unwilling to edit on other subjects, then at least they could edit on other pages relating to their religion. However, I don't expect they will as that is not why they are here.

As a number of the BKs are being coordinated central as a tagteam from off wiki, I tend to consider their "consensus" as merely a single opinion with a strong conflict of interest. It's not consensus as is understood on the Misplaced Pages, it's insincere, disruptive and meatpuppetry. A perpetual war of attrition which has distracted from genuine and perfectly reasonable improvements as your own.

Because of this, I'm digging my heels in as far as them developing their preferred sandbox version first and allowing us to look at it. Looking through the talk page archive, this has been going on for years and the Misplaced Pages is no better off for any of their involvement.

Part of the reason is simple their lack of experience, part of it is due to their agenda. It's unfair to waste other people's time and energy going over every word which has already been gone over so many times with other BK followers in the past which I can put into context from my own experience.

I'd like you to acknowledge this suggestion and give me a chance to make it work. They need experience, to show themselves and their agenda, and the Misplaced Pages ought to get something out of their involvement too. Please don't be sucked into it all until they are willing to show some good faith in this way. Thank you--Januarythe18th (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(Ignoring Jan18 repetitive accusations and addressing the content...) I think to have a secondary page for beliefs in an article about a NRM is the same as having a secondary page for biography in an article about a person. Beliefs are absolutely primary and what defines a religion, if you want them to be detailed in another page, that's something else and I'm not even sure that's the role of an encyclopedia, but the first page must contain a comprehensive description of the main beliefs and there is no reason not to detail them, aiming clarity, which will probably make a secondary beliefs page redundant. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, without wishing to cause offence, what you think in this context is not worth very much because you have so little experience on the Misplaced Pages. I say that because if you spent a few minutes researching it, you'd discover separate pages on religious beliefs are a common norm. Otherwise pages become too long. There's plenty of good referenced material to develop another page on beliefs and practises. If you stopped wasting my time, I'd work on developing it even if you wont.

(Excuse me if I sound a little tired at having to explain to every new BK supporter that comes along to chip away at this topic. It's becoming unreasonable.) --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"I'm digging my heels in as far as them developing their preferred sandbox version first and allowing us to look at it" - comes across as a siege mentality and dangerously close to OWN. Working through issues and suggested changes to text on the talkpage is the usual and most open and above board method of sorting issues. Sandboxed versions have their place with a radical overhaul of an article text but I don't see that being proposed here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not have a radical overhaul in mind, Graeme. They clearly do. This is not a "usual" situation. It's a case of coercive meatpuppetry, with a clear agenda, being coordinated 'off wiki'. If you want to prove whether things are all "above board", ask them if that is true. I think you'll be shocked of the scale of the unmatched efforts being put in.

As said, I not only suggested the sandbox, due to their lack of experience as in the past there have been numerous tagging (references) formatting problem, but also to detailed a list of any factual errors they see in the references. That's not been forthcoming either.

I would suggest that those two elements are the most logical and "above board" ways forward.

It's simple and far less time consuming of others.

All they have to do is show, a) this is what we would like (and why), b) these are our concerns about these factual errors. Then we can discuss and consider the best way forward.

At present the article is well referenced and follows a fairly standard structure. It's hard for me to believe that completely inexperienced editors, with a particular agenda, are going to miraculously improve it. This has been going on for years, it's about time they were straightforward and open about their aims.

Does that not seem reasonable to you? I think they have to prove some good faith. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@J18, Sorry but apart from endlessly repeating two things i.e. "This article is well referenced/ accurate" you are dangerously close to OWN as Graeme highlighted and by

"You are all inexperienced" you are close to violating WP:DNB. This mentality is so opposite of what an experienced editor on Wiki would never resort to.

New editors also valuable to Misplaced Pages community so enough of you demeaning others when the fact is that you have also pretty much spent most of your time on this single

article inorder to control it. I am sorry to bring this up here but its becoming tiring to see J18 trying to dictate terms as if its his copyright. I would propose that we move all such

accusations somewhere else so that this section remains focussed on content. If you want to develop a new page on beliefs, go ahead with it and let rest collaborate

to improve this article. I refute your allegations of meatpuppetry and I am going to challenge BKs as well to ensure neutrality Changeisconstant (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to Content

As only one editor doesn't agree, I feel it's fine to continue as suggested. I propose we start moving through the article as per the topic headings put forward, as per the order suggested by chico and pasted below. Does anyone want to redraft the history section and paste below? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

   -(Early) history
   -Brahma Baba and Mateshwari 
   -Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs
   -Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations
   -Brahma Kumaris and Health Care 
   -Brahma Kumaris and the Environment 
   -Other Activities and recognition
   -Controversies and Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris 

Danh108 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that in an article that the aspects such as environment and healthcare should appear within the history in an appropriate chronological order. If environmentalism is a natural extension of the BK belief system, then that would also be the appropriate place to mention it. I presume in fact that all activities are directed in part if not whole by their beliefs and should be mentioned alongside them as illustrative. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Graeme's idea is nice. The current history seems to be written by someone with a negative bias, and contain only controversies. As Graeme suggested, that's the right place for the activities like health care and environment. Another comment I would like to make about the history, is that 50% or more of it is speaking about a splinter group, which is absolutely non-notable. I think this is very unbalanced, and it doesn't actually fit history at all, it could be briefly mentioned in "controversies". What do you guys think? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Danh108, I am sorry but persistently ignoring my input, and the reasonable suggestions made, is just attempting to railroad through what you want, without actually fully disclosing what it is you want. You're wasting all of our time and energy.

Much of what you are proposing again, I say again as other BKs have also done so in the past, has been covered in previous discussion, e.g. the use of the founder's real name. The use of devotional names is out, especially in the case Rajwani.

As I stated, Radhi Pokardas Rajwani is a non-notable individual from a historical and Wikipedian point of view. You'll not find sufficient resources to substantiate her inclusion outside of hagiographic representations by the religion itself. You may believe she is the Mother of Humanity and number 2 soul, but you won't be able to support the assignment of a religion title and status such as "the consort of Mateshwara" (Mateshwari), from any sources.

You've ignored (again) my comments regarding the UN, and are pushing (again) to reflect BKWSU own hagiographic PR websites in your structure, and presumably yet to be revealed content.

Although worthy of inclusion in a sentence here and there, the BKs are really not notable either for their environmentalism (they still teach this world must be destroyed in an imminent nuclear war which they will inspire in order for heaven on earth to exist) nor for healthcare. What you are pushing for is how the BKs want to be seen in the West today, rather than how the BKs are, especially over the bigger picture of their existence worldwide. Consequently, it's non-Wikipedian.

The scale of your diverge from Misplaced Pages principles and towards devotional propaganda, on top of your ignoring of other questions or suggestions, is so great that it destroys your credibility completely and cannot be taken seriously.

GreyWinterOwl, the current well referenced history is objective. You cannot expect the same hagiographic treatment one will find on the BKWSU own books or websites. If, objectively, that history includes controversies, then the Misplaced Pages page will reflect that where they are well referenced.

What you are all experiencing is a sort of personal discomfort at the dissonance between your faith based indoctrination and reality. The Misplaced Pages deals in realities, not religion and not PR. Have you actually read any of the major references to see how the world sees you? If so, which ones?

I've often asked you, to the response of silence, to list what you believe are the factual inaccuracies. There basically are none. The only one I would say, as I did not write it, is that the Brahma Kumaris teach they will rule the world for 2,500 years, not 1,250 years. The rest of highly factual.

Once they built their big solar cooker, we can mention it but not before.

a) Sandbox version.

b) List of inaccurate references.

c) Go start and edit other pages, BK related or not.

d) Help and interact with other Wikipedians (in a non-complaining manner) and learn more about the values of this community.

I would advise against wasting any more admin time and energy by putting any more complaints to achieve your ambitions as I think they will go against you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In all Jan18's lengthy post, I see absolutely no encyclopedic explanation to why a very small splinter group should occupy half of history of a NRM. All your arguments are ad-hominem. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines and also WP:Notability. It says the amount of details of the content in an article must follow WP:DUE. WP:DUE says the amount of space given to each viewpoint over a subject must be proportional to how wide that viewpoint is supported. It's wikipedia saying that, not me. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, on the basis of 4 edits, 3 of which were instantly reverted because they were such a mess , and accusing me of "polluting a clean page" when I answer your purely technical question, I don't think you have sufficient credibility to throw around all that policy talk.

The question of the splinter group has never been raised in this discussion but is the persistent focus (and ire) of BK supporters coming to edit this page. Therefore, to find you raising it again it no surprise. However, please don't wrap it in an accusation against me.

Was Martin Luther insignificant to the history of Christianity? The number of Protestant were also very small. Schisms, and the way the religion responds to them, is a very important part of the development of a religion. It's not in the history, it is expansion and it is probably there because other BK editors fought over it. I suppose we could have a separate section for splinter groups?

As usual, it would help us all very much if the BK tagteam would just sit down together and write their sandbox version and show us what other material there is that exists instead of wasting time arguing over everything.

Why would you not? None of you have much experience editing, you need the practise. You also need to gain more experience on the Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ad-hominem doesn't help to justify undue weight as per WP:Talk_page_guidelines, WP:DUE and WP:Notability. Please explain, why half the history should talk about a very small splinter group. Protestantism has absolutely nothing to do with that as they are a very widely spread branch of christianity and therefore their weight is not comparable to the splinter group we are talking about, being undue and False_analogy. Please avoid dispersion and vague accusations and address the content objectively. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments not related to Content

Here is the section for discussions that don't relate to content. I thought I could kick if off by mentioning to Januarythe18th that you don't have much experience on Misplaced Pages either, actually you only really became active on Wiki in December 2011, and the vast majority of your activity is on one page, so as a SPA already considered by admin to be a fan or follower of an advocacy group, probably a good idea to pull your head in. Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we actually do need a section for having a go at each other. So I think we should consider this section closed. If anyone feels the need to express their negative opinions of another editor, I suggest they do it offline with their friends over a cup of tea. And having purged, return to the article with a clear head and a reliable source to hand. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough comment Greame - it's a bit tongue and cheek. But I think the purpose is a really good one - so much of the material being posted is not related to content, and it really slows the editing process down. It would be good to do something to focus attention on content rather than accusations/conspiracy theories etc. How would you feel if I named it "Legitimate WP Policy based concerns about editors"? You've been around by the far the longest of the editors on this page - any suggestions how you've seen this managed on other articles? Your feedback is much appreciated Danh108 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, for a start assume good faith and remain polite, try to find common ground, on matters explain your own POV and at the same time try to understand the other editor's (or editors') position so that you can minimize friction when you propose changes to content.

In the case of content dispute between a pair of editors there is seeking a third opinion on the text.

You can try and engage editors from the wider community - eg from related wikiprojects or on the noticeboards for tackling specific issues. Requests on either should be neutrally worded to avoid accusations of canvassing.

If you genuinely believe it's the other editor who is the problem there a process for discussing that behavior. If there are clear infringements of specific policies you can seek administrator intervention for a remedy.

But at any stage in a conflict with an editor there is the possibility that it will turn out that you were blind to your own failings and the whole thing will blow up in your face.

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is the policy on dealing with issues between editors.

I would say try to avoid drama, a lot of to-and-fro adds little but extra words on the talkpages. Your greatest assets are a reasoned argument based on Reliable sources and taking time choosing your words - whether in the article text or on the talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And WP:DICK. Stop wasting the time and energy of non-BKs Wikipedian editors and admins to try and get what you want. --Januarythe18th (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for using the appropriate section January. Much appreciated. Danh108 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame, Much appreciated. A nice thorough surmise. You didn't comment on the strategy of a separate section for non-content for trying to keep posts focused on content - I get the impression that is all talk pages are ever really supposed to be about, unfortunately there has been some digressions here which I think most of the editors just want to shake off/cut away so we can get on with building a cool encyclopedia.

For my own conduct, I will be focusing on content and just ignoring any of the repetitive issues we've been having on the page. Thanks again. Danh108 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That struck out title you just did, here would be considered WP:DICKish. I would suggest not doing so, and not misusing the edit summaries sarcastically to make a point. I don't think you're taking these matters seriously enough.

Before changing any well reference content, you're going to have to put up a strong argument and consensus based on references for it, and not just vague, undefined claims of "unencyclopedic" etc.

Your way forward is to develop a sandbox version first. By all means collaborate with other followers. Gain more experience on the Misplaced Pages. If you'd done so at the very beginning, you'd be finished a long time ago and we could discuss it. Consensus building cannot be based on ignoring. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame for the advice - it will be good to follow it and better to ignore endless repetitions and personal attacks of an editor to focus the talk page on content.

