Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [1][2], and accusing me of "polluting a clean page" [3] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia: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 [4] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [5]).

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 Wikipedia, 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 "[the book's author] 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: [6], [7].

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 Wikipedia terms. I am sorry but given the strength of your passion, its bias, and you lack of experience on the Wikipedia, your arguments do not have very much credibility.

Go and edit more widely on the Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. --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,[8] 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 [University] because their hopes were dashed. Those who stayed had their faith reduced by half. They [had] sacrificed their lives in this godly institution, left their families and invested all their wealth in this cause. How [could] they go and where [could] they go? They [had] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. They have actually offered nothing to benefit the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. [9] [10] [11]

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 [and it would be good to explaiin how he challenged them] 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 Wikipedia. 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 - Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

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".[119] 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 Wikipedia requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s [12].

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 [13], 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 [14].

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 Wikipedia: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 [15] 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 [16], 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 Wikipedia.

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 [17] (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 Wikipedia patronizing others when clearly you are violating the guidelines of Wikipedia at many junctures and most of this is your loaded POV and not even worth commenting. There is no hierarchy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)

"Immoral intimate behavior" was considered unsupported on Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I asked the admins on Reliable Sources Noticeboard [18], 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 [19] and [20]. 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. [19] In addition, the Om Mandali was accused of encouraging minors to leave or disobey their families.[24][25] 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 Wikipedia 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: [21], 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)

I found something finally on what the reference from Lawrence says about this quote

One's companions should be good company (satsang)that is, company of the soul aware (Yogis) as opposed to Bhogis, those given over to worldly pleasures.

The current text in the article is

"Only having other Brahma Kumari adherents as companions as opposed to non-BKs given over to worldly pleasures known as bhogis."

I am not sure if this is the right presentation as it sounds as if its a dictate and reference doesn't restrict company to BKs. I propose to change it to

Ahderrents are advised to have company of Yogis (soul conscious) as opposed to Bhogis (Given over to worldly pleasures).

How do other editors view this? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As you know, this comes from the religion's own teachings and "Maryadas" (or codes of conduct). The original states, "Good Company ... To enable easy transformation keep like company of your true Father and Friend as as much as possible, the company of knowledgeful and Yogi Souls".

We need to clarify the use of language here. In context, the use of the word "knowledgeful" and "yogi" clearly refer to one thing and one thing only, other Brahma Kumari Raj Yogis. It is not being used generally to mean association with other individuals doing, for example, Bikram Yoga. In context, the work yogi is being used for a BK raja yoga practitioner and bhogi for all non-BKs. BKs consider themselves and only themselves to be "knowledgeful" and all others to be ignorant (presumably of matters relating to their god and the soul).

But you know this, so please stop being disingenuous, wasting others time, and spreading your mess or carrying on conflicts as you did, here [22]. --Januarythe18th (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your argument above. I am inviting other editors for their views. From Wikipedia point of view we are only interested in what the reliable sources says and what is the best way to present it. It can not be mixed up with yours or my personal views about the subject. Reference is very clear about what Yogis and Bhogis mean and in my view the quote doesn't reflect that. If you want to justify your quote, please show us using secondary references. If consensus is to not change it, I will be happy to accept it. Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

'Brahmakumari' raped for four years at Ishwariya Vishwavidyalaya in Patna

This looks valid for inclusion in the controversy section.[23]

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 "Wikipedia is not a journal of current news" [24]. It reflects Greame's question as When editing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to wikilawyer around. You don't even know the difference between an essay and a policy. The Wikipedia 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. [25][26] --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 [27]. 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)

My view would be that this recent addition by January should be reverted for the reasons stated above. While Wiki can be a source of up-to-date information as January suggests, it is not a newspaper. The article itself present conflicting information as to how much this relates to the Brahma Kumaris i.e. members vs ex-members, betrothal between the parties in dispute etc. When the conflicting accounts are resolved and a Court has made rulings, I would think that newspaper report would be well worth including. I also think in the present climate it might be better to get other editors views rather than just chucking things into the article. Regards Danh108 (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If no one comments, I will just delete this insertion for the reasons given[28] in a few days time. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See below. The article and events are perfectly straightforward. The events happened at a BK centre and within the movement. Any rational person can see what is going on. It's the Brahma Kumaris who are deliberately attempted to confuse matters by inventing a 6 year rule retrospectively. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See what below? You have not addressed the concerns being raised by 3 other editors.