Thanks J18, you have also mentioned to focus on content here so lets bring the focus back to content. Changeisconstant (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As the 2 mature editors (Vecrumba and Greame) have recommended the current course of action, the sandbox suggestion has been rejected. January, perhaps when you have more experience like these editors, you will understand their point - I feel safe to assume their 8 years each of editing Misplaced Pages is more valuable than your 18 months spent over one article. If you don't like their suggestion, feel free to edit somewhere else for a while and pop in to see how we are going later. If you have feedback about content, your thoughts won't be ignored - I already preferred your suggestion about not using the word "origins". Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe either of them specifically did and what is clearly emerging from both yourself and GreyWinterOwl is a strategy of using other Wikipedian's names to express your own rejection and opinions. This is, of course, a strategy directly from your puppet master, used in the past, and utterly transparent.

--Januarythe18th (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

An alternative route forward

It may be that no one has time at present to re-draft particular sections of the article. Also given the current editing environment, it might be better if the changes planned are small and very specific i.e. removal of the smallest and trashiest parts of the article. At this stage the main concerns that have been repeated are:

1. The BOL issue with re Dadi Janki

2. The unsubstantiated sexual misconduct claims in the history

3. The use of "secretive" in the lede

4. The dedication to a splinter group in the history

5. The mis-reporting of the domain name dispute and promotion of the .info website in the final section (at best this should be in the controversies section).

I propose that we start with number 1. If there is consensus for it's deletion, then it will be deleted. If it is re-inserted, then the matter will be escalated. I have concerns that this section lacks verifability: "Since 1978, the BKWSU is accused of falsifying claims internationally that its current leader and relative of the founder Dadi Janki Kripalani is "the most stable mind in the world". Journalists quoted archivists at the University in question and "found no mention of the experiments performed on Dadi Janki in 1978". Indeed, they could not even "find any University of Texas organisation called the Medical and Science Research Institute.""

Problems with the so called 'published journalist'....This journalist openly goes under the handle "Captain Porridge".

1. This individual has posted on Misplaced Pages requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s .

2. He participates in the advocacy group run by the disgruntled John Allan, respondent in the Arbitration dispute mentioned in the BK Wiki article reference , and

3. He also openly names the people supporting the Applicant in the Arbitration dispute in what appears to be an attempt to injure their reputation .

4. He writes for a student university gazette (Keimyung is the correct spelling) - hardly a credible source in itself

Consensus shouldn't be needed to delete in these circumstances, but in some ways we are pandering to January's strong emotional involvement....anyway, are other editors in support of this section being deleted? Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Captain Porridge" doesn't sound like a reliable source, so I guess a claim which is not substantiated by any reliable source shouldn't be part of a wikipedia page, as per WP:REF, WP:Source, and WP:NOTRS, the last link describes exactly what is a non-reliable source and "Capt. Porridge" fits precisely there. --GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My immediate concern is that the statement "Since 1978, the BKWSU is accused of falsifying claims internationally that its current leader and relative of the founder Dadi Janki Kripalani is "the most stable mind in the world"". is not supported by the references. The journalist only makes the claim that it is false in 2007 and refers to a website that wouldn't have existed in 1978. That is enough to my mind to say that the statement ought to be removed, or rewritten.

A better statement, bearing in mind the BLP issue, would be "In 2007, a journalist alleged that the BKWSU through its website was fraudulently claiming that its leader had in 1978... etc etc".

But I think you are actually asking two questions here - 1) is the source a reliable one for the accusation of a fraudulent endorsement, and 2) is the inclusion of the accusation NPOV, UNDUE etc

For the former, I would recommend that you cast the question of reliability to some uninvolved parties to give an opinion on - the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Note that the introduction to the board says "and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy" and the instructions on how to frame the question. You could draft the question here so that it can be seen that there is an agreement that the question is properly framed and fairly represents the issue before actually putting it to the noticeboard for consideration.

For the 2nd, that's a trickier one and something I will ponder upon.

Lastly, a person's identifier online is no indication of their competence: some influential bloggers go under colourful names (Jack-of-Kent and Guido Fawkes are examples in the UK) and I see some non-de-plumes in action on this very page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence could be written clearer. I understand it to mean that since 1978 the BKWSU have claimed Dadi Janki Kripalani is the most stable mind in the world and, latterly in 2007, they have been found to have falsified that claim. That would be factual, accurate and confirmed. The "most stable mind in the world business" and 1978 comes from numerous quote. They are still using it in India despite being official refuted by the international headquarters.

Just because something is bad PR does not mean it contravenes WP:BLP if it is factual, referenced and reasonable written. It's an important detail.

I dismiss your excuses for re-drafting the article either in entirety or in part because you are clearly going to waste far more time and energy on attempting to achieve incremental changes. Indeed, I'll go further to state that it is your shared and chosen strategy.

Secretive sticks. What other religion have you heard of that does not publish it's core scripture, does not encourage followers to share it, and even demands followers to attend their places of worship to read it? Only exceptionally secretive or occult ones. Show me where they are freely available and published like the Torah, Bible, Koran or Dhammapada, and I believe you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme's suggestion on confirming reliability of "Capt. Porridge". However, please check if for example it's the case that he fits on WP:SELFPUBLISH, or somewhere else on WP:NOTRS, for example being a non-expert, then it may not be necessary to bring it to the noticeboard. I think the points and links shown by Dahn may exemplify quite well that his POV is non-neutral. Specially using internet forum posts from ex-members of the movement as the information to base his article, used as source for the claim. That violates WP:NOTRS quite a bit. I'm sure Graeme understands well about NPOV, so let's wait for his conclusion about it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, the "protestant church" reference is in Walliss which is stated at the beginning of the sentence ("Walliss states that as ..."). The actual quote is, "The Advance Party. In many ways the ‘Advance Party’ (Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishva Vidyalaya or AIVV) may be envisaged as the Protestant reformers to the Brahma Kumaris’ mediaeval Catholic Church." p. 98 in my copy. If you want to read a copy of it, just ask me and please ask in advance because it's all ground which has been gone over before.

Is there any good reason to remove a download link for a paper when it is available , or did you move it somewhere I cannot find it?. Thanks.

GreyWinterOwl, please stop misusing summaries and provoking edit warring, and putting words into other editors' mouths or attempt to play off them.

There is no advocacy group, and no consensus for its requirement. Indeed, there was no discussion for its inclusion. It's patently clear that it is just an effort on behalf of your tagteam to discredit a well referenced topic and exactly how previous meatpuppets warred. "Neutrality" you can have, as it is dispute but not yet proven. It covers everything, however, I still don't it is required.

The topic is highly accurate and objective. The problem is one of your own perception and agenda. The journalist uses his real name in publication (Peter Daly). How he styles himself in private is his own business. --Januarythe18th (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You are the only editor who thinks the topic is accurate and objective, Vecrumba said it's not encyclopedic, he was in favor of the tags, so were every other editor except you. The points Danh raised hardly illustrate a neutral article, Confirmation_Bias is a real issue here and so is the advocacy group, as many points in the article, including claims on sexual abuse and the sentence we were talking about a few moments ago, came from brahmakumaris.info, which is an anti-BK advocacy group. There is more than enough reason for each of the tags. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

January, "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process." That is from the section you keep quoting but never following - I appreciate that as a new editor, you are still getting your head around these things. But please do follow the guidelines or refrain from what is bordering on diatribe.

@ Greame - thank you very much for your presence on the page - it's a very welcome contrast to the hostility I'm getting for being mis-identified as a BK follower etc etc. My main concern relates to your first point - whether a student newspaper is a reliable source, particularly when the 'journalist' openly discloses his fairly abysmal primary research that supposedly backs up his claim. January refuses to substantiate his claims of a retraction by the BK's, so I can't put much weight on that. I suggest the following question is posted: "Can a student gazette article be considered a reliable source for the purpose of accusing a living person of making fraudulent endorsement? In particular, when the articles author has a demonstrated conflict of interest" Regards Danh108 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to deny that BK followers or supporters are being centrally coordinated and a BKWSU IT leader has invested large amounts of time and energy into databasing non-BK editors, their edits and discussions, and is advising and encouraging BK supporters on strategies to gain control of this topic?

That is meatpuppetry pure and simple and not acceptable on the Misplaced Pages.

The topic does not accuse the living person, it accuses the organization of falsifying claims about her. The organization has admitted it that it did and has instructed its centres to stop doing so. So have other leading individuals within the religion (I don't offer that as a reliable source, merely as part of the discussion as supporting evidence). It's common knowledge, it's evidenced, therefore it is safe.

The original quote actually came from 'God's Plan' (1981), Streitfeld, Harold Ph.D. Therefore, twist it as you wish, there is no problem with it. The journalist in question has no connection with the Brahma Kumaris at all, are going to start claiming that every non-BK follower who does not agree with you has a conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?

For a University, let alone one with a relationship with UN, to make false and unscientific claims about its leader is most certainly note worthy.

As far there being an advocacy group, tell us what it is called, how many members it has, where it is based, and so on. Substantiate your prejudices. --Januarythe18th (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's common knowledge, it's evidenced, therefore it is safe." - Except that you didn't present the evidence you claim to exist. Self-published websites are not "evidence". You calling it common knowledge doesn't magically make it encyclopedic. You either have a reliable source to back it up or you don't. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I clearly stated that I did not present that website as evidence.

a) You cannot deny it is a fact.

b) An independent journalist, quoted an archivist at the University of Texas A&M and published it in a university gazette. That's is good enough. I think you should take your unhappiness back to who ever made the false and unscientific claims and stop aggressively creating conflict. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Returning to an earlier question 1) quoted text should always be followed by a specific reference to its origin. So you are welcome to add Wallis p98 to the end of the sentence where I put the cite needed 2) in reformatting the reference, the link to Custodians_of_Purity_An_Ethnography_of_the_Brahma_Kumaris was retained and is still there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the deal is with this 'storm in a tea cup', what I found most interesting is that the disputed testing took place in San Francisco, but the journalist phoned a Texan University....ummmm, hello! No wonder the archivist was struggling. Danh108 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jan18: a) Is shifting the burden of proof. I cannot deny Barack Obama is actually from mars, but since no reliable source says that, it can't be stated in his WP article. b) We raised several reasons to classify him as non-neutral and non-reliable and you haven't proven them wrong. "That's good enough" doesn't magically eliminate the fact he is not an expert, is involved in an advocacy group, and used primary sources (forum posts) from that group as basis for the reference itself. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th, your argument about secretive doesn't hold good. You asked "What other religion have you heard of that does not publish it's core scripture, does not encourage followers to share it, and even demands followers to attend their places of worship to read it? Firstly you can not compare a relatively new movement Brahmakumaris with well established religions from centuries as for many religions, the scriptures evolved over a long period of time. Secondly, most of the religions also recommend followers to come to church, temples, mosques etc regularly; that doesn't make them secretive. Thirdly, just with some research, I was able to access the core of BK teachings "Murlis" available online on Brahma Kumaris Murlis. I could download the full version and even see it being spoken. Latest spoken ones that they call Avyakt Murlis are also available online on Youtube and elsewhere. Therefore Secretive in lede doesn't stick. Would you agree? Changeisconstant (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Having not heard back from J18 on this, I propose secretive is deleted from the lede. Vecrumba is not active here but did mention this as grossly judicial. Questions from J18 have been answered above. Do any of the other editors disagree with this deletion? Changeisconstant (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You heard. You just had no intention to listen.

It stays because it comes in a number of verifiable sources, Miller says, "The Brahma Kumaris are both secretive and hierarchical in relation to organizational and teleological matters." That's a fact. Beit-Hallahmi notes "information is generally hidden from outsiders", that means the same. Walliss notes other information is "hidden from those who came after 1976". That's a repetition. Musselwhite writes, "not published for public consumption". It all adds up the same thing ... secretive.

Where, for example, are their publish accounts? They're a secret too.

Show me where on any official website the BKWSU tells the world about the forthcoming and imminent End of the World called Destruction, and any official document where it admits its God's predictions have failed on numerous occasions and I'll believe you that it is not secretive.

If you want to change the topic to say, "The BKWSU generally hides certain information from outsiders and newcomers to the religion, especially that relating to its End of the World predictions and their failures", I'll accept that as a compromise. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The lede of a NRM is supposed to be a resume of the most important and relevant information about the NRM. The catholic church also hides the books on the Vatican library, but that is not enough for "secretive" to be an adjective in the lead of its article. Something in the lede describes the NRM as a whole, not a detail carefully chosen from a line in one reference. "Secretive" is a heavily undue WP:Weight. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the lede of a topic is supposed to summarise the topic WP:LEAD, but forget wikilawyering, you don't have enough experience on which to base your arguments and are just using wikilawyering as a cover for your tagteam's own agenda.

If I want to read what Catholics believe, I can walk into any bookshop and buy a Bible. I can even buy and read a copy of every generation and translation of the Bible going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, whereas with the Brahma Kumaris, we have adherents refused to have copies of their scripture to take home, being demanded to have to come to their centres to read them in designated areas, encrypted servers and instructed not to spread it around, and all that is available are heavily revised versions. That is very unique for any religion. Most stuff their beliefs down other people's throats and could not be happier than having someone interested in it. Hence it is due.

If I want to see various annual financial accounts and reports from their organisations, they are widely available online. Do the BKs publish theirs or hide/keep it secret?

Have the BKs, to offer another key example, told the United Nations that they are going to inspire the scientists to use the nuclear arsenal for Destruction, to kill off the rest of humanity. Or do they hide/keep that secret too, and call it "Transformation" to outsiders?

Do they tell other religions at interfaith rallies that "God has come" in person and is speak to them? That only they will inherit heaven and all other religions are merely "the paths of ignorance" or "stumbling in the darkness". Or do they hide/kept that secret too?

Do they tell the corporations and organisations they go into what they really believe? Or do they hide/keep it secret laced in euphemistic language.

I could go on. The Brahma Kumaris have quite fairly gained a reputation for secrecy, and this has been commented upon by verifiable sources. It is a defining factor. If you are not happy with that, then go change the religion. The difference between them and, say, the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church is a mature religion which has done much more of the other stuff religions do, like feeding the hungry, tending for the weak, educating the poor, historical and philosophical research, sponsoring the arts etc.

The Brahma Kumaris as a very young religion is still in its cultic phase. It has done very little to serve anyone except for its own interests, or the interests of its leaders, and it is done so with an extremely and unethical millenarianist philosophy (which is why it keeps it secret for the most part). The topic reflects that. Indeed, I think you are lucky that the topic is not even more critical, and that at present it is as neutral as we can be.

There's no point pretending. Even when it does something good, it is for ulterior motives, e.g. this solar energy business happened not because they care about the environment but because it was paid for by governments and saved them money. It's also been noted, from verifiable sources, that when a BK wanted to start something truly charitable, e.g. the Village Project, they did so against the will of the leadership. And extreme rare it is too. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You also please stop pretending being owner or Admin or super expert of Misplaced Pages patronizing others when clearly you are violating the guidelines of Misplaced Pages at many junctures and most of this is your loaded POV and not even worth commenting. There is no hierarchy on Misplaced Pages. This is not Brahmakumaris.info forum; If you want to convert this as a forum to argue and reach nowhere, please use brahmakumaris.info forum and don't waste resources here. All you are doing is to deflect attention of editors all the time. Comparing a 2000 years old religion with something that started in 1930s and not even a recognized religion in any county in the world is a fallacious argument. Similarly repeating all the questions that you raise like on the bkinfo forum is useless and will not take us anywhere. What is the accounts disclosures to do with being secretive? Can you call an organization secretive if its not bound by law to disclose its accounts to public? Show us evidence that Brahmakumaris is bound by law to disclose accounts to public and not doing it then we will take it onboard else this is all fallacious. They do it to the authorities like Income tax deptt and not required to disclose it to public. Period. You can not cherrypick from references like you are doing to skew an article to the extent it is now. What appears to you as a worldview is not necessarily a world view and its just your point of view. Its better to get inputs from other editors as I know you are just going to continue all tactics to keep WP:OWN this article which itself is violation of Misplaced Pages. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, "What has a religion 'not publicly disclosing its wealth and income' got to do with being secretive?"! Are we on the same planet?

You're throwing a bit of red herring here and I should not take the bait ... but try asking 10,000 people, "if a new religious movement does not disclose its wealth and income to its adherents or outsiders, do you think it is being secretive?".

It's not really for me to question why the authors and academics have reported that the Brahma Kumaris were secretive. It's more for us to ask, are these authors and academics work verifiable, and they are. They are genuine academics at the top of their fields. From the context of their papers, I take it that their comments are more to do with how the Brahma Kumaris hide their actual teachings and intentions from outsiders and slowly and subtly encult individuals than their shady financial activity.

I am sorry. I can admit there are areas where the content of this topic, and the sub-topics relating to it, could be cleaned up and developed further but, from a Misplaced Pages point of view, I think it is actually very well developed and highly referenced. I think it is highly accurate and objectively encyclopediac, and that its clarity and objectivity is what upsets you. It's just not PR whitewash. If you only want to edit Brahma Kumari pages, I just wish you'd go and develop more sub-pages instead of fighting over this one all the time.

For example, Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices would be a good one, and then we can summarise that section here. If you think there is mileage in pages on their hospital projects or solar cooking projects, then please start them too. I won't stop you.

But, until you are willing to lay your cards on the table and show us your alternative of this topic in a sandbox, all of this discussion, and especially all of the personal attacks and conflict creation, is disingenuous. There is really little more I can write. "Put up or shut up", as they say.

In the meanwhile, I encourage you to edit and interact more widely on the Misplaced Pages to gain more of an understanding in its values and how it works. Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting some areas where the content of this article needs cleaning up. Atleast that's a bit accomodating. So rather than getting into subtopics and your other repetitive points which will be a waste of time, lets clean this article, make it more neutral- please don't keep repeating that its accurate etc as you are not the judge of Misplaced Pages. When we collectively work on this and establish consensus we can all move on and spend our time worthwhile. Comparison with established religions is not correct nor is the finance part linked suitably to an NRM being called secretive in the Lede. One way out is to state what the references say about secretive aspect in controversies section Changeisconstant (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Be careful not to misinterpret my words. I mean simply to the extent of grammatical changes and formatting, or splitting and develop other topics as I wrote. I don't think this topic needs much more work done on it and I am cautious of your euphemistic and warp use of language here.

If you have a problem with several academics and a senior journalist calling your religion secretive, take it up with them, or make it more transparent. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To my reading, most of the references to the Brahma Kumaris secretiveness related to their use of a belief in an imminent Destruction or End of the World scenario, after which they will exclusively rule the world for 2,500 years. Nothing to do with finances

If any of the BK adherents can show me where on official websites they inform the rest of the world and the United Nations about this, a Destruction they are going to inspire, then I guess I could accept they have reformed and are no longer secretive. I await your response with interest. If the official websites do not inform the rest of the world, then perhaps you could explain why? --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Catholic

I found this, might be worth including in the controversy section, or developing the controversy section into a separate page, as per Scientology controversies.

CATHOLIC STUDENTS WANT BRAHMA KUMARIS OUT OF THEIR SCHOOL

Is it considered reliable enough?

--Januarythe18th (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for reporting that there was a student protest at the SLU? Possibly Yes. But the link is only reporting a single incident some 20 years ago and not the full story of what happened, and the outcome of the incident. So I would say it's a case of Undue to include it as some adherents of one religion protesting about the presence of non-believers is tending towards the "dog bites man" category of news. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Greame's fairly apt observations, I would note that your suggestion doesn't seem all that consistent with removing the cherry picking tag i.e. you are trawling the internet for every little thing you can find to bolster a POV loaded section of the article, and then removing a cherry picking tag...ummm...is it only me who finds that strange?

I would suggest the tags be kept on the article due to admins findings in the sock investigation: I can't tell if its Lucyinthesky or just another follower/fan. I read this as "Januarythe18th may not be a sock of Lucy, but has sufficiently similarly behaviours and preconceived ideas to be considered a follower/fan of Lucy/Lucy's advocacy group. Maybe I've missed something....but I was presuming that was why admin initially locked the tags on.

Do any other editors want to comment on the tags so we can dispense with any 'tug of war'? Thank you Danh108 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the Sock investigation, there are lot of similarities between the group running anti-BK web-site brahmakumaris.info as reported earlier on this page and the tone of this whole

article. There is also clear cherry picking from references to show only a one sided view of BK organization, take for example reference

10 from Hinduism today which shows a lot of neutral aspects about BKs but only the odd ones are picked in the main text. Edit warring on Tags is futile when there is no harm in keeping the tags and focus on resolving disputes and improving article. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer is easy, then show us your sandbox version and prove there is another side to the BKWSU. But you need to be careful because PR whitewash will not work on the Misplaced Pages. A topic needs to be what the subject actually is, not how it wants to be seen.

I think you need to be careful about expressing strongly partisan POVs. One people's terrorists are another people's freedom fighters. What you call an "anti-" site may well be another people's truth seeking (I would be more neutral and call it "pro-truth"). Generally, the more a religion become established the more conservative and suppressive it become, as Walliss noted about the aggressive threats made to him by the BKWSU when he discussed speaking to the breakaway AIVV.

If you want your religion to appear better, then the answer is to go off, work to resolve its internal problems, and make sure it does more good things in the real world; not fight over the Misplaced Pages about and try to control its appearances. You cannot control how the rest of the world sees you. If you don't like the bad or crazy things the world sees in your religion, remove or change them.

It strikes me you really should be taking up these matters with your leaders, not us here. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More eyes on the article?

Greame, I was having a read of the probation material at the top of the talk page. I find January hard to manage as every post has some accusation and a refusal to focus on content. I feel if there are a one or two more neutral people there will be much more hope of progressing this. Is there any rule or etiquette that prevents me just posting a request on some of the old editors talk pages that have their comments on the probation material? At least they will be familiar with the article to? Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:Canvassing for an understanding of the issue and the appropriate ways to invite other editors to a discussion. Of particular importance is "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" - you need to, and will add be seen to, give both sides of the argument a fair chance. The Arbcom case is now several years old and it might be better to start afresh through eg the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greame. I would have thought to focus on other religious pages could also be perceived as biased as they would be more likely to be sympathetic to this kind of harassment than 'Arbcom'... and the article is still on probation for a reason....I will keep in mind your advice and look into both options. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Until you answer or address the accusations of acting as centrally coordinated tagteam (see SPA report above), your persistent personal attacks are not going to carry much credibility.

Please note that engaging third party editors to confuse matters is a specific strategy the BKs or their puppet master have decided on.

Again, I welcome Danh108 or any of the other BKs to go on the record and deny this. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to refute this (again!). I also remind you that repeated unsubstantiated accusations are uncivil, and as far as I can see it's simply a device/pretext for you to disregard consensus. Regards Danh108 (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the tags are precisely accurate

Cherry picking refers to taking from the references only information that represent a specific POV while carefully ignoring all others. This is present in the whole article, undue weight being given to a specific POV which is obviously not by accident. Conflict of interest is also a very real issue, because the current article was written by a lineage of socks of an ex-member, whose legacy Jan18 keeps carrying on, being an ex-member himself, and clearly showing the interest of keeping the article as a display of only what seems controversial and spitting on WP:DUE. Even if that means picking little phrases from references and turning those in apparently big deals, while vastly ignoring the general focus of references, just because it doesn't fit his POV. So for that reason, the 3 tags as were before, widely agreed and widely explained in the talk page, have no reason to be removed. And a question I suggest to be pondered on is: If Jan18 is not here to advertise a POV, then why does he feel so bothered by the tags?

Another question I leave for each one to ponder on is: Why does Jan18 call the tags a "provocation", for any other reason than being personally involved with the subject? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From WP:EDITWAR - "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable." And that cuts both ways; it takes two to editwar. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Graeme. Since you have more experience, I am open to your suggestion about this. I actually tried to follow the instructions on WP:EDITWAR and discuss in the talk page. I presented arguments that show why the tags are appropriate, Jan18 offered no argument against them. If he can revert without explanation, but anyone else can't even though supported by consensus and evidence, then it's clear that the page is under WP:OWN and I don't know what else can be done about that. Allowing Jan18 to have the last word over everything has proven to achieve no result in the past, and if reverting him also represents a misconduct, then I feel my hands are tied. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Folks, in this lovely little edit war over tags, you've been re-adding the {{pp-dispute}} template that was originally removed here on the 14th by an admin with the edit summary "remove protection template". This template is used ONLY when the page is protected. The page IS NOT protected at this point so PLEASE stop trying to force this template back onto the page. If you don't know what a template does or is for, please read about ir first before adding it back it. You may now return to your regularly scheduled squabbling. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about that tag. Thank you for being so polite and sorry for wasting your time with such insignificant matters. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone I took - fun Monday at the office already. The request certainly could have been a bit more polite. As a fairly disinterested party, I think there's been far, far too much time spent on these tags. Both sides are at fault - you can't have an edit war with just one side. At some point in time, all of you are going to have to figure out a way to work together, here. Is there a non-controversial section that you both could work on improving and maybe develop some basis for future editing? I'll be honest, the recent history, both talk page and article, does not present the main editors in a good light. Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Raven, I really appreciate your guidance. If you have enough time to take a look at this page whenever you feel like, and briefly point out suggestions coming from your experience, that would be greatly appreciated. But it's totally up to you, as far as you try to see what route will lead to a neutral and not WP:OWNED article. Currently the owner refuses to discuss content, instead basing his arguments on unsubstantiated ad_hominem as the basis for having the right to revert everything he wants. Working together towards neutrality, which is your suggestion, would be wonderful but when one single editor has the final word over everything, and a very clear agenda, I can hardly see how that would be possible. Since you and Graeme are obviously neutral and experienced editors, I at least, and hope the other editors here, would be more than satisfied in following your suggestions on how we can walk towards neutrality, focus on content and respect for the guidelines. The tags may sound a childish concern right now, but the power Jan18 has to revert them represents the authority he has given to himself, bypassing the talk page, consensus and guidelines, it's not just the tags. It's the confirmation that his word weights more than everyone else summed up. Do you then believe he will magically be willing to work together in the content? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but you're the ones who are refuse to list factual errors or present a sandbox of your preferred version to discuss it. I have been encouraging you to do so.