The source provided make no mention of where the alleged activity took place - is that your personal addition?

If it's rational, please actually explain/justify your position rather than inserting content without discussion/consensus. See WP:OWN.

If you achieve the above I'm happy to discuss reinserting. Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to January's argument above, there is a contradiction to this recent news in various news sources and event itself isn't clearly established yet whether this happened at the centre or outside between two followers. This particular source [29] states that the person accusing was not a BK centre-in-charge or surrendered sister which requires one to practice all the rules of the organization stringently for 5 years before one can surrender to live in a BK centre which she wasn't able to. Please note this talks about 5 years and not 6 years stated by other news source. Therefore its too early to put such unclear and contradictory news items in an encyclopedia. It has been re-inserted by January though. Changeisconstant (talk) 21:57, 9 October 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 [30] Changeisconstant (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out that the book Peace and Purity: The Story of Brahma Kumaris: A Spiritual Revolution, is one of only five sources included in the bibliography of the "Religions of the World" article on the BKs. The other sources included in their bibliography include Althea Church's Inner Space, published by the Brahma Kumaris in 1997, Ken O'Donnell's New Beginnings: Raja Yoga Meditation Course, published by the BKs, and John Walliss' The Brahma Kumaris as a 'Reflexive Tradition', published by Ashgate in 2001. FWIW, I also have gotten together at least a few articles from databanks on the topic of the BKs, and would be willing to forward them to anyone who requested them. The best way to do this would probably be to send me an e-mail through the "e-mail this user" button in the toolbox, which would give me the address to send the articles to. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 3 October 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia point of view, lets focus on content and I would request you to explain another series of revert done by you today here [31]. 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 Wikipedia 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)

Hi CiC, if you can read Hindi, I'm curious about the first item in the Controversies section (is this the section you are discussing above?). Is there some translation program others are supposed to be using to establish if this is yet another comment that is not properly supported by the reference provided...? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dahn108, Yes I can read and write Hindi as I have origins in India. I am talking about the first item on controversies section inserted recently by Januarythe18th using some old Hindi news paper sources from India and more specifically the third statement with this reference [32]. You can try pasting one paragraph each on Google translate[33]- while its not accurate it will show you clearly no mention of "sex related activities of centre leaders" that Jaunarythe18th has been stating in article from quite some time and he has reverted my changes two times without any justification or answer to my above questions. This article is about a father who has been protesting against authorities to help finding his lost son. He is accusing local BK centre for this and also saying that his son knew some secrets of local centre that he complained to the BKWSU authorities and blaming the the local centre to be involved in his son's kidnapping. I am happy to translate this in full but not sure what Wikipedia says about using other language resouces. Please note that Januarythe18th has recently put whole load of hindi newspaper references right at the top of controversies section while I would have thought such new additions should have been put right at the end. The edit summary used by J18 during last revert above was "misleading and unnecessary tag" while this claim was put back. What does all of this say? Changeisconstant (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Google will do the whole page in one go see here although it's not easy reading. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of where I am going to have to ask Changeisconstant for an example of good faith. The circumstances of the events are accurately reported. There are a number of reports about the events in Hindi. If the one given is not good enough for him, then please choose a different one.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand Jaunary. Another redherring? Are you saying that I need to find an appropriate reference to support your claim in the text of "sex related activities of centre leaders" because it wasn't supported by the reference you had used!!!!?? Is this how you call a Wikipedia article accurate which has been your claim on this article? Changeisconstant (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CIC and Greame - that's great. I think I must be reading that last post wrong CIC - I get the same meaning as you which makes no sense at all...January, can you clarify? Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)