You are racing headlong into a yet another personal attack attempting to discredit me there.

The content is fine, it's neutral enough, highly accurate and well referenced. It's time to start developing other topic pages on the religion as per Category:Scientology. I think you don't understand the Wikipedian concept of "neutrality" . Unfortunately events and even controversies are included in a neutral topic. There is nothing particularly not neutral about the topic.

On the basis of no experience on the Misplaced Pages, you're being very weaselly with Wikipedian words here, and using them to a completely different meaning. My feeling is that your discomfort with the topic is merely due to its objectivity, and your aims are to whitewash it or make it flattering.

The only way to avoid such as accusation is to show us your preferred version in a sandbox. Not to do so is to admit it that is what you are up to.--Januarythe18th (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's neutral enough" doesn't magically make it so. Arguments were raised to demonstrate the whole article is WP:Undue, and you haven't responded to any of those arguments. Instead you keep repeating ad-hominem to disperse the content discussion. "It's neutral enough", "It's good enough" are not valid arguments. I suggest content to continue to be discussed as per WP:Talk_page_guidelines and Jan18 dispersive lengthy posts to be ignored. If a change is agreed based on consensus and guidelines, and reverted by Jan18, we could take the matter to admins. I suggest all editors to read WP:BRD, section "edit warring". It says "do not editwar", but it also says "don't get stuck on the discussion. Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different, Bold edit as quickly as possible." I want to remind that every editor has the same right to edit, if the edit has a good encyclopedic reason. To discuss an aspect of the article in detail, but be stuck there and don't use the right as an editor, to edit, is a passive attitude which keeps Jan18 with the power of continuing to own the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Then show us what you consider to be a "neutral" version in a sandbox, and stop talking abstractly in a quasi-Wikipedian fashion.

I am sorry, on the basis of your extremely limited Wikipedian experience, and especially your actions in accusing me of "polluting" a page by explaining to you the technical reason your edits were reverted by another editor and then reporting me for "hounding" you for doing so, do not lend credibility to your opinions, understanding of the policies, or position. On a scale of 1 to 100, that was about 400 times off the register.

Unless you show us in advance, there is no way anyone can tell what it is you are talking about. The topic reflects the references. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Owl, I appreciate your sentiments about editing. But as I see it, January is able to successfully play on a general paranoia/suspicion people have about spiritual groups and though it may be unintentional, to just keep glued on the attack button is proving an effective strategy in blocking anyone from changing content, and if you or I do edit, he can revert, and we will just get told "it takes 2 to edit war". If other editors like Greame made bold edits (and I'm not suggesting he should) like removing the unreferenced allegations of sexual misconduct against the founder, they would soon know how much fun it is to edit here and why Vecrumba wrote "no sane person would edit here". In my opinion we need other independent editors who know enough about the content to realise it is substantially a projection of one editors unique psychology. Otherwise no one can tell who is telling the truth and who is lying. Due to work and family commitments I can't check the page every day - so there is also an aspect of 'the one with the most free time wins'.

If editors want to figure out who is telling the truth, they can ask themselves: what could be the motives of Januarythe18th, who knows Wiki policies quite well, to add content "immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram" without any supporting reference? (and to revert me when I deleted this). The entire content is being skewed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hodgkinson on p22 of the version I found I can preview on google books does note that the Anti-committee formed in 1938 accused the Om Mandali of immoral actions (specifically the leader) and her view it was a reaction to his support of women's celibacy. p19-20 note a personal animosity between an Anti leader as his wife had taken the vow. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, don't you think there is a difference between a reference stating that a claim was made by a person, and stating that the claim is actually true? No reference supports that claim to be true. It was made by people who, as you said, carried a heavy animosity towards the organization for social reasons. There was a legal case and the anti-comitee lost. There is no other mention about it except in the claim made by the anti-commitee. On what basis could you then consider sexual immorality by the leader to be a reliable fact? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point Graeme and a very important one which in my view is why the tags should stay. The original text of the article was "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram". This is clearly a skewed representation from the reference- can it be proven to be "verifiable"? The reference you quote is about accusations which surely were made but it also shows the genesis of such controversies which even exist today. The reference has many other interesting aspects about the organization which can make this article more balanced but they haven't been put in. This shows cherry picking and misrepresentation to make every accusation appear as being a "fact" about organization. Changeisconstant (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Truth" often depends on your point of view. Misplaced Pages requires that information is sourced to independent, reliable sources and if there's a question, that the information in the article states who said it. If other independent sources challenge the reliability of the claim, that's something that might be included. See also WP:WEIGHT. Ravensfire (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Ravensfire, "Truth" is very much about POV. What concerns me here is that an editor who is well aware of Wiki policies, has dropped out that something was an allegations, stated it as fact, and removed the surrounding context provided in the reference, completely changing 'the flavour' of the comments. These are not the motives of someone who is genuinely engaged in building an encyclopedic article on the BK's, which was exactly what Vecrumba picked up on, and described the article to Januarythe18th as an "uneasy aggregate of he said/she said when it comes to the legitimacy of BK as a religious movement. It's not very readable and needs a good deal of work. I appreciate you're invested in machinations, as I've already indicated, they are irrelevant". Danh108 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought following Raven's point on WP:Weight: What percentage of the reference text actually describes odd controversies? (10%? 5%?), and why is "Early History" and "Expansion" carefully choosing only the controversies from the references and carefully ignoring everything else? Is that encyclopedic? Is that due weight?

Also following Raven's point: "Who said it"? Is the reference saying that so and so controversy happened, or is it just stating that a third person claimed it, in just one single line or paragraph? And why that paragraphs or phrases were specifically chosen to compose the whole article? Why does the article follow the rule: "What's odd is in, what's nice is out?" Is that encyclopedic? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

With regards the immorality issue, it comes up in a number of references and is most clearly documented in the "Panchayat" reference which is based on court affidavits. If you accept, we can go into details of the witness statements to establish the degrees of immorality, e.g. the breast rubbing, the half naked bathing, the young Om Radhe sitting on the married founder's lap being fed titbits mouth to mouth. I think even by today's standards if a cult leader was to be engaging in such activities, it would be considered immoral.

The problem you are having with the objectivity of the article is on a personal level. You've been indoctrinated into believing in a hagiographic version of the history your religion, are being too highly defensive of it, and are simply intent on whitewashing this topic to match your religion's PR.

It's called a "belief disconfirmation paradigm", a sort of cognitive dissonance. If you don't know what that means, please look it up and consider it.

That's why it's too much to demand that we become involved into a point by point wrangle over each and every point yet again, and it is insincere of you not to show us your sandbox version. Much of the argument on this page is disingenuous.

Danh108, explaining why a tagteam of Brahma Kumaris editors has suddenly appeared and, without any Misplaced Pages experience or commitment been able to dive straight into making complex accusations and so on, I asked you to deny that BK followers are being centrally encouraged and coordinated off wiki.

You have not done so. Do I accept that as an admission? --Januarythe18th (talk)

I don't think you explaining in detail what kind of immoral accusation is being made helps you any better to prove they are reliable fact. They were a clam made by the anti-commitee in a case that was lost. There is no other mention of the things like "breast rubbing" or whatever other kind of sexual misconduct by the founder. No reference states it happened, instead it states the claim was made in a single lost case. Do you have a reference that says it happened? Yes or no? If a reference says "John Smith claimed he was abducted by aliens", is the reference stating a) John Smith said something or b) he was indeed abducted by aliens? Picking up "he said" "she said" from small excerpts from the references and presenting as main facts in the article - is that due weight or encyclopedic at all? Is it ok to present "she said in a single lost case and no other mention whatsoever", as fact, while the facts stated by most references, are ignored? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

January, Vecrumba advised me not to crap on protesting my innocence as it's a sign of guilt on Wiki. So I have stopped - you are welcome to reread my user page. I stand by the statements I have made there. I have a lot of respect for the community service I see the BK's doing here in Australia, and the 'on the ground reality' of this organisation bears no resemblance to the article you have crafted. I'm sorry you have some sort of grievance against the organisation there in the UK, but your motive in creating this article is NOT to present an encyclopedic view of the organisation. And what is your motive in detailing the allegations on the talk page? I presume it is your usual strategy of deflecting everyone's attention away from you.

So why would someone who knows all the rules be intentionally skewing references? And do dedicate this much time to the article...the editor must have some personal investment that is motivating them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Greame, I do concede I must have overlooked the partial supporting comments you have found. I'm not sure if this reference has been added later without me noticing or I just missed it. However my claim above is overstated and would be better phrased as 'substantial misrepresentation of a reference', rather than 'no reference'. My apologiesDanh108 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who is saying the truth, ad-hominem from both sides is distracting from content. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines. As Graeme suggested in the "non-content thread", let's leave personal exchanges for somewhere else, not the talk page. Focusing on encyclopedic arguments on content is the hope we have to get to any result. It has been difficult to achieve and let's treat this constructive discussion that is going on with care, not burning it with personal statements. Most important for me right now is to hear the opinion of Graeme and Raven, as experienced users who understand the principles of WP:Weight and WP:Reliability. Do they think "immoral intimate behaviour", based on a single claim, by the losing side of a legal dispute, and never mentioned anywhere else, is a reliable fact? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Danh108, the BKs at your local centre may or may not do "community service", whatever that might mean. Unfortunately, it does not appear notable enough for any academic to have quantified it or documented it. I am not sure how notable any "community service" would be.

I think we confront a dissonance in your own mind between how you see your religion in your locality, against how the world sees your religion. The Misplaced Pages has to look at it as a whole and from a world point of view. For the most part, it is an Indian religion and practised in a far more fundamentalistic manner (this is address by a number of academics).

Brahma Kumarism is clearly differentiated from other religions by its extreme beliefs (the 5000 year Cycle and End of the World etc), which are accurately documented on the page, its demanding lifestyle, and the controversies it raises.

Again, for your own sake and benefit, this is why accepting to develop a sandbox version would help you, as much as us, see what it is you are trying to achieve because until you do, we have no idea what it is you are really talking about and I am starting to think that neither do you. You are reacting at an emotional level. (When I wrote 'you' above, I meant it in the collective form)

GreyWinterOwl, your comments are not even true, your understanding of legal process is non-existence, and your knowledge of the history incomplete (there was no "case" to fail, you refer to an official investigation). The immorality issue is raised in numerous references, including papers of the time, any one of which is sufficient. You yourself are attempting to bias opinion, e.g. in interview and on the record, Om Radhe admits to the lap sitting, kissing and other activities. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have written before, one of the BK tagteam's deliberate strategies has always been to engage and use less formed third parties due to the likelihood that they will first turn to references which others BKs themselves have already doctored, or pickled to match their own official PR, e.g. 'Peace and Purity' by Hodgkinson, Liz or 'Understanding the Brahma Kumaris' by Whaling, Frank. In such cases we have to stringently cross reference them with non-BK sources to gain a more neutral or objective view.

At first blush, both Hodgkinson and Whaling might appear to independent and reliable sources, and they are for general or non-controversial information, however, under close scrutiny they fail in other areas. Caution is also required where the academic is also an adherent and prone to bias or having been misled themselves, e.g. Ramsay or Nagel. This is why a deeper knowledge of all the sources and their background is required, e.g. Hodgkinson was the wife of the primary BKWSU PR man in the West and a part-time follower. Her account is hagiographic.

A typical example of this is the founder age, which is a source of great controversy within the religion that has spilled onto these pages. As with Janki Kirpalani being "the most stable mind in the world", they claimed falsely for decades that Lekhrak Kirpalani was "60 years old in 1936" when in fact he was only 52 and all the academics trusted what they were told. An uninformed third party might turn to those now out of date sources and the BK will have successful create a conflict around such an issue.

We know now from a birth certificate he was 52. We also know that the reason for the conflict is that in their mediumistic messages it says the original "chariot of god" was 60 years old, which excludes Kirpalani, and that the PBKs or AIVV claims that this is evidence of another earlier and more true medium in the religion, Kirpalani's business partner, as documented in Walliss. (Even to this day, the religion still falsifies his age in their official publications ).

This is an example of why the BKs cannot be trusted, and why they are so deeply effected by the dissonance between what their trusted leaders tell them, and reality. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You did not address my argument, instead tried to invalidate it from personal speculation about me (ad-hominem). Sitting on lap and kissing (not in the mouth) was said by Om Radhe as a relation there was towards Lekhraj as a father. Calling it "immoral" is purely arbitrary and judgmental. Om Radhe denied all the claims considered immoral and won the legal case. If you have some evidence that proves the reliability of "immoral intimate behavior", please present them, instead of only claiming they exist. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, there was no "case" to win.

As an experiment, you suggest sitting a 19 year old girl on the lap of a married 50 year old man who is not a relative and have him put his hand on her lap, kiss her and feed her food from his mouth to hers in India today, never mind India of the 1930s, and see what moral reaction you get. It sounds like Sai Baba "raising the kundalini" of the young boys all over again. Old men bathing in the same tank as young women would clearly be considered immoral in India even today. So was Kirpalani's defiance of his caste and community's marriage laws. I could go on, but it's so blatantly obvious. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Bathing in the same tank" is part of the anti-commitee claims, not Om Radhe's. "Sounds like" is not a valid argument. Whether it is called "case" or "official investigation", the anti-commitee lost it. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I say it once more, politely, purely to point out that a) you don't understand the legal system you are referring to, b) you have been indoctrinated into a false history and promoting it, and c) to demonstrate that you don't listen to what is being said to you when it is right. There as no case to win or lose. It was a tribunal. Kirpalani was not accused of any crime but civil offences. ::::: The Om Mandli had legal restrictions placed on it and then, in essence, skipped town to Karachi to avoid further attention. I am not suggesting the following for inclusion in the topic but clearly many of the characteristics of the Brahma Kumaris have arisen from such external criticisms, e.g. the separation of males and females which only due to the influence of concerned members of bhaibund.

Your use of the vernacular and pejorative term "anti-" party rather than its proper title betrays your own prejudices. On the Misplaced Pages, we would tend towards proper titles.

I am sorry, I am still smarting from your accusation of me being a "pollutant" and being reported for helping you understand basic formatting, for which you have not apologised, and so I find it hard to take your POV seriously. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have just taken a closer look to the document we are talking about. I just now realized it's a self-published book by the Anti-Committee itself. That classifies it as WP:NOTRS and WP:SELFPUBLISH right away. It's unverifiable, plus, the only place it's available is the anti-bk site brahmakumaris.info. It doesn't even stop there: The whole book is typed by brahmakumaris.info as well. So forget the reliability of even what it states as Om Radhe's words. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

GreyWinterOwl, which document/source are you specifically referring to as being from the Anti-committee? It may be Not Reliable in general but it probably is verifiable (since the text can be checked) and remember that for accounting for a organization's opinions about itself or others it may be reliable: eg for saying that " described Y as ....". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Graeme. I am referring to "A reply to is this Justice", you can download it from brahmakumaris.info. That's what Jan18 claims to be the justification for "immoral intimate behavior". Please note that at WP:NOTRS, it says "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." (emphasis mine). You may also find the following links helpful: , .

The original book, if it exists, is virtually unobtainable and I believe there is no route for an independent editor to verify the accuracy of the book supposedly reproduced on brahmakumaris.info. But even if it was possible to verify, it can't be used in controversial points as the links and WP:NOTRS point out. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The transcription is what is available - personally I think the rather rabid tone of some of the text illustrates what a "stir" the Om Mandli caused. The text is though selective - I presume the authors felt as it was a counterblast to an Om Mandli text their opponents had already had their say. I have no problem with careful use and appropriate attribution. The book/pamphlet they were responding to is Is this Justice?:

Being an Account of the Founding of the Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and Their Suppression by Application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 Om Radhe 1939. That is available as a large pdf of the scanned pages. Which I have added to the Further reading section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Graeme that such transcription be used here. As per other references as well Om Mandli indeed caused a lot of stir. Imagine married women having little say in society in 1930s taking on celibacy and denying sex to men who were away for weeks for business on their return? However, what I would request Greame is to also have a look at the use of "immoral and intimate behaviour of the founder" in the original text of the article and whether an accusation can be stated to be a fact as has been the trend in this article. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, whether or not some uses may be justifiable, I hope you agree that to use it in controversial points (such as "immoral intimate behavior") would be inappropriate as per WP:NOTRS. Right now we have no reliable source that can justify that excerpt (which is in other words "sexual abuse"). It's a very serious claim, and where is the reliable source that justifies it? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Graeme, unfortunately, I have to respectfully disagree with adding the anti-committee book as reference. WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:NOTRS say clearly that a non-reliable reference can only be used as information about itself and as long as it's non-controversial and do not make extraordinary claims about others. The anti-committee book fails in all those requisites. It's non-reliable, self-published, controversial, directed to another organization negatively, makes extraordinary claims and, until the opposite is proven, the text itself is unverifiable. Not to mention brahmakumaris.info is a primary source, also focused on controversies and makes extraordinary claims of its own. Graeme, I respect your great experience and your work but I would like to escalate this reference to the reliable sources noticeboard, I'll be doing it a few hours later. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's what I said - that it is reliable for some things not others. It would be useful if the brahmakumaris.info had a pdf of the scans rather than a transcript I did edit the article text to use the phrase "accused of" which is borne out by the Anti committee's tract but currently the accusations listed in the article do not include "intimate". Since the person in question is deceased WP:BLP does not apply. I don't think it would be inappropriate to include that they were accused of something provided it was made clear who was doing the accusing, and the outcome of the accusations but which accusations go beyond the pale would be more to do with "undue" rather than the impartiality of those making the accusation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the content, what I'm not so sure is adding the book as link. Being a controversial book by nature, and containing exceptional claims (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), plus being currently unverifiable, I think it might be inappropriate to link it inside the article.

About the history in general, it's currently a selection of accusations "he said", "she said" and says little about the neutral aspects of history as a NRM. Beyond that being "undue" as you said, I was wondering if some or most of the accusations would be more appropriate in "controversies" section instead of history. But in my opinion we could first take from reliable, secondary references the most important historical aspects before moving what is out of place. I have some secondary books and will see if I read them the next few days. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Past controversies are best introduced in the historical narrative so that they appear in context. In some articles a separate section or even subpage for a long-standing issues with a lot of content (eg Nestle and milk powder would make sense). A bullet point list of items is never as satisfactory as running text so it would make sense to group related items together if possible into a couple of paragraphs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but there is a difference between what a secondary source says as fact, and claims made by someone, not by the source itself. They have different weights. Anyway, maybe better to first introduce neutral and reliable facts in the history first, to later think about which controversial points are reliable and which are just "he said", "she said". I'm reading secondary books and later will post my thoughts on the content.

Have you decided about the link to the anti-committee book? Do you agree it's not appropriate or better to ask RS noticeboard? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but this entire argument is so disingenuous I am not going to engage very deeply with it.

The book in question is in a number of university and national libraries. The BKWSU itself has copies (and has suppress copies from the public domain). It is composed primary as records of court affidavits and the original legal papers also still exist if anyone wants to check their veracity. This all adds to its credibility.

GreyWinterOwl, you clearly do not understand what "primary source" or verifiability means by Misplaced Pages terms. I am sorry but given the strength of your passion, its bias, and you lack of experience on the Misplaced Pages, your arguments do not have very much credibility.

Go and edit more widely on the Misplaced Pages, interact with the Wikipedian community. Come to understand how things work around here. This is not the BKWSU. Different rules apply. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You did not address any of my arguments, Jan18 GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. You don't have enough experience on the Misplaced Pages to understand its policies and values and what you have done in your short time here demonstrates something extremely suspicious about your involvement, and that your own value are so far outside those of the Misplaced Pages that they do not fit here.

Specifically, I am speaking of accusing of another Wikipedian of "polluting" a topic (by answering a technical talk page question) and how with only three very minor and utterly erroneous edits to your record, you are able to construct complex 3 administration complaints, and threaten a 4th.

From a Misplaced Pages point of view, that is just so wrong that I am entirely within my rights not to get sucked into your pointless arguments.

The correct answer is, a) you need more experience more widely, and b) you BK people as a whole need to develop your experiences in sandbox environments before making a mess and consuming time and energy in the mainspace.

The fact you cannot understand or accept that that is the correct answer underlines how much you don't know about the Misplaced Pages. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All of that is just ad-hominem. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines. I'm here to discuss content. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Walliss

Graeme,

re your comments on sociology, Walliss did actual publish or present purely on the BKWSU separately from his book. From memory, there is actually a paper also quoted so be careful not to mix the two. You've chosen to quote from the publishers blurb, is it really necessary? The book is clearly about the BKs and not social theory. For example, I could write a Marxist critique of the Brahma Kumaris but that would not mean I was writing about Marxism. I think it's best to keep it simple.

I also think "most notable" should stick. Arguably, although there are other splinters, they are the only notable one in English language references although others do very briefly appear in obscure Hindi references.

For your information, John Wallis is a senior lecturer and director of the Centre for Millennialism Studies.

(Excuse me if I don't thank you for your more painstaking detailed work tidying up reference but I would not want it to appear that I was sucking up to you in a sycophantic manner). --Januarythe18th (talk)

The material came from the author's own foreword to the book, not the "publishers blurb". The references did not state that the group was the "most notable" which is the claim the text made. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Which edition are you using, the Indian or the British? Mine does not have a foreword and the two have different page numbers. Regarding "may", the references I see quickly relating to the "failed prophecies" are

"In addition there is the tension engendered between this negotiation and the critique of the University provided by the Advance Party and – at both the institutional and individual level – the methods utilised to discredit, marginalise or even deny the existence of the latter schismatic group. Likewise, within the Advance Party one finds the ongoing (re)interpretation and elaboration of Raja Yoga to suit their own purposes as well as, I would argue, an ongoing attempt to rationalise and spiritualise a series of failed prophecies", and

"In the first instance, the Advance Party claim that when the destruction did not materialize...many Brahmins left the because their hopes were dashed. Those who stayed had their faith reduced by half. They sacrificed their lives in this godly institution, left their families and invested all their wealth in this cause. How they go and where they go? They no choice but to stay because they were dependent on the institution for their bread and butter.

Next, they claim that any mention of the prophecy was removed from the murlis, becoming ‘hidden from those who came after 1976’, and members ‘were told that this was a test of faith’."

Around page 110. We probably don't need the name Walliss repeated 3 times or even to quote him directly. The comments stand on their own. --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

History page

It's worth mentioning for the sake of new and inexperienced editors that certain compromises have had to be made for the sake of keeping the topic short.

What would be most logical and best would be if the main page on the religion acted as a gateway summary to other pages where specifics could be developed, e.g. Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices (which you are strangely giving no attention to). The other obvious contenders could be History of Brahma Kumarism (as per History of Christianity), Brahma Kumaris controversies (as per Scientology controversies) and so on.

One of the reasons I state without any fear of contradiction or censur is that on the talk pages in the past other members of your religion's tagteam have obstructed the development of these, in short creating the problem you are now complaining about.

This is why I say the BKs are being disingenuous.

Although I expect we will still face the same dissonance between the hagiographic PR version you have been indoctrinated into and an objective view, unless you can admit you have been indoctrinated into one and move beyond it to accept the worldview, I would suggest the best way forward would be if a sandbox version of the History of Brahma Kumarism is also developed.

However, I don't expect you will because I don't think your intentions here are to improve and develop the Misplaced Pages in any way at all, as proven by your lack of commitment to other articles and wasting of everyone's time, but rather that you are on some kind of damage limitation media control campaign for your religion.

Please prove me wrong. --Januarythe18th (talk)

Given the size of the article at the moment - and that there is dispute about content - moving stuff off to other pages risks content forking and yet more drama about what goes into the sub pages and how a summary of those appears in the main article. If you are concerned about the length of the article, I would suggest hiding some of those huge quotes in the references 1) because they don't aid readability 2) overquoting is borderline copyright infringeing (since the text is being repeated but not commented on)

And I don't think repeating the sandbox idea everytime is getting anywhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The space occupied by references is more than the article! Well actually the main article is not that long and there is no point in digressing to other pages as highlighted by Graeme. Even for simple changes where there is general consensus, one editor is adamant to keep control on this article, imagine how messy it will be with edit warring going on for 4-5 of linked pages. Best is to resolve the dispute on the main article. So far all editors including both more experienced and neutral ones have advised to improve this article and rejected the sandbox idea so J18 I hope you come out of the endless repetitions and focus on resolving dispute. Changeisconstant (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Answering Graeme, and I hope you can take this serious and as a neutral, objective appraisal.

The problem this page has suffered for a long is exactly the problem it is suffering at present, and this is the reason why, as you correctly point out, it is so over referenced.

That problem is that adherents of the religion have been indoctrinated into highly revised and hagiographic version of their own religion, a religion which is additionally conflicted between the public face it presents and its actual beliefs (this is mentioned in a number of academic references listed). Every detailed point has had to have been argued over and supported by those lengthy independent references as the BKs have fought to suppress a more detailed, objective view and turn it into a bland, superficial and inaccurate advert. This has been going on for years.

The page is detailed. The facts on it are correct. In any normal topic area it would be perfectly reasonable to develop a number of sub-pages to go into more detail and I do not think that the efforts of a tagteam should stop that. Their values are different from those of the Misplaced Pages. They have actually offered nothing to benefit the Misplaced Pages nor its readers and have only, for years, wastefully consumed time and energy which might be spent elsewhere.

I have no idea what remedy might exist for them?

I am trying to do the most reasonable thing which is to say, "just show us what you want" and we will see how it fits in. Show us in a sandbox and we can considerate it. It would be nice if they did. It would help them see what it is they want.

They are never going to get away from the fact that the Misplaced Pages does allow for things like controversies to be reported. Like the Scientologists etc, they just have to accept that it is beyond their organisation's IT and PR teams control. --Januarythe18th (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an anti-religion or anti-cult website just as much as it's not an advertising platform. It's an encyclopedia based on reliability and due weight. Not a sensationalist broadcasting of only controversial information. If reliable sources directly describe something, and it's due weight, then whether you think it's "PR" or whatever, doesn't matter. Saying that, just proves you have a non-neutral POV. Positive information never was and never will be, forbidden in wikipedia. All we have to ask is: "Is it reliable?" and "Is it due weight?" GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Independent experience/report

It might interest some other editors to read what one guest blogged after a weekend retreat: http://mymacandcoffee.com/2013/08/27/one-of-the-coolest-experiences-to-remember/

I would suggest the real dissonance being referred to is better attributed elsewhere. I personally don't live in text books, but I respect that the reason for verifiable third party referencing is to try and prevent people doing what Januarythe18th is doing here. And Greame, if you want some interesting reading, try the page archives and you will soon see why a sock was filed - once you've had your head in this page a while like you have, it becomes easier to join the dots - the tone, the sandbox perseverations, the constant attacking and conspiracy theories, along with brainwashing/indoctrination accusations....I mean, civility got chucked out the window about 3 days ago. For myself, I'm just trying to respond to the dislike with peace, to not get reduced to the same conduct, yet to try and keep the page going in a healthy direction (yes, for the latter point, I am failing miserably as the talk page has fallen in the gutter. I am sorry for this). Wishing people a good weekend! The working week has now finished here in Oz :-) Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that meets WP:RS? No, really, that's a serious question. Ravensfire (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as forming part of the article Ravensfire. However I did think it was wise to post something in response to the comments about "how the rest of the world sees the BK's". As I have been mistakenly pigeon-holed as a "follower" of a cult which exists only in Januarythe18ths mind and his cherry picked article, I thought it more credible to google for something independent. Most of the content on this talk page is going to struggle with WP:RS.

Ravensfire, how can you tell if an editor is an admin or not? And have we done what Rybec suggested when he posted: Could the maintenance tags at the top of the article be enclosed in {{multiple issues}} please? —rybec 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)? I appreciate your question. Regards. Danh108 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's soapboxing and I probably should have just hatted it. I frankly don't care about how some random blog views something w/ regards to a Misplaced Pages article and here you shouldn't either. You posted the utter antithesis of a reliable source. You should hold it up as something NOT to include or consult. Did I read it? No. Why? It does nothing to help the article here. Nothing. Of course, given the track record of this talk page of late it's perfectly fitting though.

For admins, one place is here, put in the user name to start the list at their name.

The "purity" issue within a historical and cultural context

I've just revert and clarified the cause of the initial opposition to the Brahma Kumaris on the basis of the early references and would like to clarify for non-BK editors who perhaps do not have an understanding of India traditions.

This clarification is not a justification of the edits and so I will not accept any WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or other accusations. It is just a small footnote in the discussion to introduce the values and customs of the culture from which the cult arose for those who have no introduction to it. It does however explain at length why the article is written as it is and why their multiple reversions by IP editors are reverted, e.g.

The BKWSU has considerably revised its history in order to present a facade to the world and promote the values it wants its adherents to follow and others to see as is its wont to do as much as any other religion (I am not criticising that here).

Therefore, it has accused its opponents claiming that they were bad because they were opposing the BKs "purity". Indeed, at the time, they accused their individual opponents as being devils or kans (a Hindu satan) and insulting just about every other authority in India at that time.

However, this is not a truthful account of what actually happened.

What actually inflamed the situation were two events that underlined an attitude that went beyond reasonable. The first was that their founder removed his married daughter from his in-law family whilst discarding her child with them. The in-law family being the head family (mukhi) of the local caste leaders or local government (panchayat). The second was he married a second daughter outside of the caste/their influence.

Beyond the simple offence of abandoning a child and removing its mother, perhaps why this was such a great offence needs explaining. In the Sind at that time and in the jatis in question, a marriage was not a simple single event. It was a contract between families that continued before, during and after the actual event. Therefore if it was not enough to remove a daughter and abandon a child, it was also the breaking of a contract and a flagrant challenge to the caste leaders of which Kirpalani, along with many personal insults, was doing. In the text I also mentioned that he then went to challenge their authority again by marrying a second daughter outside.

The Brahma Kumari leaders have deliberately suppressed and even destroyed its original teachings, history and other documentation in an effort to hide them and indoctrinated its followers into a highly whitewashed version. However, actual facts are clear from the what is left of them in public records and libraries beyond their control.

This offence was made much worse because Kirpalani was, in essence, nouveaux riche from a lower position in society using his wealthy to marry into the highest possible levels of his society; and then turned around to insult them all and behave highly erratically.

In addition, at the same time, he started claiming he was literally god (specifically the gods Krishna and Brahma) and that the women that he enculted were his gopis lovers or worshippers. The events we are discussing of Kirpalani taking baths with his half naked followers and being intimate with them were re-enactments of the bhakti stories of Krishna and the gopis.

A strange older male taking baths with non-relatives would be unthinkable even in India today. It would cause an uproar.

I relate and emphasis these things merely to give an overview to individuals who perhaps are not aware of Indian values and traditions.

The BKs have then re-written their history to claim that Kirpalani was not God but that God possessed him and started to speak through him in 1936. This is clearly not true. There was no mention of God Shiva in the Brahma Kumaris at all until the late 1950s. They claim that non-BKs have attacked them because they were devils (kans) attacking God. This is not true. They were dealing with a man who thought he was God Krishna and was living out religious fantasies, e.g. the fight between Krishna (Kirpalani) who then killed Kans, his brother-in-law the caste leader (Mukhi).

it is also clear from the references that the early Brahma Kumari had a different concept of purity. They believed anything they did was pure and free from karma as they were with their god Krishna. Their behaviour included intimacies, the mixing of the sexes and activities that would be unacceptable in the religion today, as it would be in Hindu society as a whole. Therefore while we might not agree with those traditional Hindu cultural values, the reactions toward Kirpalani and his cult were reasonable and understandable, e.g. in another event his leading female consort was driving a bus of young children whilst being unqualified to do so, had a serious accident in which one child lost an arm and the cult then were to cover it up from parents.

The Brahma Kumari adherents will fight tooth and nail to claim the world opposed them because they are now celibate (note change in tense) and this celibacy makes them superior. They will fight tooth and nail because they want the world to think think about them. They are not taught their actual history but heavily indoctrinated into a false one.

In short, they are attempting to re-write history and institute a re-written history as the "official" history and this is what is going on on this page. They are attempting to exploit sincere non-adherents lack of knowledge of them and their history, and Hindu culture behind a barrage of complaints, accusation, confusing arguments and edit warfare. --Januarythe18th (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, and just because you said it, all of that magically becomes encyclopedic. Tell me more. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It my understanding of Hindu culture and values is incorrect, or I have misrepresented the original verifiable sources, then please correct it. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is shifting the burden of proof. I can't disprove what you said just as much as I can't disprove Jesus bathed with the apostles in the same bathtub. Who makes the claim must be able to prove it with reliable sources. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are not incapable of understanding why the Om Mandli scandalized their neighbours. But you do have to be careful to phrase it to make it clear why because modern-day readers - many of which will not be from the Indian sub-continent and most will not be of the Hindu faith - may have differing values. (Westerners may think that taking a daughter back into the family would be the right thing to do, or that society of that area at that time treated women as chattels.) And that context is largely missing from the article. Your last edit is also a bit garbled - " further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family". Did you mean "...when the founder challenged the authority of the local leaders of his caste during the marriage of one of his daughters and by taking back a second daughter from her husband whilst leaving her child with his family"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you understand what I am trying to say, Graeme. Hindu values would appear almost directly opposite to modern Western values and without understanding them, one is unable to understand what all the fuss was about.

This gets back to a point made earlier about the difference between 'history' and 'origins', and how separate topics, e.g. History of Brahma Kumarism would allow for better clarification of these things.

My feeling is the BKs don't want separate topics, not because they would be the cause of additional conflicts, but because they don't want detailed discussion of their history, philosophy and lifestyles which their habit is to hide from outsiders until they are sufficiently enculted leading to their being called secretive.

That might appear to be a criticism but, again, it is quite common in India. Many jati keep their habits to themselves and Indians know not to ask or challenge authority where westerners might.

Again, BKs, correct me if I am wrong.

In a traditional Sindi bhaiband marriage the families would be contracted to do certain things before, during and after the marriage. For example, one of the BK woman had a contract that said she should always be able to walk on carpeted floors. They were badly treated. They were treated like princesses, which is what "kumari" really infers, not daughters. It was unthinkable to take a young mother from an infant child never mind to join what was at the time an End of the World cult. Along with Kirpalani literally being Krishna, they believe WWII was a caused by and reflection of their community conflicts and the final Mahabharata war which was to be the Destruction of humanity.

The debacle was a storm in a tea cup between a handful of families in a highly cloistered community, two in particular; the Kirpalanis and the Mukhi's Mangharams.

There is another element which is also referred to with reference to the Om Mandli case almost bring down the Sind government, and that is the British influence. Congress and any of the Mukhis were anti-British and pro-Gandhi whereas Kirpalani was pro-British, one presumes because of his business dealings with their aristocracy, and anti-Gandhi and Congress. This could also fit into a more detailed account of the movements history.

This discussion also leads us to see where there are numerous helpful and related pages missing from the Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, for example, reader might just think Mukhi is an Indian name (as it is also) and not understand the significances. --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the community, unlike others, was strictly monogamous did not allow for re-marriage. Kirpalani would have known this and know how much conflict his actions were going to have. Therefore to copy the Brahma Kumaris own slight version of the events is to miss the full significances of them.

Therefore, no, the conflicts within the society were not caused by Kirpalani's demands that the women refrain from intimacies with other men except himself, many of whom spent long time abroad according to the nature of Sindi-work (another page which could be made), and his interference in their own private family matter. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are not justified as you are choosing to present accusations as facts and that is an abuse in my view - Misplaced Pages is not about sensationalism. Its important to have due weight. I will support my edit that you reverted with another key reference that is certainly more reliable than the anti-om-mandali book typed in by a anti-BK web-site. You yourself have used reference 16, in the Lede from Possessing knowledge: organizational boundaries among the Brahma Kumaris and here is what it says about same topic showing clearly the reason for the stir (pg 26-27)

The organization was vigorously persecuted during its first two decades on suspicion of taking advantage of the women in the movement and for disrupting families by encouraging their female members practice celibacy. In 1936, women's lives in South Asia were generally tightly controlled by fathers and husbands, particularly the lives of young women – by their fathers if as-yet unmarried, and by their husbands if wedded. The involvement of young women in the Brahma Kumaris movement was thus upsetting to the fathers or husbands because abstinence from sex, meat, liquor, tobacco, and other vices inspired young Brahma Kumaris women to refuse marriages that had been arranged for them, or to terminate conjugal relations with their husbands.

Is the above not more reliable, verifiable and suitable for this article compared to the garbled edits from J18??????

@Greame, much of this history is worthwhile for an article however, currently its heavily loaded by POV of J18 and I am not surprised at all that he has copied most of the recent text on this talk section from the lobbying group brahmakumaris.info. As much as there is conflict of interest if BKWSU takes control of this article, it is the same if proponents of brahmakumaris.info, an anti-BK web-site retain control of it like it has been for years. Unfortunately, what some editors fail to see here is that J18 is able to deflect attention from content everytime a genuine improvement attempt is made. Personally, I don't care what has been the past of this article and BKs or others' involvement. I have a focus towards neutrality respecing Misplaced Pages and am sure both BKs and Anti-BKs would stay away from disrupting it when neutrality is established and that is the longer term resolution we should seek. Therefore, Greame may I request that having gone through the two relevant references, you propose or edit what you think is the right way of showing this in the early history, intimate behaviours and so on? I will abstain from editing further today hopefully receiving your feedback Changeisconstant (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd drop making insults in bold text, it's likely to go more against you than me.

I've corresponded with Richard Musselwhite and the only sources he used were those from the organization itself which are clearly referenced in his paper. He was unaware of the earlier history. Therefore, in essence, you are quote someone else to quote yourselves.

Musselwhite's paper is not historical. He only includes a very brief summary. The game changer in the history is the recent discover of documents, correspondence and published works from the 1930s through to the 1950s making public much of which the Brahma Kumari leadership has suppressed secretively. The majority of these are perfectly acceptable as verifiable resources.

On the Misplaced Pages, some onus is placed upon you to go and verify those sources yourself. We can tell you what they are. You can ask us for specific quotes. But you have to go to the library if that is what it takes.

I suggest you start by asking your own leaders, as I am sure they have their own copies hidden away somewhere, and by asking why they falsified so much of their history to outsiders and kept so much hidden, even from their donors, until it was revealed by others.

Neutrality does not exclude controversial elements. The article is detailed, well referenced and as fair and objective as one can be to religion which believes God speaks to them in person through an old lady, dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago, and all of time fits into an identically repeating 5,000 years cycle.

(I am not ridiculing you here but those are statement of facts, as are references to multiple failed predictions of Destruction. I made the effort to give a reasonably intelligent introduction to the Sindi social mores of the 1930s and all you are doing is ignoring it and wanting to dollop on another layer of whitewash. If you want, I can give you an example of a non-neutral so you can make a comparison, but perhaps I ought save that for Uncyclopedia). --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You basically expect every editor here to believe that your research is more reliable than secondary sources. Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works. See WP:Exceptional. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Immoral intimate behavior" was considered unsupported on Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I asked the admins on Reliable Sources Noticeboard , about the book by the Anti-Committee. An admin gave the advice that, as the book is not a secondary, reliable source, and no secondary, reliable sources support any sexual misconduct by Lekhraj, he sees no reason for "immoral, intimate behavior" to stay. May I remind that WP:Exceptional says multiple high quality sources are required to support an exceptional claim, specially a controversial one. No high quality, reliable or secondary source, at all, supports a sexual misconduct by Lekhraj, therefore, as per the advice from the admin John Carter, I am removing those words from the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is highly appreciated GWO, however please look at the other sources like the one from Richard (University of Carolina) as the main stir was caused by Celibacy and without mentioning that, the information that Om Mandali was just encouraging women to leave the families is still a bit misleading. Anyhow, "immoral and intimate" behaviour has no place in this article clearly so thats a welcome change. Changeisconstant (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

CIC, may I suggest that you explain the change you want to be made, and most important it must be based on reliable, secondary sources, having in mind due weight, so we can see if we find a more contextualized way of describing that part of the early history. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I had made the edit earlier with this proposed change "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because many young married Sindhi women attended his ashram and were being encouraged to take vows of celibacy. Om Mandali was accused of breaking up families and encouraging married women to leave their husbands and families. In addition, the Om Mandali was accused of encouraging minors to leave or disobey their families". This is well supported by two other references and . I have explained the second one already above on the talk page. Two quotes from Lawrence:

1. It is not clear when celibacy became one of Lekhraj’s teachings, but it was apparently very early in his prophetic career; what is clear is that this tenet provoked an immense uproar. Husbands would return from long stays abroad only to discover that their wives had made vows of chastity and wished their homes into “temples”.

2. These and similar confrontations created great and painful disruptions in many families. The result was a savage reaction. Husbands and their families frequently responded with beatings, wife expulsions and lawsuits for the reinstatement of conjugal rights. Changeisconstant (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now, I have no objection to your suggestion. BTW, Where can I read the source you mentioned - Richard (University of Carolina)? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please click on ref- 41 in my note above and it will open- you can even download it as pdf. What you will find interesting about this is that there are many fascinating facts relevant to this article which are ofcourse left out by our friendly editor :-) Changeisconstant (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of strands - January18th has also given the challenge to the authority of local caste leaders, and the pretensions to godhood (sacrilegious) as well as the accusations of other types of behaviour contrary to the social mores of that culture. These should all be addressed in the edit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As of now, I think rest of the text that follows my proposed edit doesn't need changed and already addresses this as per below:

"The situation was further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family. In addition, the Om Mandali was accused of encouraging minors to leave or disobey their families. Kripalani claimed that he was the Hindu god Krishna reincarnated. The group was accused of being a cult and putting individuals into a trance by way of hypnotic or occult influences"

However, while Januray18th claims the above, the referenced anti-om-mandali book contradicts this on pg5. It shows that Anti-om-mandali actually didn't accept that the stir was caused by these marriages rather it quotes anti-om-mandali as follows "It was not the "personal differences" with Bhai Lekhraj of "some" important Members of the Bhaibund Community that led to an agitation being started against this teachings but the harmful teachings of Bhai Lekhraj followed by girls and grown up ladies, who in their respective positions in their families as daughters and wives took to abnormal courses of conduct: marriageable daughters declining to get married and married wives refusing to live with their husbands without any justification whatsoever; that led to the differences of their important Members with Bhai Lekhraj".

Any views based on this? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just something to bear in mind, but if the self titled (not labelled "anti" by the BK's as earlier suggested) "Anti-Om Mandali Committee" report is considered reliable enough to use, then presumably the compilation it is responding to, "Is this Justice" (prepared by Om Mandli) must also be able to be used. This will be a bit tricky as the 2 resources don't have much agreed content. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Graeme's point of Lekhraj considering himself to be God as "sacrilege": In India, it's very common for any guru to refer to himself as God - simply because in hinduism, the belief that everyone is God (Omnipresence) is normal and many mantras actually mean "I am God". The Om Mandli, in it's initial years, had the belief that everyone is God, and in India that's not unusual, so the reaction from society didn't come from there. By what I read from the reliable sources so far, it was rather the celibacy practiced by the girls and they refusing marriages arranged by their parents, that caused the reaction from society - specially husbands and parents.

Also, regarding sources, my suggestion is that we take information from reliable and secondary sources, rather than the anti-committee book. I have some books in my computer, and to anyone interested, I can send those I have (if it's legal to do so). GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Admin comment on this, there was interest in this reference because of the transcripts of the newspapers towards the end of the anti-om-mandali book- obviously it will be very difficult to find them on-line anywhere else. Personally I don't think the reference needs to be ruled out completely but rather than picking out controversial points and presenting them to be true (like being done in this article currently); we could easily have something like this for general awareness- Om Radhe claimed that the situations was inflamed by (refer to "Is this Justice") .......while anti-om-mandali accused Om-mandali of .......(refer to Anti-Om-Mandali book). I think this may still be of interest in the early history section. This case afterall was a key event in the BKWSU history and talked about in multiple sources. Any thoughts? Changeisconstant (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your latest admin report, (what is it 4th or 5th?) was so biased, and factually incomplete and incorrect, that it lacks any credibility.

Although the Brahma Kumaris have done much to remove or destroy many copies of that book, copies still remain in archival libraries and private collections. I note you did not inform us of your latest report so the matter could not be decided after both sides gave their evidence.

Ask your own leaders for a copy from your "university". I have a copy and can upload a photographic version, what is the copyright law for India? It's almost 75 years old and might even be suitable for upload here.

It's mainly a collection of court records and other verifiable media of the day which are reliable sources.

I don't remember reading Lekhraj Kirpalani sexually abused young women, as you stated rather perversely and exaggeratedly. It was stated he was "intimate" with young women and the degree of intimacy and access to the young women, not only of him but other men in the Mandli, that arose strong feelings in the wider community. In court records, it is recorded that even his defenders, in one case his number two Radhi Pokardas Rajwani admitted it without reservation.

You stated (again) that someone "lost the legal case". This proves a certain doggedness to your obsession. Please allow me to state the facts, there was no court case to lose. You refer to an official tribunal. Remedies were applied to the Om Mandli and the issue subsided when Kirpalani skipped town to Karachi. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly to other false assertions and proposals you make. The early Om Mandli did not believe "everyone was god". Indeed they wrote that they and their guru were "superior to god". You're confusing God with gods and goddesses or deities which is a different matter as they claimed and still claim to be the reincarnation of Hindu deities. They believed their Kirpalani was God Krishna or Brahma in a practical sense (indeed they still do) not "as god" in the figurative sense.

This leads us to another problem. The Brahma Kumaris have heavily revision their philosophy and history, and purged older versions. Literally burying or destroying them. This is common knowledge now. In their current version, Kirpalani was not God, the author of the Gita, the Seed of Humanity etc, they claim that he was possessed by God in 1936 age 60 years old and acted as his spirit medium allowing God Shiva to speak through him until his death.

Most references have depended on the BKs' doctored version. In short, they have been deliberately deceived and misled by the Brahma Kumaris leadership about such matters who have wanted to make real an absolutely false version of their history. We cannot ignore this. Kirpalani was not 60. He was not the original spirit medium. There was no God Shiva in any of the early documents until after sometime 1955. The cult still hides, secretively, how and when the alleged incarnation of the new god actually happened.

All this raises problems of the credibility of BK sources. In short, they have none. Sources BK adherents have been indoctrinated into believing are provenly false.

What we have going on on this page is a continuation of all that. On one hand, attempts as media control and purging of "impure" or "polluted" knowledge or individuals. On the other hand, heavily indoctrinated individuals being confronted by reality, and their most intimate faith based beliefs challenged. Individuals who are, in essence, recruiters for the religion and promoters of this false version.

It's not in my nature to waste others time by making endless admin reports, however, I think that until the organization itself takes responsibility for its past falsehoods, and clarities the actual facts to its adherents, they are not really suitable as editors on this WIkipedia topic. It's just too difficult for them to be objective and neutral (and tiresome for the rest of us to deal with). --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan18 offered no argument to why an exceptional controversial claim from a single non-reliable, self-published source should, contrary to wikipedia policies and arbitration case, be stated as fact. You just use ad-hominem and expect everything you say to magically be accepted as fact. You obviously want the article to be just a sensationalist display of everything negative you can find anywhere being said about Brahma Kumaris. Well, it already is, just don't blame anyone for seeing the obvious and proposing changes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the above quotes from J18 is verbatim reproduction of typical claims from anti-BK lobbying group brahmakumaris.info and his POV. J18 mentions that BK sources are not credible and all the references used BK doctored references therefore what are you trying to say? That only the parts of the references cherrypicked by J18 are credible? Or only what you pick from Brahmakumaris info quotes are reliable. Remember Misplaced Pages is not about Truth, its about verifiability. On one end you say this article is well referenced, on the other hand you say they are not reliable. Cherry picking is very obvious on this article from what you are choosing to present from references and has been sunstantiated on talk page by many examples hence the justification of tag. I will re-insert this. Changeisconstant (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In short, your exaggerated bias is doing you no favors. What you portray as a "self-published book" is actually a report by a respective committee of the local government, a committee headed by the leader of the local government. Government reports would be considered verifiable.

Your strategy here is an attempt to exploit the lack of background knowledge of third parties, few of whom are likely to have a working knowledge of Pre-WWII India or Sindhi society, see Panchayati raj, to cause conflict or distraction in order to gain some kind of advantage to push your own religion's point of view. A religion which seemingly has a habit of portray any concerned individuals or critical and revisionist movements within it as "anti-parties" for the last 70 years.

The proper title of the sub-committee is the "Om Mandli Bhaibund Committee" which was headed by the local Mukhi and his daughter, a justice of peace. The local representative of the government of India. We should refer to it by its formal title not exceptionally prejudicial ones. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Tag

Dahn, I believe when Rybec suggested the multiple issues tag, it had the objective of listing inside the tag what specifically are the issues, right? I see no sense in placing the tag without informing what exactly are the issues. See here: , it explains how to list the issues inside the tag, otherwise I suggest reverting to the tags themselves. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct- We had three tags which were generally approved by consensus here so those three issues need to be listed within multiple issues tag. At the least, we meed the neutrality and cherry picking issues clearly mentioned based on the current situation. I hope Danh108 you are making this change? Changeisconstant (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If I misunderstood, by all means revert me/make the change. I asked about it above, but no one commented - but it was a bit hidden in the sea of comments, and not directly related to the title - under where I posted that blog link that got such a humorous response from Raven and J18. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Danh, it seems CIC inserted the issues on the tag, now it's ok. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I see what you mean...didn't know you could do like that. Thanks Chico for sorting it out. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lifestyle

Under Lifestyle section of current article, there is a quote "Only having other Brahma Kumari adherents as companions as opposed to non-BKs given over to worldly pleasures known as bhogis." Can anyone help with the actual quote in the reference used from Lawrence's book? I am not able to locate it. Thank you. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

'Brahmakumari' raped for four years at Ishwariya Vishwavidyalaya in Patna

This looks valid for inclusion in the controversy section.

Can anyone provide a better reference from more reliable print media in India, and updates?

Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PATNA: County's one of the most well-known "Godly University", which offers courses that focus on the benefits of moral and spiritual approaches to life was defamed on Monday. In a shocking incident, a 22-year-old spiritual leader Brahma Kumari was allegedly raped for four years by a sewak on the pretext of marriage at the famous Brahmakumaris Ishwariya Vishwavidyalaya here.

Sewak Lallan has been accused of raping the spiritual leader. The shameful incident came to light on Monday when the victim along with members of Prem Youth organisation reached Mahila Police station and reported the matter. The victim alleged that she was not the only Brahmakumari to have faced the sexual assault, but there were also many other, who were going through the shameful act. Moreover, the brahmakumari was also threatened of dire consequences by the sewak. She informed that she had reported about the matter to Brahmakumari Anju, who heads the Fatuha located University but to no avail.

Whereas, Brahmakumari rubbished the allegations on Monday. "All the allegations are false," adding, "The 22-year old was accused of misconduct and expelled from the University sometime back."

Notably, Brahmakumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU)is a well known spiritual value based educational institution that has gained global acceptance and unique international recognition. One of the most famous faces of Brahmakumari Sisters, "Brahmakumari Shivani" has given many speeches about 'Art of Joyful Living' at several reputed institutes including the Indian Institute of Management (IIM).

The question is whether this is a common practice or an uncommon practice and whether it comes from the way the BKWSU operates or not. Newspapers print abuse stories about other organisations but in each case the question is - is it one-bad-apple or institutional? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be me not understanding, but I'm not used to seeing encyclopedia's that are an agglomeration of newspaper articles....it seems more like trying to drum up a bit of controversy. It's actually quite amazing to me how few reported/verifiable issues there other given the size of the organisation.

January, perhaps the Court case the Owl is referring to is the application by the Mandali to the Judicial Commissioner of Sind (High Court Jurisdiction), 21st November 1938. It was in response to yet another Court case - that one taken by the 'anti-party' against the Mandali and heard at District Court level (pg126). Feel welcome to retract your comment: You stated (again) that someone "lost the legal case". This proves a certain doggedness to your obsession. Please allow me to state the facts, there was no court case to lose.

Even if editors don't share the same beliefs, I think it's possible to interact in a civil way, without these kinds of slurs.

As I understand this High Court decision found that the District Magistrate had no legal basis for making an order to ban the Mandali from meeting for 6 months. I think the Tribunal matter January is referring too then took place later i.e. if you lose in Court, the next step is political agitation. The government appointment Tribunal commenced gathering information in March 1939.

I can't help but appreciate one irony: The advocacy group January is a devotee/adherent of was successful in keeping the bk domain name on the basis of arguments or free speech and association, which were the basis of the Mandali's arguments both in Court and in the legislative assembly. Regards Danh108 (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also refer to "Misplaced Pages is not a journal of current news" . It reflects Greame's question as When editing Misplaced Pages to reflect current news, always ask yourself if you are adding something truly encyclopedic?? Changeisconstant (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep on topic in each section. Frankly, you do not have enough experience of the Misplaced Pages to wikilawyer around. You don't even know the difference between an essay and a policy. The Misplaced Pages is a font of current news and is updated immediately by volunteers as new details are released.

The rape controversy has now reach a national level is being covered by the Times of India, India's newspaper of record.

Both the rape and abortions have been confirmed by medical examination. The Brahma Kumaris have moved on from denial, cover up and accusing the victim to admitting there were problems. --Januarythe18th (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions and seem to be in a bit of rush on this. As far as I can see, it is still reported by Paper's local edition in Patna so not sure how you call this a national controversy! On the other hand, there are many articles and praise of Brahma kumaris for some of their initiatives in national media. Should we then add all of them to activities and recognitions- am sure you have no problems with it Januarythe18th? One example is the recent inter-faith initiative that was praised by President of India.

Januarythe18th seems to be interested in sensationalism and I will prove this by this revert today from J18 on Line 776 . Januarythe18th, please explain this revert and prove its accurate by the reference you have used for this. You have never answered my question whether you understand Hindi by the way? Can you prove us wrong on this as even word sex is not used throughtout the source you have used? If you need help in understanding hindi, please use the talk page before reverting edits. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

There have been concerns expressed above regarding encyclopedia articles that seem to be collections of newspaper and other periodicals. There are at least a few reference books of fairly high regard which have at least some reasonable content relating to this topic. One is Religions of the World edited by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann, and another is Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. I'm not sure how long the article in the first named work is, or how current the content in the second is, but they are encyclopedic articles, and could not unreasonably be seen as being among the better indicators regarding what content to include in our own. Looking over the second source, I regret to say that the five paragraph long article in the 6th edition, the one I have, lists six sources, all of which are published by the BK themselves. They would clearly be useful for matters of "official positions" and the like, and this article probably does need substantial material on that, but they would be less useful in providing really independent coverage from outside sources. This book, if anyone has access to it, might be at least a reasonable independent source, as might this one and this one. If no one has access to them, let me know with a message on my uer talk page, where I'll probably see it quicker, and I can see what I can do about getting some of them. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This point has really clarified something for me - when there are good quality resources available, why has so much reliance been placed on less credible ones?

The result is that rather than giving a broad encyclopedic overview of the topic, the article keeps rushing into minute detail and ultimately fails to be either a PhD or a good encyclopedia article. In my opinion it would be good to try and achieve the latter, with less focus on what someone aptly described as the rabid (Greame?) historical accounts. Thanks John Carter. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter, its a pity that despite having such good sources, the article is still unbalanced and far from Misplaced Pages standards. It appears that by cherry-picking, sensationalism is being attempted here. I could see from the highly regarded references like "Religions of the world" how some of the significant aspects have been downplayed in the article. As an example, the role of women- Only few other spiritual organizations (not that I know of) would have been led by a group of women and it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia in the Lede. John, the challenge here is that all attempts to improve this article even by taking neutral and highly regarded references get reverted. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is under ArbCom probation, as per the template at the top of the page. If problems like Changeisconstant talks about above, regarding regular reversion, do regularly take place, then it might not be unreasonable to seek ArbCom to maybe clearly impose discretionary sanctions or some other measures to reduce such problematic conduct. Possibly the easiest way to do so would be to file a request for clarification at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, should anyone be so inclined. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

John, it's unreasonable of me to expect that you have followed the discussion on this page, but if you had, I might not have to to repeat this to you. You're demonstrating why in this case a certain amount of insight into the topic and its history is useful, and how easy it is to misdirect third parties.

Rather than Liz Hodgkinson being "a reasonable independent source", she was in fact the wife of the chief PR advisor and a frontman of the religion in the West and Worldwide, Neville Hodgkinson (see HIV/AIDS_denialism, and herself a devotee at the time. The book is a hagiographic rendition carefully guided and doctored by the Brahma Kumaris and used by them to promote themselves. Hodgkinson herself being a tabloid journalist. Therefore, I would have to add that in any controversial area we would have to lean towards truly independent and more academic or official (non-BK) sources. --Januarythe18th (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats a bit of redherring Januarythe18th. Firstly, John as shared a lot of references and not just Liz Hodgkinson's. Secondly, you have today made another revert here on line 291 using Liz's reference Changeisconstant (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

January, I think you need to be consistent. On the one hand you have relied on Ms Hodgkinson's book to partially support allegations which you restated as facts in the article. Now you are criticising her. Are you suggesting that you can just use it when it suits you? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what happened. You don't understand. Frankly speaking, on one hand, you all have so little experience on the Misplaced Pages it's not really possible for you to understand and, on the other hand, your intentions so insincere and disruptive that I do not feel duty bound to answer your every distraction.

You've been given perfectly good advice; show us the BKWSU's preferred sandbox version of this topic, develop other topics on the subject of your religion, gain more experience editing more widely on the Misplaced Pages where you do not have an extreme conflict of interest.

There's really nothing more I can say to you. That you ignore all such reasonable advice says more than your realise to others. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well we get the answer J18 that you don't have the answer therefore you come back with your usual repetitive redherring - so thanks for that. From Misplaced Pages point of view, lets focus on content and I would request you to explain another series of revert done by you today here . Here are the three reverts from you:

Revert 1: You removed the multiple issues tag which has ben explained and supported by consensus on talk page for the issues prevalent - lot of senior and even more experienced editors had no objection to it and supported it. My question is how can one editor keep reverting this - on what basis does one editor gets to control this article?

Revert 2: Role of women in the early history. I had used the same reference for the statement; that you have used elsewhere and despite that you have removed it- why?

Revert 3: You have re-inserted "sex related activities of centre leaders" that I had removed. Let me challenge you once again on this. This is just sensationalism and so against Misplaced Pages policies to misrepresent a source. You haven't considered it necessary to discuss this on Talk page presumably that you don't understand Hindi in the reference used. Let me state again- there is absolutely NO MENTION of even the word sex in the source you yourself has used. The source only says about allegations that the person knew some secret of the local centre that he complained to the higher authorities in BKWSU. On what basis you keep reverting this on daily basis ? Changeisconstant (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing Request

FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Canvassing_Request:_Brahma_Kumaris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal action against critics- an advert for Brahmakumaris.info?

In the current article- there is a separate section devoted to a domain name dispute which was resolved by National Arbitration Forum and the critical web-site brahmakumaris.info retained the domain name. Why is this a separate section when there is a controversies and criticism section? Only reason I can see is as per many examples on the talk page of this being an advert for lobbying group that controls this article- brahmakumaris.info web-site. There are even more serious accusations and controversies listed under controversies section! I am proposing to club this under controversies section. Any views on this? Changeisconstant (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally to moving to controversies - As far as I know, the case wasn't a legal action against critics, it was a dispute for the name of the site, "BrahmaKumaris". I wonder why would Brahma Kumaris dispute that name?

The only reason BK lost is because "Brahma Kumaris" is not a trademark, it's as simple as that. So labeling as "legal action against critics" is a judgmental statement and how much it's highlighted indicates that some owner of the site put it there, and is maintaining it there as an advert. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

personally I don't think the claim that it was an attempt to quash criticism - as the text reads and the section title implies - is supported by the reference. The reference would support a claim that the BKSWU tried to assert trademark rights over the domain name but is that any different than any other "brand" and domain names held by others. I would change the line to read something neutral like "in 2007, BKSWU tried to claim ownership of the domainname used by , an organization that is critical of the BKSWU but were unsuccessful" and move it into the controversies and criticism section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme- thats a valid point and your presence on this page is really helpful to improve neutrality of the article. This to me was the best example that substantiates the importance of the Cherry-picking tag that keeps getting reverted Changeisconstant (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My own view would be that this is even borderline for inclusion in the article at all - there is nothing much controversial or even interesting about domain name disputes - it's quasi-legal, an intellectual property issue, and usually about 85% of these matters are cyber-squatting (i.e. fairly mundane/boring). However given I think it means quite a lot to January (and may even be motivating his involvement in the article as his group probably were financially impacted as they elected to instruct lawyers in the matter), I won't object beyond this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the proceedings. The complainant Dr Hansa Raval of the BKWSU in Texas was using the case as a stepping stone in order to personally sue the respondents.

Please ask for clarification first (from those who have actually read the references), rather than making false or incomplete assertions based on assumptions. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think my edit covered all that adequately. But the proceedings say the claim "...was instituted as part of a personal campaign " and does not mention personally suing the respondents GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

January, please address the content - that would give clarification. There is only 1 respondent in the matter. I see NO evidence in the reference for your claim about Mr Allan being personally sued, nor do I see any support for the view that a domain name dispute can serve as a 'stepping stone' to other legal action - how?. In addition, if Mr Allan had broken law, then it would be perfectly sensible for Dr Raval or anyone else to 'sue him' - that is what the law is for.

Greame, perhaps you've found something I haven't. All I got was: "According to Respondent, it appears that this proceeding was instituted as part of a personal campaign by Sister Hansa Raval, who has objected to criticism of her medical claims". This doesn't appear to be any finding by the panel, rather it is simply a restatement of the respondents accusation, now being replicated by January. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Improving the expansion - suggested inclusion

While I don't want the discussion to get splintered or spread to thin, I wanted to get people's feedback about including the following piece in the expansion section:

In 1980 the Brahma Kumaris became affiliated to the United Nations Department of Public Relations as an Non-Governmental Organisation. The relationship grew closer in 1983 when the Brahma Kumaris achieved consultative status with the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations. The BKWSU now have a permanent office space in New York for their work at the United Nations.

This was added in August but got reverted...Regards Danh108 (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it is already included in the 'Activities and recognition' section. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As it has a date context, I would take the appropriate amount of text out of the Activities section so there isn't any duplication and put it under Expansion or just add the briefest mention under expansion of the date it gained recognition.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Adjectives in 1st sentence

I was asked to come have a look at this article as an outside observer/new set of eyes. I'll admit I know very little about the subject, but I know Misplaced Pages policy fairly well. One thing that struck me was the 1st sentence of the Lead section: "...is a secretive, renunciate, Millenarian new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin." This struck me as being extremely awkward, wordy, and inappropriate for a 1st sentence. Per WP:Lead, the Lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and the first sentence should be a very general statement. The current first sentence is incredibly specific, and I'm having a hard time finding support for it in the article. I only found one place where "secretive" was mentioned in the "criticism" section, and I couldn't find anything about "renunciate" (whatever that is). Might I suggest that the adjectives secretive, renunciate, and perhaps Millenarian be dropped from the 1st sentence? They can be moved elsewhere in the Lead if needed, or down to the body in the case of renunciate. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Om Mandli on Wikisource

To assist with discussion, I uploaded a copy of OM MANDLI: A true authenticated story about its activities being a reply to "Is This Justice?" (1940) by Bhaibund Om Mandli Committee.

Interesting to note, Greywinterowl, contradictory to your assertion about "losing the case", THE SIND OBSERVER dated Friday May 19th 1939 reported "The Om Mandli has been banned under Section 16th of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908". --Januarythe18th (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Janaury, I won't state as you did, that you haven't read the source. However, are the findings you are referring not arising from the government Tribunal? It is clear from the material I provided earlier that the 'Anti-party' did lose their case as per the reference I provided earlier - the whole judgement is produced, starting on page 126 of the document you uploaded. I am still interested to get your response to the incorrect statements you made earlier in this regard too. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. ...
2. Whaling, Frank (2012). Understanding the Brahma Kumaris. Dunedin Academic Press Ltd. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-903765-51-7.

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Yoga articles
• Unknown-importance Yoga articles
• Automatically assessed Yoga articles
• WikiProject Yoga articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Unknown-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles