Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 8

Archives
Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
late Nov 2006
December 2006
Late Dec 2006 - Feb 2007
March 2007 - June 2007
July 2007 - August 2007
Late August 2007
September 2007 - August 2009
August 2009 - March 2010
March 2010 - March 2012
March 2012 - March 2013
Current

Archived talk page

There haven't been any posts since early June so I thought now would be a good time to archive old discussions. Hope that's OK with everyone. Regards Bksimonb 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Only archive it when it is necessary due to its size.PEACETalkAbout 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any debate that the talk page wasn't too large?! I just also try to take care with live conversation threads because archiving can be a bit of a conversation-killer (literally;-)) if done without consideration. In the past when there have been live threads I have archived everything else except the conversations that seem to be active since within a week. Regards Bksimonb 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bksimonb for keeping up with this article maintenance. Certainly look forward to seeing further progress... Blessings, avyakt7 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of the article

I have uploaded a marked up version of the article to my userspace, here. I have identified what I am certain are multiple issues with the article as it stands. I would say the majority of the issues are quite clear-cut with maybe a few that need more discussion. I have tagged the main article with the issues I have identified and will start cleaning up the most obvious problems after about two days wait.

Why I created a separate page in userspace? Originally, it was to brief an advocate on what issues I saw in the article, however the advocate has had to take a long Wikibreak and the AMA, it seems, is no more. Also, plastering loads of stuff on the discussion page trying to describe exactly where it is in the article etc is messy and floods the discussion page. I thought a marked up version of the article was a much better way to communicate the reasoning.

I would appreciate discussion to take place here, not on the userspace document, to keep things clear and manageable.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

I take it the "red" sections are comments by you, or the mystery person that wrote you. I for one would fervently argue the point on monastic as being truthful and honest and still have other sources which I have yet to add. Personally, I can't think of meeting any practicing BK that said, "My s*x life has improved with Gyan". Yes, there are those that go to class and quickly fall off, those that say they are but are not, those that are "Holiday" BKs and I for one have more respect for those that tell the truth. I have no issues with you as I know you practice the beliefs, but find that skirting around this is simply wrong. Please, have the "Mystery Writer" provide a murli point, or an official edict from Mt. Abu, to add an amendment for non-practicing, non-surrendered BKs and I personally can attest that I will have it framed. For quick reference when needed or posting for others to reference.:-( Need I say more? I will copy the analysis, and get back with my point in bold. Does Barmy=nutty? PEACETalkAbout 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. The comment was more to do with the isolation aspect of a monastic life rather than just celibacy. Do you really think that I'm a monk?

Also, yes, barmy=nutty.Bksimonb 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

First, let me say there is nothing wrong with living like a monk, I fully respect monks. Now, since you asked if I thought you are a monk I will answer. As you know, I don't like to get personal. From a lokik (out here in the non-BK practising world) I would say yes, the life style is/could best be described as monk like. Now, a pretty bird once said, he lived in a palace of of Golden Gates, shinny, beautiful, with all the food it desired and had someone available to look after his needs with only a chirp. One day a child came along and told this pretty bird, "You have a lovely cage made of Gold". My point is, we may be in bliss and want to call it bliss, but the lokik world will still see it as monastic as it fits the definition. So, I would agree with the academics in their honest, description. Another term they banter about is tea totalers but monastic is clearly more descriptive and accurate given the diet, contact (otherwise I would have had you over for a home cooked dinner) and celibacy restrictions. So, I would say you are one "pretty little monastic bird"(I am told a rather "orthodox" one too, very respected too).PEACETalkAbout 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

well, well, well...BK Simon, you got a fan! I like that: "pretty little monastic bird," PLMB...however; are birds monastic?

I have a little link as well [1] Some of the requirements to be monastic accordingly are:

Seclusion and Religious vows. As a Bk, i do not remember that is my case. I am a free bird... (pretty or ugly, little or big does not matter; but free)for most the 9 to 5 thing and the 2.5 kids secludes them from enjoying traveling for example or knowing many people, they are secluded in their cubicle/office/ prison. On the other hand, i go where i want and

when i want. So much for seclusion. As far as religious vows, i do not remember making any sort of "promise." Celibacy "restrictions"??

That is only from a "lokik" perspective. From my perspective that is not a restriction. I do not feel is natural to me. It is sort of having the opportunity to go to a disco.

Some will do it and some will not. From the perspective of those who go to the disco; those who do not go are "restricted." From the perspective of those who do not go, those who disco all night long are just senseless.

So, when writing this article whose perspective is being represented? Something to think about... Blessings, avyakt7 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC

Hi avyakt7. Long time no see. Welcome back :-) Please remember to correctly indent your responses or indicate "(outdent)" if you feel the indenting has gotten too intense. Regards Bksimonb 06:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. Yes the lifestyle changes are often components of a monastic lifestyle but usually some kind of social withdrawal is the most key component from my own understand and having read the monasticism article. I can't comment on the first reference (Bartholomeusz, Tessa J.) as I don't have the book although it seems to be associated with the word "renunciate" but the second reference, Mikael Rothstein, refers to just the "inner members" being monastic or semi-monastic, rather than all members. I guess the reason the description jars with some of us BKs is that we strongly support the idea of remaining active in family and society and not just walking off into the jungle, up a mountain or to a monastery somewhere. Those that do live in centres are there to keep the wheels turning rather than specifically to retreat from society. If an academic has concluded that BKs are, in fact, monastic then, yes, that's a significant view, but since it is not a universally held view perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere other than the first paragraph and attributed. Out of interest, what other sources have described the BKs as "monastic"?

Well, I've never been called "Orthodox" before. I've been trying to puzzle what an orthodox BK might be. Old fashioned? Old-school values? Set in ways? Traditional? Anyway, I'll take it as the compliment that I believe it was intended as :-) And, yes, sorry about the dinner, errrm... but at least since you already know about BKs I don't need to invent any excuses! Being tea-total does mean that tea still is a possibility though...

Best regards Bksimonb 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcoming message, Bksimonb. I will be careful on keeping my indentation in check...like a bit of an "orthodox."... :-) Blessings,

avyakt7 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i looked as far as the first red bit where it talks about the date of birth of lekhraj...........the correct date is referenced in the Om Radhe book.....she is your "Mama" Simon and writing in the late 1930s when lekhraj was still live ,I think she knows better

also if you look in jagdish chander writings in the 70s , he fudges the issue talking about approximate "55 to 60 years of age" for the incarnation of shivbaba . its on page 154 kripalani was aged 54 in 1938

the age of kripalani was given on documents prepared for legal proceedings.........

you see the problems lies in that in the murlis , it says shiva incarnates when the chariot is 60 years old but om radhe and the om mandli folk prove he was younger

kripalani is also how it is spelt then too , but it is not big deal the two ways are interchangeable......its just a problem with the english translation of it

so , yes, we know the BKWSU edits and re-writes the murli and we know that they re-write their history

the problem we have here is that you younger Bks really dont know your own organisations history and are believing in the PR version.....that ignorance should not prejudice the article , you should go back to your seniors and demand the truth you cant expect to drive home the whitewashed version of bk history Green108 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that I don't know the real birthdate of Lekhraj Khubechand Kirpalani. I want to find that out.

Where shall I go?... To Wikipedia?? ... ;-)

Some say "the correct date is referenced in the Om Radhe book" why is that the correct date?

Or a more concise "approximate 55 to 60 years of age for the incarnation of shivbaba."

Then comes another "document" the "Murli." which claims that Kirpalani was 60 when Shivbaba incarnated...So, which document do I believe? and why?

and of course to top things off, "kripalani" is the same guy as "kirpalani" it is just a problem with the translation...(they couldn't get the right place for the 'r')

...but, it is no biggy...and then of course, the real problem being that younger Bks do not know the 'real' history...Does anyone know it? and most importantly, why do i have to believe in what someone says? where is the proof? Even in history the dates change as new evidence comes up and a group of "experts" decides about the "truth." Dates are not set in stone and then we just need to trust historians because there is no one else...it is about trusting the current evidence, knowing that it could change. IMHO, I agree with the red comments (a la Kirpalani) Wikipedia is about scholar sources, right? so what Wallis have to say about it? Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Green108. I am really sorry that you still appear not to have understood what Wikipedia is after this break. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i understand perfectly well what the Bkwsu are trying to use it for simon

with regards kripalani's age , i gave you a page number all you got to look at it . its not "original research" to copy a fact from a book

simon , just one honest question to you.........if you are a member of the Bkwsus core IT PR team , and tucked up nicely with sister jayanti and dadi janki in GCH...........why cant you access these books and documents from within the Bkwsu? what is their response to such a request? there must be others.its a simple question that really deserves a proper answer.........

btw , we all read how dadi janki was not the most stable mind in the world after 30 years of using it for pr.........in the om radhe book she is not even listed amongst the members in 1938 , still they say she was on the managing committee

why cant we depend on the Bkwsu for a single accurate history?Green108 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108, you seem to be making some sort of political point here. Perhaps a blog or forum might be a better outlet. I suggest you read WP:OR again very carefully. The above post indicates a lack of understanding in this area. Regards Bksimonb 06:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i asked an very important, honest question and you ignored it simon

one of the problems we have with you young Bks is that you come along and want to change the article to suit your current PR and you have not even read many of the reference........in short , you dont actually know the real history.......you only know the PR version

have you or can you access these original books and documents from within the Bkwsu? what is sister jayanti's and dadi janki's response to such a request?

it is impossible to enter into a discussion with you if you insist on ignoring them

i made a historical point. the article reflects the reality of the Bkwsu which is they have faked and re-written their history , many younger Bks dont know the truth of it........and consequently reporting of it is mixed.

look, you are a key member of the BKWSU Core Internet PR Team ,aren't you? and riveros some fanatical Bk follower that goes about posting about "the bombs being ready and they are going to be used" on public forums and faking ids to mess with this article..................this isnt PR for western Bks , we are trying to document the BKWSU in the whole

in that analysis of the article you try to discredit the original posters.......in 1949 there was no mention of Shiva, just God Brahma Green108 11:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "important" questions are not relevant to Wikipedia. If you want to discuss such things why don't you make an appointment visit us in person at GCH. We have already invited Ex-L/244 by email and are patiently awaiting his response. Please do not use Wikipedia to pursue an agenda. They just don't need it. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

this is where you are wrong..............if it is shown that you are refusing to actually read over the references you are criticising and check the citations given then it undercuts your credibility as a neutral contributor

it is utterly relevent to show what the intention of the Bkwsu is with this topic Green108 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are using primary sources in ways that Wikipedia's polices on WP:OR expressly forbid. It seems we are in deadlock here so I will invite a third opinion and start to escalate this. Bksimonb 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i disagree

i am trying to establish trust by giving the Bkwsu internet PR team a chance to be open and honest , to actually engage in discussion rather pull the rug from under other contributors feet

i am asking you a question , can you access these documents from within the Bkwsu and what is the response of the seniors to them because to me you appear to be ignoring them as they dont fit in your organisations aim to re-write this topic along the lines of current pr

that poster , dated 1949 ,clearly states Destruction within one year and as a matter or interest ,why is there no mention of shivbaba only Prajapati God Brahma?

Green108 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Monastic

To all: I removed the "or monastic" because the source was one sentence combined with IKSON:"The same appears to be the case with inner members of Brahma Kumaris which, like ISKCON, is a monastic or semi-monastic religious order"[2]. The citation that remains is academic, in goes into the area in detail on the Brahma Kumaris and doesn't compare/contrast nor add "appears" which is conjecture with no examples. I have ordered all his books and will look to see if he can prove his conjecture as posted on the website cited. As to the editor that claims he is not celibate and goes on to MT ABU, I guess he tells tall tales to get in or is celibate for six months prior, then falls off his stage. There are those that want to practice according to their beliefs in all religions, but when adjusting the beliefs to suit their life style, I do believe they are called "heretics". I have yet to meet a practicing BK yogi, that is not celibate and is off to the discos on the weekends. Please provide information on how someone can be a semi-yogi! PEACETalkAbout 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. OK Thank you. Do you have the exact words for the "spirit possession" bit because as it stands the into is quite misleading. Imagine reading the article for the first time and reading that these people teach a form of yoga that involves "spirit possession". I'm sure a lot of readers would immediately associate it with something like this! I certainly wouldn't want to meet a Raj Yogi like that at a disco. Maybe that's why I stopped going to discos. It also sounds like spirit possession is part of what you would be taught to do if you chose to learn BK-style Raj Yoga. Scary huh? I realise that Dadi Gulzar is technically "possessed" when the murlis are spoken but that's not "Raj Yoga", that's a particular role she alone is playing. Other trance messengers used to do that too, as noted later in the article, but that system stopped some time ago. Also, it is a custom in India to invoke departed relatives into trance medium priests so in an Indian context it isn't seen as that much of bizarre practice.

Channeling I can live with although it is still associated with bringing messages which is not what regular BKs do (trance messages are fetched while the body is inactive and so nothing is actually being "channeled" in that case).

To make the second para more representative, would you be open to something along the lines of, "It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga (not the classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[4]) and a study of messages brought via a medium." References aside, (we can easily find academic references to back up the process in a nutshell), do you agree that the sentence could be improved and if so how would you phrase it?

Maybe the editor in question doesn't visit Madhuban as a BK student. There are various spiritual, medical and other forums held there as well as the usual BK meetings.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Medium

Bksimonb, I think I fixed it, as it reads now, it is very clear that the primary function of the medium is to channel the murlis and information. So, no worries about thishttp://www.fromthebalcony.com/images/2005/exorcism_of_emily_rose_the/emilyrose03.jpg. I also included a section from another book which refers to communication between the living and the dead, but I think this one citation will suffice and no need to over do it.

• "New Religious Movements: challenge and response" Edited by Bryan Wilson (Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford) and Jamie Creswell (Director of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy European Centre), Contributors Eileen Barker, James Beckford, Anthony Bradney, Colin Campbell, George Chryssies, Peter Clarke, Paul Heelas, Massimo Introvigne, Lawrence Lilliston, Godeon Melton, Elizabeth Puttick, Gary Sherpherd, Colin Slee, Frank Usarski and Bryan Wilson. Pages 157-158, 1999, ISBN 0-415-20049-0
  • "However, as with sannyasins, Brahma Kumaris women become core members by being fully ‘surrendered’, and their prominence derives from their mediumistic capacities, channeling murlis (sermons) from their dead founder. As a result, ‘their power is veiled…through the device of possession. Women, even when they possess power, cannot be seen to wield it. Hence, the importance of spirit possession where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of a male spirit.”

• Theorising Religion: Classical And Contemporary Debates
  • "John Walliss is a lecturer in Sociology at Liverpool Hope University. He published works on several topics, including millenarianism within the Hindu New Religious Movement, the Brahma Kumaris; ‘fringe archaeology’; relationships between the living and the dead within contemporary Spiritualism."

Bksimonb Qoute: "It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga (not the classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[4]) and a study of messages brought via a medium."

• How is this:
  • Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya is a monastic, renunciate[1]Millenarian[2][3] new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin." END QOUTE

Current22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It teaches a form of meditation[1] called Raja Yoga (not the classical Raja Yoga as described by Patanjali[4]), involving spirit possession(women are the instruments or mouthpieces of the male spirit) [5] and mediumistic channelling.[6][7] The murlis (sermons) are received via Dadi Gulzar or Dadiji, currently their main medium. [8][9]

Please let me know what you think. I will look for the other books as well, but they may be more aligned with Walliss. PEACETalkAbout 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

one aspect we also covered in previous discussion was the mediumship or channelling of other spirits such as deceased leaders...this was covered by accepted referenceGreen108 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Starting new thread to invite User:Utcursch to comment. Bksimonb 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Did I miss the discussion on the tagging of the article by the BKs? Or was it just a unilateral action again?

I also disagree with Simon. Tagging the article with a huge tag like that is just another ploy on behalf of the BKs to try and devalue and discredit the article as it is.

There was no consensus sought about this. Simon, why did not you just make a template up that says, “The BKWSU doesn’t like this. Its does not fit in with our PR and marketing and it exposes facts we don’t like to tell non-BKs.”?

The problem is, as a leading member of the BKWSU’s “Internet PR Core Team on behalf of the RCOs”, as it is called, your vision is deeply biased. Most people think the article is fine. It is very well researched and referenced.

BTW, just to see how fair and even handed you are, do you think we can we mention the stuff about the Dadi Janki not being the “most stable mind in the World” - as was widely claimed - as one of the controversies? I would say that was a fairly serious abd continous deceit on behalf of the old girl and her followers.

Green108 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Most people think the article is fine." Really? Any proof? Best, avyakt7 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108. You are respectfully reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The tag is not applied by a vote or consensus but by the simple fact that it does not comply with Wikipedia's own policies for reasons which are far from subtle. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

simon , leave it out.............one post and you are back to your old tricks of trying to personalise things , wind folks up and act like some playground prefect

Green108. Well if I'm the "playground prefect" then I wonder what role you might be playing on the "playground"! I'm sorry if being reminded of some very important Wikipedia policies "winds folks up". If you were to drive on the wrong side of the road, keep mounting the kerb and knock over loads of "keep left" signs you might find people reciting the highway code to you a lot too. I'm not sure how you interpret this as "personalising things". To me, "personalising things" involves commenting on the other editors personal affiliations off-Wiki and misrepresenting them in a derogatory manner as per your previous posts.

Regards Bksimonb 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

lets discuss which tags would be best where.......imho , really , you have just chosen the biggest broadest possible tag you could find to try and discredit this topic............which is already ridiciulously over referenced for its real world importance .its a question of intention , this does nothing for the readers benefit and will inconveniece people using smaller screens and old pcs

btw , both you Bks still have not answered by other questions about whether you have actually read any of the citations we have offeredGreen108 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108. Each point in the tag relates to a problem found in the Article analysis I did. The tag does help the reader in that it warns them that they are reading a misleading article. It would be better to constructively address the problems with the article than to edit war over the tag or market it as some sort of conspiracy, as in, "try and discredit this topic". Perhaps the article is trying to discredit the BKWSU. Using phrases like "discrediting the article" is an indicator of feeling ownership to it. As is reverting just about any valid change that challenges it WP:OWN.

Also yes, I have read the sources. They are primary sources and are therefore unsuitable for drawing conclusions and doing so is considered original research WP:OR. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include something in the article to show that it has reliable, secondary sources. Particularly, controversial or novel claims that are different from established facts, especially those coming from reliable secondary sources, need extraordinary proof from a secondary source WP:REDFLAG. Primary sources just don't cut it.

An example of how a primary source is limited is like this, it is acceptable to say something like, "a leaflet, printed in 1988 by xyz org, claims the world is flat" but it is not acceptable to say, "xyz org thought the world was flat in 1988". Also the leaflet would have to have the actual words, "the world is flat", not something that just implies it like, "the radius of the world tends toward infinity".

Regards Bksimonb 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit

i just fixed a small typo made by a new user , the line is not exactly accurate according to gyan.......you know the Bk stuff about nuclear war , natural disasters , the continents sinking and only india being left for krishna to reincarnate in

i am not fussed by it the way it is just if you want accuracy then you want accuracy Green108 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor Update

Placed template stating a dispute. According to wikipedia custom made templates stating a discussion or/and dispute are valid.The article per say hasn't been changed, thus there is no reason to take the tag off, since it does not affect the article. The cycle started to repeat again, eh? Best, avyakt7 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User green108 reverted article tag. Left a friendly warning in his talk page[3] requesting proof of his statement. Will place template tag again. Best, avyakt7 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Riveros11 is a BK follower and member of their IT team

since he was shown in the dispute mentioned at the top of the page to have multiple sockpuppet accounts to try and gain control of the article and have other contributors banned his integrity is in doubt

your collective actions are causing an identical repeat of the previous case

please discuss proposed changes before you make themGreen108 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User Green108: Innocent until proven guilty. Did you know that? You are accusing me innecesarily and tarnishing my integrity. I have not been found guilty of anything, according to wiki rules. That is the game here. I haven't made any changes to the article. The tag in the article is to show any reader that there are some issues with the article which they need to be aware of. Please be reasonable. The proposed changes are here [4] Please read the "red" items and discuss about them here, hopefully with reliable sources to back up your claims. You have broken 3RR. I will not. Simple. Yes, things are repeating.. (it is a good time to review the cycle class...)hope you don't make the same mistakes... Best, avyakt7 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pratibha Patil talks to a Ghost

There has been widespread reporting in the media of this. The Indian president candidate Pratibha Patil has been to the Brahma Kumari headquarters to talk to their "ghost". The ghost apparently backed her campaign.

Should this not be reported here as a media controversy? If others agree, I will present the most reliable references.

I must say. Although I am not a member. I knew a family that lost a son to this group. They encouraged him to give up his studies. He gave them thousands of pounds. When he was in it, you could not talk him. He was very much like these other followers. I think they encourage fanaticism within their followers.

Faithinhumanity 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

yes , i agreeGreen108 19:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing reliable sources not references. You know, Mr. Studious Ph.D in Religious Studies said .. so and so... that sort of thing.. reliable sources, Got it? great!!! Best, avyakt7 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity,

As per the consensus here along with plenty of citations as requested:[5]

This has got to be the BEST example of VIP service.:-)PEACETalkAbout 05:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see this is already covered in the Pratibha Patil article and does not need to be covered here since the controversy is about something Pratibha Patil said, not the BKWSU itself. The BKWSU has had many VIP visitors over the years and the fact that they had another one visit does not merit article space.

This article does not need yet more negative-biased input right now no matter how it is sourced. It has serious WP:UNDUE issues that need to be resolved first. Can we please give that the priority it deserves.

Also, Faithinhumanity, your opinion and claim about the BKWSU is superfluous and sounds bogus. BKs are not taught to exclude their parents. From personal experience I can tell you that I am in regular contact with my parents and enjoy a very good relationship with them. I think you got the wrong group. Maybe you have been reading about cults. Also, I notice that you claimed in previous posts to be a Christian and yet you have only ever contributed to this one article. Why the narrow field of interest if you are neither a BK or an ex-BK? Why are all the additions you propose always negative? You don't have to answer, of coarse, but I am curious to know.

Regards Bksimonb 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I partially take back what I said about the Pratibha Patil issue being included. With all due credit to TalkAbout, it actually been presented in quite a neutral tone and doesn't really make the BKWSU look bad as such. So my question regarding whether it should be in the article still stands but I don't really feel so strongly about it if it stays. Regards Bksimonb 07:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Yes, the item is neutral, factual and an item of world value. As you know I am fascinated by the VIP contact and only very recently did I get information on the origins of VIP service and "MIKE". Yes, the concept had eluded me, but as you know I plug away, researching, keeping open to contacts within and on the outside. I personally think it should go under VIP service, if you would approve, as Pratibha Patil doesn't see it as negative and the current President Abdul Kalam also went to seek blessings too, as did Sonia Gandhi. So when put in that context, no it is not a negative at all, rather a positive for your organisation.

This is one area that I disagree with another editor on here, frequently, why hide the truth, simply present them as facts. I spent several thousand dollars on research material and now have a considerable BK library filled with most of the BK original material. See, there was no point in hiding the medium/channeling aspect of the faith, as it turns out that government officials in India like Pratibha Patil see it as a communication with the "Divine". So, as always, keep in mind that I am only presenting the facts and not doing this from a negative position. I must say she is by far a gutsy lady in that she simply came out and said it, stated her beliefs, her devotion and what she sees as "Divine Indication". So, she may well be the first female President since the last female leadership of Indira Gandhi.

So, would you be open to the idea of discussing "MIKE"? I would agree to place in the concept even with a {citation needed} tag, until it is documented else where by academics. Seeing that it took me several years to learn this, I think it has value. Please consider it.

I do thank you for being open to the collaborative process, perhaps that is what someone interpreted this as you having a "fan". In fact it is a simple mutual appreciation and respect, one that I hope will continue.PEACETalkAbout 16:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TalkAbout. I agree it was overall very positive for Pratibha Patil to make the statement. I just had a quick look at the history of her article and saw that it took some time for the report to become NPOV so I wasn't quite sure what to expect here. It seems the principle editor there is quite on-the-ball dealing with all the POV coming in from both parties and keeping it all in balance. BTW I just heard that the "opposition Hindu nationalists" are "conceding early defeat". So it looks like India now has it's first woman president :-)

I'm amazed at all the investment you are making in BK-related references. Is this just for Wikipedia? There seems to be an interest in BK history on all sides right now. I am actually quite pleased that it is all going to be documented, in every detail. There is quite an interesting dynamic going on right now from where I am seeing things (which in itself is an interesting vantage point). It appears to be a battle but actually everyone involved is thinking along the same lines.

I've no problem with the concept of "mikes" in principal but I'm not sure how we could document it without any secondary sources. Can you give me some further ideas on how to present this?

I think it's wonderful that it is possible to collaborate with people with opposing or different views. Wikipedia would be so boring if everyone just agreed with me all the time! Respect first, POV last is what I say :-)

Regards Bksimonb 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb,

Truth be told it is like having a political cousin, by association, not by choice. So, when served lemons, make lemonade. Currently, I am considering a degree in religion, and studying some thing else. I have a friend that is a sociologist and another, a writer to sort through all this in the future (may work on a book). I always try to be neutral in all things, if I wasn't neutral, I would cause someone great pain and so, I am always aware of this to a higher degree of awareness.

I also, am trying to collect information on the PBKs and have had some success, but it may require that I travel to India for the further documentation.

As, to "Mike", given the current developments with Pratibha Patil, I think it should be the article. As, mentioned, we could put a {citation needed} as other articles have, a notation in the talkpage and wait for someone to document it. My guess, is that it will once Pratibha Patil becomes President of India, as it will bare notation and someone will surely write a story as to the "Divine Indication" as it took place on February 16, the same day of her Nomination. So, I think that would be within policy and I am sure no one else will argue the point.PEACETalkAbout 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate for quite long enough. My feeling is that the Brahma Kumari members are quite clear in their intent.

Mr Simon, I am not alone. There are many individuals concerned about the spread of cults in our society through dishonest means. I know a family was broken apart by this group after the mother became involved with them.

Faithinhumanity 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity Please keep the discussion to the article, not the subject. It is not an intention or policy of the BKs to split up families or cause hurt.

Here is a challenge for you. If you really personally know of any aggrieved relatives, as you claim to, then ask them to email me via my talk page and I will see to it that it is received by the relevant coordinator who will attempt to address their concerns from there. Otherwise, please do not use Wikipedia as a platform for muck spreading WP:BATTLE. Thanks Bksimonb 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BK Ramesh sets up trust Lekhraj Kripalani dies day after he is shown

very interesting.....look at that! World_Renewal_Trust_Deed

ramesh shah started the world renewal trust in 16th january 1969 and lekhraj kripalani / kirpalani died the day after he was shown it from a heart break..........and to think that the BKs actually celebrate his death on january the 18th.

ok ,we have to have this in the article.........is it agreed as a reliable date?

this is perfectly sound evidence and imagine , the BKs have said all along they were run by women and here is proof that a man set up the trust and was a trustee from day oneGreen108 19:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. it is not agreed. Do you know what reliable sources are? Take a look at some of the "back issues" of this article. Probably October/November. It was explained at lenght what a reliable source constitutes. Waiting for your proof about "many people think the article is alright." Best, avyakt7 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108 This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. Also the document has been tagged with an inappropriate license. Fair-use? Possibly. But GFDL??? Also the edit summary contains significant opinion, conjecture and a quote from an unspecified source (presumably at channeled message courtesy of Mr.Dixit). Why are such primary documents being uploaded to Wikipedia anyway? This is not a document repository.Bksimonb 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor additions/deletions: wine, cheese and such

OK. I started adding some citations tags where citations are needed in the article. If those citations are not provided in a reasonable amount of time, ( A week sounds good to me...according to Jossi's previous suggestion) the contents under those citations will be deleted... so, that is 7/24/07... Best, avyakt7 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

what we need is for you to prove you have actually read any of the citations or reference...............to be honest , bro..........i think you have some sort of learning difficulty

we have been over this ground before.........every word does not need to have a citation beside it , every referenece does not need to be verbatim from its original source.what you flag up is referenced in the article, the bibliograpy etc, newspapers of note are adequate references

but then you are not interested are you ? so why pretend..............you are just going to attempt your Nazi BK re-write of history ,aren't you?

here we go again..........Bk simon is off complaining to the admins already trying to build up a case against me [6], [7] and Bk riveros is doing his bootcamp sergeant impersonation.........both of them ignoring any genuine input

how sadGreen108 03:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108. How sad indeed. You must understand that your behaviour has been disruptive and harmful both Wikipedia and beneficial to the BKWSU. I will now pursue all means possible to bring some kind of sanity back to this article. I am really sorry it has come to this. Bksimonb 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well it seems that ex-bro green108 finally want to talk with me.. wah, how fortunate! OK so you have your way of thinking and then we have wikipedia protocols. Unfortunately it seems to me that you do not understand what is a reliable source It is not what you think is "OK." It is what Wikipedia establishes as OK. how do you like my new role? It is all about roles, bro...you know. Best, avyakt7 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a little cleanup because the article was looking really ugly with all those unnecessary templates. I've removed unsourced statements (except a few, which are tagged with {{fact}} or {{page number}} and can be removed after some time if no source is provided). I've also trimmed down the "Controversies" section -- half the stuff mentioned in the section involved no controversy. Also, I've removed some original research, which was referenced, but the references didn't support the statements made.

In future, instead of tagging the article with so many tags, please consider using tags for relevant sections and statements. utcursch | talk 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi utcursch. Thank you so much for taking the time to work through this article. It's a huge improvement already. Appreciate your comments regarding tagging sections but when I did the article analysis I realised there would be so many tags. Maybe I could have split between the more pervasive problems at the top and the one-off issues in the text to get a balance.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch could you offer some of the specific quotation referred to e.g. Abbott, Elizabeth Hardy, Hardayal (1984)Green108 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific about which items you do not consider to be contentious?

Faithinhumanity 16:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

om mandli as a committee

a contributor has introduced the theory of om mandli being "a committee"

this is of course entirely wrong..........om mandli was "the gathering of souls" all 500 of them at its height , the management committee was chosen from amongst the om mandli members , its also difficult to see how this was the "nucleus" of the Bkwsu........it was the precusor , incidentally where is the evidence that Lekhraj handed over his wealth?

having been accused myself of original research to make such constructions goes too far

i also notice the introduction of very specific cultic language........for example , murli in the top paragraph and rasa lila in the early history Kripalani being referred to as "Dada" , so i suppose we are dealing with more BKWSU intervention here........

rasa lila is the real world is a folk dance , rasa lila to the Bks means that Lekhraj kripalani was krishna and the Bk followers were the gopis surrounding him.........all very unencyclopediac ,a sort of double language that only Bks might get

it is riduculous to suggest that "dancing" was a key component of Om Mandli......likewise "preached" Bhagavad Gita

so , no, i am afraid not.......we will have to revert some of that to neutral "lokik" languageGreen108 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record Utcursch had no prior communication that I know of with me or any other editor here and was responding to a "Request for comment" regarding the article. If he changed the name from "Kripalani" everywhere it was probably for a very good reason. All the most reliable secondary references refer to him by that name. It's what the community at the time referred to him as. From the readers point of view it is most useful to use the name the subject is most likely to be referred to as by the BKs and the majority of the literature about them. It might be useful to refer to his second name just once in the article but no more than that. It just makes reading it ugly otherwise. Your assessment of this as being "very cultic language" is extreme beyond belief. Sorry. It sounds as if you have a serious axe to grind WP:TEND. I see you elected to revert it without further discussion. Your editing style indicates a clear tendency to drive the article into a state where it conveys a negative impression on the reader.

"...it is riduculous to suggest that "dancing" was a key component of Om Mandli..." Actually dancing whilst in trance was quite a common occurrence at the begining according to Dadi Nirmal Shanta. (Adi Dev p.59)

I leave the rest for Utcursch to comment on.

Regards Bksimonb 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lekhraj did consititue a managing committee to which he transferred his fortune. As you (Green108) point out, the Om Mandali wasn't limited to this particular committee, so I've removed this particular sentence.

As about the evidence that Lekhraj handed over his wealth, please go through the source provided in the article: Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. James Clarke & Co. p. 172. ISBN 0718830067.

If the book is not available in your library, you can check out a snippet at Google Book Search:

http://books.google.com/books?q=A+History+of+Celibacy+lekhraj+personal+fortune

As for "Dada Lekhraj", it is not "cultic language" -- Lekhraj Kripalani is known as "Baba Brahma" among his followers, not "Dada Lekhraj". Kripalani was better known as "Dada Lekhraj", just like "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" was better known as "Mahatma Gandhi":

Google search:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dada+Lekhraj%22 (1520 results)
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Lekhraj+Kirpalani%22 (436 results)
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lekhraj+Kripalani%22 (305 results)

Google Book search:

• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Dada+Lekhraj%22 (30 results)
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Lekhraj+Kripalani%22 (1 result)
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Lekhraj+Kirpalani%22 (0 result)

As per the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), "Dada Lekhraj" is a more suitable name.

The reference for Ras Lila and preaching Bhagavad Gita is also provided in the article: Hardy, Hardayal (1984). Struggles and Sorrows: The Personal Testimony of a Chief Justice. Vikas Publishing House. p. 38. ISBN 0706925637.

Again, if you don't have access to a library with this book, you can view a snippet at Google Book Search:

http://books.google.com/books?q=Hardayal+Hardy+lekhraj+gita+ras+lila

If you feel that Dada Lekhraj's Ras Lila was something different, feel free to change the content after providing a reference. The Ras Lila page redirects to Ras Lila (dance), you might wish to turn the Ras Lila page into a disambiguation page.

Last but not the least, I would like to emphasize that I'm not personally involved with Brahma Kumaris. As the category on my user page points out, I am an Atheist. I edited this page only because I saw a huge cleanup template, consisting of nine issues. utcursch | talk 12:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

utcursch if you dont know the subject , and your chosen references contradict other references you should really join the discussion of major changes such as you have made

one of the big problems with the Bkwsu is that they have re-written their history considerably and many of the academics have referred only in passing to a PR version of their history

we see this particularly in the Bkwsu's own publications such as their biographies 'adi dev' for Lekhraj Kripalani and 'an unique experience' for vishwa ratan where they have re-written a fictionalised version of event which is contradicted by the hard evidence

now, beyond walliss's reference of their re-writing the channelled messages , i am avoiding emphasising this on the topic............but in our choice of academic references we need to use these as touch stones for reality............otherwise the topic will only be accused of being a pr job or an advertisement

looking at vishwa ratan's book , he has been completely dishonest about the creation of the poster and , broadly, the Bkwsu has written much of their early history out of the picture

i should mention to you that there is a vociferous dispute between the Bkwsu and a splinter group called the PBK AIVV that has resulted even in violence and mulitple banishment on behalf of the Bkwsu.........BK simon refers to this in passing (Mr Dixit)

i would like it noted have i nothing to do with this splinter group i have never met their leader not studied with them and do not even know the full reasons for the depth of emotions involved Green108 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The hotter the head, the more likely what it says has been cooked. Bksimonb 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108, you're free to feel make any changes to the article, if you can source them. Just make sure you avoid original research. E.g., in this edit, you accuse Brahma Kumaris of misandry, while the reference doesn't state anything about "misandry" -- it just states that the women hold the highest spiritual positions while men serve in subordinate positions. Similarly "a number of prophetic failures" is not controversy. utcursch | talk 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch. Most of those references would appear to be from BK's own websites. The recent news about an Indian politician meeting the ghost of the founder makes an imbalancing impact too. For example,

• http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070628/asp/frontpage/story_7987085.asp

References again taken from BK websites.

Faithinhumanity 19:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dada

as i pointed out to utcursch , Dada is not his name and so i am reverting.........look i appreciate that the Bks are going to revert anything i do as a matter of principle but to call someone dada lekhraj in indian is a bit like call some uncle in english

eg as the article on josef stalin is in his known name , rather than "Uncle Joe" its safe to say we should use real names rather than dadas, didiji and the likes which are subjective judgements which might be mistake by non-indians for being namesGreen108 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article on David Bowie. His real name is not David Bowie but David Robert Jones. However this is only mentioned once. The rest of the article refers to him by his stage name, not Jones, because that's how people know him. Bksimonb 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. and what is your real name green108? I know.. it is way easier to thrown the stone and hide the hand without revealing your name...so typical. Will revert on that note. Best, avyakt7 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108, I provided a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) in my previous comment. As per the guideline, the convention is to use the most common name of a person. E.g. "Mahatma Gandhi" was not the real name of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", but the article is located at Mahatma Gandhi, because that's what he was better known as. Similarly, the article on William Henry Gates III is located at Bill Gates. Besides, "Dada" is not "cultish language" (as you put it), so I don't see any reason for complaints regarding this issue. utcursch | talk 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's compromise on Dada and have both:Lekhraj Kripalani "Dada". please note that he article is Lekhraj Kripalani and that to an encyclopedia reader "Dada" without the name is confusing. Also, it would indicate that he is the one and only Dadaand consider that it means some thing totally different here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

So, I will go and place Lekhraj Kripalani "Dada" and if I make a mistake please correct it. Thanks and let's try and get along.PEACETalkAbout 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

lets get a grip.......the man's name was Lekhraj Kripalani , no talkabout dont confuse the issue even more that is worse as it is not even accurate from a Bk point of view.it is never used in that way

dada is an indian term ,the closest example we have would be "uncle"............it is not a name ,it is not a character or assumed personality like david bowie . as yet he does not have the status of Gandhi ,or even gates or bowie...........bill is a name , dada is a term of endearment.........so, the gandhi topic is not listen as bapuji , is it?

to his own community (non-BKs), he was known as "Bhai Lekhraj" . so a handful of closely related families called the man "uncle lekhraj" ( Dada Lekhrajbefore they started to think he was brahma incarnate)..............are you going to base a wikipedia article on that?

most readers are not indian , they will think Dada is his name......lets not confuse or mislead them Green108 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dada is not a name. It is either an art movement or a term of endearment from infatuated followers of the man. The founder's name is Lekhraj Kirapalani. The article does not need to be embelished with statements of faith.

212.126.146.163 13:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

the man's is Lekhraj Kripalani or Kirpalani if you wish , its time to grow up and accept that.

just because you two Bks think he is your baba, the wikipedia is no place for such talk . to say Dada Lekhraj is like calling for eg the president's father "Daddy Bush" . if we look eg at Papa Doc ,you see the topic is in his own real name

end of story........facts not faithGreen108 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Mary (mother of Jesus) is not named as listed as "Mother Mary". She is more well known. It looks as like an irrational attack on any edits you make. Even removing the good work on the references.

Faithinhumanity 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

you better be careful if you back me........the Bks are already lumping us together and you are being accused of being my meatpuppet by BK simonb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Green108

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

yes ,simon sometimes i forget to sign in or post from elsewhereGreen108 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget to post from a different account or post while logged out. I'm quite happy for others to know about it. Regards Bksimonb 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Faithinhumanity, I don't see how you can make a comparison to Mary Mother of Jesus. Her surname is not even known, at least it isn't listed in the Wikipedia article about her. You assessment of this being some kind of "irrational attack" also doesn't hold up. Utcursch has also made the assessment that we should follow the WP:COMMONNAME guideline and also identified what is clearly original research. Regards Bksimonb 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Om Shanti. The bhai has even put me on his list. Power to accommodate, a BK soul should not to make conflict with others in this manner. Bkangel 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdented) They did not have second names back then , so what about Papa Doc example? In the Bowie article, they use a mix for literary purposes but generally the second name bowie = kripalani/kirpalani

What on earth is the problem in calling the man by his name transliterated to either Kripalani or Kirpalani? really???

Dada is not a name , its means father. its like calling some politician "Daddy George" 20 times in his article

let's face it , you two are his followers and so for you it is an act of faith...He is your "Creator" and you think he is the father of humanity all the sites on the internet are either by his devotees or copying them

the rest of the world does not agree

additionally , you are trying to work up a case to remove me and you think by making up admin complaints , pushing me to 3RRs (actually dada is the new edit) and so on you might do so

I reverted the article back to the version which includes the properly laid out references and corrected punctuation and downplayed the dadas once is enough

I don't see any reason to removing proper references , a lot of work went into them...a little more is needed . both of you BKWSU followers are not still not being honest in your summariesGreen108 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108. I see you have done some fine work tidying up the references. Now stop mixing that with the contentious name-changing edits because it isn't anyone else's job to separate them so it will just continue being reverted.

"let's face it , you two are his followers and so for you it is an act of faith" - that's simply your POV and it does suggest a somewhat negative bias.

"the rest of the world does not agree" - well thank you kindly for being the official spokesperson for "rest of world".

Now let's look at a few other articles where the used name is different to their original name. Check out Sathya Sai Baba, for example. His original name is Sathyanarayana Raju. So should be called "Raju" for the rest of the article? Then there is Meher Baba, born Merwan Sheriar Irani, but is not called "Irani" for the rest of the article. These are probably the closest type of articles to compare with. The convention on Wikipedia is to call them by the name they are best known as. Certainly by the name they are referred to in the most reliable secondary sources, whatever your personal opinion of them may be. The secondary sources outweigh your POV.

If you are still unconvinced then, as Utcursch suggested [8] with regard to the birth date issue, you best follow the dispute resolution process.

Regards Bksimonb 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

tell me.......what is wrong with his real name? he was a great asset to the Kripalani clan and Sindis in general.

lekhraj kripalani was never as famous or influential as all the people mentioned above in their lifetimes , and is still not......the sai baba page is also a warzone between cult followers and non-followers

lekhrak kirpalani may be your Dada-Daddy but he had no wish to be sanctified or remembered........indeed ,the murlis say you should not even keep a picture of him and remembering him was bad

as regards the date of birth its verifiable...........first , we have om radhe, then we have the Chief Justice of India who was his legal counsel, in the mid-70s Bkwsu publicist jagdish chander confirmed it and so i find those quite convincing in a way that recent Bkwsu cover ups or publicity materials are not

i am sorry , i am not the sort to keep running to admins and expect them to my work for meGreen108 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Start of article

I would like to ask User:Utcursch for comments regarding the first few sentences of the article, particularly with regards to the use of the words "spirit possession". This can sound rather shocking and as it stands it reads as if it is part of the Raj Yoga meditation training. This is not the case. The reference for this description is from "New Religious Movements: challenge and response" and the relevent passage is quoted below.

The Brahma Kumaris present a similar pattern of a founder who favoured and promoted women, and has been run mainly by women since his death. In some respects the role reversal is more complete than in the Osho movement, since women are teachers as well as administrators, and there is a very clear doctrine on gender equality. They are concerned with women's issues and spiritual leadership. However, as with sannyasins, Brahma Kumaris women become core members by being fully `surrendered'; and their prominence derives from their mediumistic cababilities, channelling murlis (sermons) from their dead founder. As a result, `their power is veiled through the device of possession. Women, even when they; possess power, cannot be seen to wield it. Hence, the importance of spirit possession where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of a male spirit."

I would say that a theory is being presented and some of the statements made do not describe what actually happens, or at least present it in a misleading way. If this reference is used I propose it is used with attribution later in the article since I don't think that the first paragraph should aim to present such an odd view. To summarize, this is how things actually do work with regards to mediumship,

• There is only one appointed medium, Dadi Gulzar, who enters trance and is believed to channel a combination of the soul of Brahma Baba and of Shiv Baba (believed by BKs to be God) relate the murli by a process of direct body manifestation
• Brahma Baba channeled Shiv Baba whist still conscious and also able to chip-in with comments. This is the closest to the descriptions I have read of "spirit possession". Dadi Gulzar is believed to channel this double-act.
• There are a few trance messengers who bring back messages from the "subtle region" and relate them by memory, and not by having the organs taken over. This practice is restricted to a very few now. Prominence in the organisation is not related to ability to be mediums either by trance or "spirit possession". Not sure where that came from. Trance messages are not treated as being as reliable as the murlis and are understood to be coloured by the messenger's personality.
• Trance is considered separate from Raj Yoga and is discouraged as an aim due to the complications that can arise from messing with it.
• As far as I know, only BKs from a Hindu background know how to go into trance. Perhaps the custom is somewhat imported.

Please comment on how you see the first paragraph should go based on your experience on Wikipedia the references you have kindly taken the time to study.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the case that the object of your meditation is the possessing spirit that you claim is God?

Do you make this clear to your students at the beginning of your induction process? Faithinhumanity 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the object of the Raj Yoga meditation is God as defined as being the universally benevolent Being. Various faiths claim that God spoke to them in some form or another. For example, the "Lords Prayer" is addressed to an entity that Christ claimed was God. In fact, Christ is claimed to be part of God (the Trinity). So is that also invoking some "spirit" that may or may not be God? Most faiths, including the BKs, define God to be a universally benevolent being and often also some form of light.

Regards Bksimonb 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

no, the object of the Raj Yoga meditation is complete surrender mentally and physically to the possessing spirit that they claim entered into lekhraj kripalani and still enters into gulzar up in abu road

it has nothing to do with who or what other religions think is god....to Bks , god is that "ghost" that spoke to the Indian presidency candidate , he only speaks to them and at this time

from a Bk point of view , what simon is saying here is complete nonsense........this is not what the god of the Bkwsu teaches to its followers ,i would go as far it is dishonest and deliberately deceptive and can quote the murlis to prove it

Bks dont believe that god came to speak to anyone at any other time than now and only they get the message ,

its typically vague talk intended to deceive the real truth of what the Bkwsu teaches and believes , this is the problem we have to deal with...........Green108 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How long have you been in Gyan, Green108? Many years, right? It is unfortunately that you are misrepresenting the knowledge. Just a few weeks ago, I remember a Murli when ShivBaba mentioned that "everyone was a Brahma Kumar/Kumaris" (son and daughter of Prajapita Brahma, AKA "Adam")it is just that "we" have recognized God... others have not.

So, I wonder if your "they only get the message" is true. You took gyan as well, but obviously you didn't get it. if you do not practice the disciplines, you will not be able to "get it." The understanding that everyone has a different role and that there is NO ONE who is better or worse than any other human being, is instilled in this knowledge... just different roles. Of course, the Murli is for Brahmins who have recognized God numberwise and ShivBaba as a loving Father uplifts us as special children, since "we" have recognized "Him," thus, "He" talks to us only (the other children do not want to listen....) There is no such a thing as a "ghost" as well. It is a soul, the Supreme Soul who needs Brahma's sanskars in order to communicate with us. If you fully understood the first lesson about the soul and the 3 "powers" of it (As one Murli referred to them) namely, mind, intellect and sanskars or impressions; you will see that ShivBaba's knowledge is fully consistent, from lesson one. The knowledge is intended to benefit and uplift everyone, and that is why it is necessary to give the adequate dosage of it according to who is receiving it; so here is where your "vague talk" comes into the picture. You cannot talk to a child who is learning about addition; that multiplication is just another way of addition and expect that this child will know how to multiply after your brief explanation. There is no benefit in that. Our understanding and depth of the Supreme Soul knowledge, is as you know; numberwise according to efforts.

Just thought about clarifying a bit. Best Wishes, avyakt7 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the object of Raja Yoga...?? It depends on who you are and what stage you are experiencing. All numberwise, my friend. So, I like to use the "vague talk" of being a connection with God, the source. Hey, "i" can give the Father's intro here...my light bulb is just turning on.... avyakt7 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

and if we are going to consider the whole issue of channelling and mediumship , we have to put it into not just a historical context of the other mediums at the start of the history........those after kripalani's death..........but also consider "The Inspiration Party" which Bks believe /are taught are dead senior Bks that are going about in a ghost like form doing service through Bks to this day

i do not know if it is referenced by academics...........it might be something the Bks are hush-hush about............but it is in the channelled messages . Bks believe themselves ,and are prepared, to be used by the disincarnate spirits of deceased members........so they say

so ,yes, mediumship and channelling are key difference between their and the classic ancient raja yogaGreen108 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

minor housekeeping

i spent some time on minor housekeeping........would those habitual reverters please pay heed to this

i put a space before references and fullstops after trying to tidy the article up , please try and keep it uniform and lets try and get the page listed on the front of the wikipedia one day!Green108 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I see your "minor housekeeping." Perhaps, others should be able to see all the changes you have made not even listening to admin Utcursch [9] are you related with 244? or just taking advanced lessons from him? I can see a pattern here. Obviously, you don't think that you will get away with this, do you? Best, avyakt7 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108 blocked for 24 hrs due to violation of 3RR

For the record:[10] As I said, green108, it is a cycle after all. Enjoy your day off... Best, avyakt7 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Luis. I recommend not to post comments that appear to be gloating.

I have to travel now but in the meantime I suggest involved editors restore the cleanup that Utcursch did being very careful not to undo non-contentious edits that may have happened since. Here is a diff between the cleanup and time of typing [11]. Here is the article at the time of the latest post-cleanup edit [12].

Regards Bksimonb 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

got the message, Simon. Thank you for the ear pulling. yes.. they just appear to be, but they are not... Have a good trip! avyakt7 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

IP from UK making changes

It seems that someone is rather working overtime...Another piece for the akashic records of Wikipedia. Note the immediacy of changes and complete reversal of other edition. I wonder who could that be?

inetnum: 212.126.145.0 - 212.126.147.255 netname: FREEUK-NETS-1 descr: FreeUK modem pool country: GB

avyakt7 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Om Shanti

We need more Om Shanti, Brothers and Sisters. BKs do not defame the Father in this way. Please stop making conflict in this way.

BK Angel

BK Angel...It seems you had no problem in making changes in the article in such an angelic way [13]... As a BK you even re-instated this unsourced material:"An article in Newsweek magazine portrayed Lekhraj as a modern-day Krishna surrounded by admiring gopis and as a justification for him to set up a harem of upper class women." Very Om shanti, Bro! You see, I have a problem with that. "An Article" is just to vague, which article?...I see all the angels coming to help bro. Green108 now...May you keep flyn' high... Best, avyakt7 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Date of Birth

the problem with the recent bibliography ,is that all the academics have depended on facts, figures and a version of the history as given by the Brahma Kumaris themselves..............primarily from the hagiography (biography idealizing its subject) of Lekhraj Kripalani called Adi Dev by one of his financially supported followers named Jagdish Chander

looking at the actual text of "Struggles and Sorrows; The Personal Testimony of a Chief Justice" by Justice Hardayal Hardy (p 37 to 39), rather than depending on google snippets ,you will read;

"Another case I did involved Dada Lekhraj Kripalani of Hyderabad who owned a jewellery shop in Calcutta. He sold his shop and returned to Hyderabad with approximately Rs 10 lakhs as his assets. He bought a house and settled there. Dada Lekhraj was about 54 years old"

This was in 1938. As Justice Hardy was not only Lekhraj Kripalani's counsel but went on to be the Chief Justice of India, I think we can consider his work to be reliable and authoritative

the big issue about this is that the Bks have re-written their history and the channelled messages they claim are the words of god..........in the murlis , the channelled entity says he enters the body of his chariot when the chariot is 60 years old.........time and time again , we find that Kripalani was only in his mid 50s......as chander in the 1970s also noted (approximately 55)

it is this that the Pbk splinter group has jumped on as proof that kripalani was not the original medium of god ,and because of the aggressive supression of the Pbks......all sort of crazy denial has set in about this, the age has been removed from the murlis just like the stuff about "God not mounting a virgin" when the current medium of the spirit is dadi gulzar, a virgin

Ok.........that is the background for those that do not know the history ,the re-writing and advance party stuff is all referenced in walliss workGreen108 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good 244! You are such a journalist. Same issues, different user name. The green108 from your BKI site mentioned there that he is not the green108 in wikipedia... so, what's up with that, 244? Perhaps the wiki green108 is another ex-BK who just like to be called green108? sounds reasonable, right? better hurry up and erase that comment from your site.

Best, avyakt7 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(ps:

Green108. I have to say that your POV, style and editing behaviour now closely resembles that of a banned user. The Green108 of last year was a lot less verbose and edited a lot less prolifically than the Green108 that has been operating since last March. What is particularly interesting is the intensity over which you insist on details such as the Kriplani/Dada Lekraj naming issue and the various dates. We know that the organisation started some time in the 30s. That's good enough. If there is any contention about Dada Lekraj's birth date then we just say that it was in the late 19th century. There is no need for a crusade over this. These are not details I imagine most readers would really care much for, however regarding the name issue I strongly support the WP:COMMONNAME convention. I don't see any need for a compromise unless there is consensus amongst all the editors involved that there is a good reason to do differently to the guideline. I don't see that reason and I don't see that consensus. If you continue to push the issue you will simply continue to find yourself blocked.

Even if you really have stumbled upon some startling new revelations regarding these dates then you must understand one thing. Wikipedia is not interested WP:OR. You are using hard-to-find or out-of-print primary sources to prove controversial points. It is not a "denial" to tell you to kindly take your research elsewhere, however attractive Wikipedia's prominence may be to you. You may even be right about your research, but being right does not excuse the following behaviours,

• Ignoring consensus
• Trolling
• Edit waring
• Possibly using sockpuppets to support your POV and edits [14] [15]
• Personal attacks and crazy accusations against opposing editors
• Misrepresenting the BKWSU and/or the reliable secondary sources [16]

If you really have some interesting new angles on BKWSU history I strongly recommend you take a more sober and appropriate approach to researching and presenting it. Other wise it starts to look a bit like a crank theory. From the article linked,

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Further...

In addition, many cranks

• seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,

....

• claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

Thanks and regards Bksimonb 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah, 244. Remember the key words are "allege and allegedly" sounds familiar?

Best, avyakt7 13:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

its funny you say that a friend and supporter of Bk hansa patel gave evidence of how he had removed reports of hansa's claims that raja yoga cures cancer off the internet............and in the letters he said that the Pentagaon and Department of Defence

the link is here BK Hansa Raval; cancer cure claims & tax free future

he said that Bk hansa's legal counsel, the Department of Defense and the Pentagon are taking legal actions towards the authors of the fictitious article and any website posting the article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• 1. Calvin Chin to be banned from all United States based domain registration or site hosting.
• 2. Calvin Chin to be banned from submitting articles to any United States based online site.
• 3. Class Action Suit against Calvin Chin for damages caused to all cancer patients misdirected by the article.

• The following have already been contacted regarding this issue:
• 1. United States Department of Defense
• 2. Embassy of the United States, Kuala Lumpu

the funny this is ,the author wrote it in praise of the Bkwsu and the individual doing the stirring is a Bk supporter (ex-us military like hansa patel).........so you are right , this stuff attracts a lot of nuts and we have to be careful of our references . any way , back to the article Green108 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108, your response has nothing at all to do with the article, Wikipedia or anything any editor here has done and just looks like petty mud slinging. It's no surprise the link you provide is to a website you are intimately involved with. What anyone else is doing does not excuse you conduct. And since you have contacts at that web site will you please ask Ex-L to respond to our email request for personal dialogue so we can keep this nonsense off Wikipedia.Bksimonb 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

maintenance work on references

i did a pretty major bit of maintenance work on the references putting them into shap as User:Utcursch did..............they are about 95% complete but have a few quotes and ISBN numbers and proper dates to go back in ,so i am working on it just now

i have a couple of question , if the same reference is used but a different quote..........technically how do you do that?

what is the proper way to lay out the bibliography at the end?

i have a general observation to make ,because of the persistent trolling of the BKWSU Internet PR Team , I think the article has become over referenced................they have always attacked each and every word demanding citations and have pretty much always been given them

its impossible to seriously edit the piece if individuals have not got or read or refuse to read the actual quoted works............there must be a limit to how far others are expect to go to appease interested parties that are not informed............surely, beyond a certain point such behaviour has to be seen for what it is!!!!!!!!!!!Green108 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not 244, he got banned ......but you can think what you like, but that is not relevant here.....avaykt 7 I don't come on here to hear your ideas and churnings on gyan, love and peaceGreen108 13:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear 244, Your new gig now is to delete references which do not support your views.[17]that is serious maintenance, 244. I decided to go into it and do a bit of maintenance myself, hoping to get the tune up just right.... How about if you supply a copy of the articles you are researching and post them in your BKI site? I have done that before so there is no doubt of how legit my sources were. I will go for some "sun and fun" and come back to change the oil and get it just right... yes, we know 244 was banned. What is new 244? you keep coming back with different names, IPs, friends and different writing styles. I see that your integrity is quite high, 244. No one could tell that you were a Brahmin before. Apologies for posting my own churnings, I know you don't come here to read them but... why do come here again?? Perhaps you could set me up with an account in your BKI site, in that way I could post my little churnings on Gyan, How about that ol' buddy? Best, avyakt7 16:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108, if the article is over referenced it is because just about every claim being made in it is chosen to be controversial. If the article actually did it's job of just informing people of who the BKWSU are in a balanced way then there would be no need for so many challenges. There are some sections of the article like that where the text is more free-flowing because it is not trying to prove something controversial or that most BKs would think, "Huh? That's not right! That's not us!". There is much more required than just references, the article also needs to be neutral and balanced. Just trying to cram in more references to prove controversial points is not what the article needs right now.

Yes, 244 did get banned. That is why it is highly inadvisable that you continue to act exactly like him. Right now I feel as though Green108 has faded away and I am really talking to 244. If you don't want to give that impression then I suggest you drastically modify your style. It's ironic we were recently discussing "spirit possession". I know who the original Gree108 was in real life and can say this is not the same person as I remember him now.

Regards Bksimonb 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108 AKA 244 cleaning up his talk page

244, In the past you have performed the same behavior. As you know, you are not allowed to erase any admin messages in your talk page. Are you afraid of showing your 24 hrs block to the world? As always, you do not follow the rules of the game. Your old sanskars keep popping out, 244. So, in this cycle, what comes next, 244? Are you spinning the cycle of wikipedia? I believe arbitration comes next... just like before? Best, avyakt7 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Simon to say the same about you, I know who you are and you've become something quite different. It is sad. Avyakt 7, when you leave gyan which I suspect won't be in the too distant future, you will look back on all this and the way you feel now in a different light. All the best. Green108 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

244 a fortune teller? So; What your little crystal ball says about showing up for a personal dialogue with BK? you need guts for that. Best, avyakt7 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no point going to talk to the Bk leaders ,believe me i tried .

there is no point in continuing such a dialogue with you two Bks...........Your intentions are entire clear

on the basis of my many years involvement with the Bkwsu ,I can promise non-Bks reading this that the topic as it stands is very highly , if not entirely ,accurate and this explains the strength of these individuals' reaction........of course it is not the PR job the Bkwsu wants and what you want to do as we have seenGreen108 09:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TEND

Green108, I've reverted your edits because they were undoing valid edits originally made by Utcursch and Andries. Your changes were quite extensive and may have contained some valid changes but I'm not going to sift through them as long as I can see that there are also tendentious edits that undo the valid input of other, more experienced, editors who are not emotionally involved with the subject matter, as your posts and edits indicate that you are.

It is a pity you feel there is no point in dialogue with BK editors. However, judging by the way you force your edits over Utcursch and Andries it seems to me that you are not interested in dialogue with any editor. Period.

Regards Bksimonb 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

this is incorrect.........i included andries correction (the only problem was a missing bracket which i just fixed), have corresponded with Utcursch and ,and having actually read the books in question provided full citations from books for where he has relied on partial google extracts..........as you well know the issue of the ras lila has no real significance at all unless if we want to discuss whether it was trance dancing as the girls had visions of krishna and the golden age

otherwise be specific , all i can see is that you are riveros are trying to set me up for another 3rr with this "Dada versus real name" business and date of birth which is not reported correctly.

you have worked your way through just about every complaint in the book , why not just be honest about what you are trying to achieveGreen108 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108 I have to sincerely apologise regarding the edit Andries made. I completely misread what had happened and thought you were reversing it when in fact you restored it after an accidental deletion.

However the "Dada Lekraj" name business is not resolved yet. It would be helpful if you could keep the references tidy-up you were doing separate from the more contentious edits. I can't speak further now because I have to rush off. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Misleading use of edit summaries by BK Team

i am sorry..........i really wanted to avoid continuing the conflict but i have to flag up the misleading use of the edit summaries by the Bk team simon and riveros . can this please stop ?

the issue is whether we use "Daddy" Lekhraj or call the man by his name Lekhraj Kripalani ,i say his formal name is more correct and inline with other individuals on the wikipedia.........he is not a mahatma gandhi yet and it is not the place of the wikipedia to deify him

i have replace the version with the resolved references.........a lot of work went into fixing them

i see simon has also put in another admin complaint trying to have me ban ,it seems to be that he and riveros are working together to try and trip others up with 3rrs and the rest , as a rule i wont become involved in tit for tat complaining but as long as others are aware of this ,i stand by my editsGreen108 13:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear 244, it appears that you want to close your doors of understanding. What a pitty 244! well, I am sorry to hear that. I have put a lot of work as well fixing your arbitrary changes in this article. Why worry so much at the 3RR anyway, 244? You keep deleting them from your talk page anyways...and if you get banned, you will re-appear again and again...so we are in it 244, aren't you happy? Best, avyakt7 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108. You are correct. I am trying to get you banned. As far as I am concerned I have tried to reason with you, as have other editors, and have found working with you to be impossible and that your preferred version of the article carries with it an agenda that is detrimental to both Wikipedia and the BKWSU. You can call off the process by attending to the following issues,

1. Stop discriminating against BK editors as you seem to be doing in this post.
2. Stop re-inserting your preferred naming convention in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME and of consensus of other editors as you do here. Since it is guideline, articles are expected to follow it unless there is an overwhelming consensus and a good reason not to. There is currently neither. All the reliable secondary sources refer to Dada Lekraj and Brahma Baba because that is how he was known. Knowing the second name is interesting but only needs to be mentioned once in the article.
3. Stop making ad hominem personal attacks as you did here.
4. Stop propagating conspiracy theories as you did here.
5. Stop repeatedly trying to inject original research into the article as you did here.
6. Stop re-introducing material that has already been identified as misrepresenting the reference such as this example that had to be corrected here (see edit summary).
7. Stop using talk pages as a propaganda outlet as you did here.
8. If an issue is contentious then keep it out of the article until it has been resolved rather than pushing it into the article and directing editors to the talk page as you did here (see edit summary).
9. Stop reverting correctly placed tags [18] and then biting the editor who put it there [19].
10. Also, please learn to indent your talk page posts correctly (though this point is not a basis of dispute).

Please confirm that you will at least address the above issues otherwise I will proceed with all means possible by dispute resolution to remedy the situation.

Part of dialogue involves being reasonable and open to the views of others. Sometimes even yielding on a issue. I don't see much evidence of that yet. Please prove me wrong.

Thanks and regards Bksimonb 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to answer this honestly and openly. No doubt you will try and use this against me. Hopefully anyone else ,like the admins , whose time and energy you are willing to co-opt into doing what the BKWSU calls "service" and i call PR will read this and take it into consideration.

You have to understand Simon , the real problem for both you two BKs, the others that made their mark and the seniors Bks that stand behind and encourage you is because of the dissonance between the truth and what you have been led to believe to strengthen your faith or encouraged to use as propaganda in "service". This when perhaps for the first time in the west , the inner workings and environment of the Bkwsu are being exposed and openly discussed in public through websites like http://www.brahmakumaris.info.

Forget the all the jostling......if you really believe in the knowledge , Instead of putting all your energy as a team into getting me or any other ex-BK , ex-centrewasi or whatever that comes along banned ,blocked , reverted.......why not put a fraction of it into actually resolving the actual facts of the history rather than trying to jig the article based on? (e.g. why did mama and jagdish write 54/55?)

suppression is generally only counter productive.......if it does not pop up here , it will pop up somewhere elseGreen108 10:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand where I'm coming from. This is an encyclopedia not a battle ground or a front for the website you are promoting above. Your rap about me trying to suppress the truth misrepresents my purpose in being here. There is one statement you made that I agree with...

"if it does not pop up here , it will pop up somewhere" - Yes. And "somewhere" else is where it belongs. Regards Bksimonb 10:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

did you download the Om Radhe book from the http://www.brahmakumaris.info? what else do they have hiden away that they thought would never see the light of day again?

how and when did they actually introduce the so-called Shiva spirit........it was sometime after 1949 , there is no mention of him beforehand . dont you find that interesting and interesting why they covered it all up?

what is really going on for you is that you are starting to look at what you have been told by the senior sisters, what they are doing to gyan and measure it up against the truth , you are starting to realise the difference between facts and PR........well done, you are actually starting to wake up Green108 03:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not download it from the BKI site. We had our own copy. The rest of the post looks like an obvious taunt/troll. Bksimonb 04:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Both sides

As a neutral observer, both sides need to stop reverting and compromise. One observation that I have is that WP:COMMONNAMES applies to the naming of articles. Those articles should then be linked to without piping or redirects. Whichever side relying on pipes or redirects is the one which is wrong. Please adjust the article accordingly. IPSOS (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. At least leave the sorted out reference tags and punctuation! I did not upload the pdf, which policy is that against? ThanksGreen108 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi IPSOS. Thanks for dropping by. Right now I would appreciate the input of neutral editors. Actually, WP:COMMONNAMES does also address the naming of people, from the "in a nutshell" section, "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (emphasis mine). It also gives examples of how this is applied to people here.

I would appreciate your opinion on this. Please outline what you feel would be a reasonable way to name the person in question throughout the article and what precedent, or comparable Wikipedia article, this would be based on.

With regards to the apparent revert war, take a close look at Green108's latest revert [20]. At first sight it looks like just a name change from Dada Lekhraj to Kripilani and tidying up the reference. A closer look reveals some other changes riding on it, for example the change in birth date that Utcursch has just spotted [21] and also a complete change of the text in the first paragraph of the Controversies section. There is no mention of Newsweek in the passage by Walliss being cited. It is true that the was an article in Newsweek but the citation doesn't mention it. Why change the text anyway? To make it look more negative perhaps? There are probably other subtle changes riding on this revert too. I hope you can understand why me and other editors are very wary of any substantial edit that Green108 does.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the names used as titles for the article are not the most common ones, then open a a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves for each page you want to move. As it is clearly controversial to some, add it to the appropriate section for getting broader feedback from the whole Wikipedia community. However, do be aware that titles and honorific may not be part of an article title. While you may see things like "Swami" on various articles, technically those should be removed. I think it is arguable that things like "Baba", "Babaji", "Dada" and "Dadaji" are more than just nicknames but rather are titles or honorifics. As such, they should probably not be part of an article title. What I mean to say is that I'm personally on the side of using actual names in this case. But the best way to proceed is to make a requested move and see if the general community approves or not. IPSOS (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any comments on Utcursch's original reasoning for not using the name "Kripalani" throughout the article? Regards Bksimonb 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch appears to be of Indian origin. Dada has cultural significances. Most readers with think Dada is his name. I agree that an English speaking encyclopedia should be formal and use real names. Not all religions agree that Lekhraj Kirpalani is The Creator or even the father of humanity. Faithinhumanity 13:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that using the name "Dada" or "Baba" by itself is inappropriate, as it would be an honorific by itself. However I think, perhaps IPSOS can clarify, that that is with respect to the article name Lekhraj Kripalani rather that every mention within an article.

He assumed the name "Brahma Baba" after the organisation was established and this is comparable to gurus assuming a different name at some point. And, in the context of their religious activities, that is how they are known. If we decide that on Wikipedia he is to be called "Kripalani" throughout the whole article, even within the context of after the organisation was established, then that is a radical departure from how I see Indian religious figures being treated in other articles and also a departure from all the references that mention him. I don't have so much problem with him being referred to as "Kripalani" in the context of before the organisation was established. The only precedent I can see where "Kripalani" has been used throughout in every context are the anti-BK websites and there is probably a reason the person that authors these articles has done this.

I know that primary references are kind of no-go areas but here I am using the example of the "Is this Justice" by Om Radhe to augment what the secondary references already do in referring to "Dada Lekhraj". I have an ocr'd version of the book and did a text search for the words "Kripalani" and "Dada Lekhraj". I found that "Kripalani" was referred to only in formal membership lists. In all the witness statements, for and against, in the book I see him being referred to as either "Dada Lekhraj" or "Bhai Lekhraj".

Regards Bksimonb 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

'Is this justice?' is written in his follower's name..........his future wife and emperess of the world.........

just out of interest if the Bkwsu has its own copy , why does it keep perpetrating myths such as the 1936 and 60 years of age in all its publicity and pr materials and misleading academics?

it is clearly stated ........1938..........age 54 his laywer and chief justice............age 54 jagdish chander in the 1970s..............age 55

why do all your websites still say Shiva descended in 1936 saying Shivohum when he was 60, causing Dada to retire when Radhe records he retired in 1932, there is no mention of shiva amongst them until at least after 1950 and the move to madhuban?

the only place it changes is in the murlis where shiva says........aged 60

does that not mean the history has been re-written or even falsified at some point?

i think where your point fails is that the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is not a religion, it is a University , or at least that is what Bks always say , its seems to most people that the Bkwsu is trying to mythologise and then sanctify him through its publicity and the wikipedia

in almost most cases , indian religious figures were part of a recognised traidition in which a spiritual names would be given to them by their guru........the problem with Kripalani is that he was not and was not , he made it up for himself........the Bkwsu would also argue that the Bkwsu was not a sect of hinduism , not in any way bound or related to hindu traditions..........sow hat is your point? Green108 12:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions here don't take into account where the name came from, only the fact that the person was known by it. You claim that the BKWSU is trying to mythologise him etc. That appears to be your own opinion, not that of any reliable source. All the age-related stuff you mention is irrelevant to the topic in question, that is, name conventions. Not sure why you brought it up.

Also you appear to be marketing every inconsistency you see in details to be some sort of major conspiracy. Would it be true to say that you would really like the article to reflect that opinion? Regards Bksimonb 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry............did i miss your simple and direct answer to my questions above or did you continue to reply with some condescending accusation? i cant even seem to find a direct response on my talk page

would you not agree that there is some clear anomaly here? for me, a Chief Justice of India is a far more reliable source than an organization's own publicist (chander)........especially when he, chander, has been seen contradicted himself in writingGreen108 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Green108 If you want answers to questions then (1) be civil, (2) discuss the actual article, (3) in terms of reliable secondary sources we actually can consider, (4) without original research. Otherwise you will continue to be frustrated by me not responding. Too bad if you consider this to be "condescending". Regards Bksimonb 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

we have to look at the spirit of the law not just the word of the law

if you read the history of "Original Research" came about to stop crank physicist putting forward novel theories.......the emphasis in on taking known elements and producing some new conclusion

now, it is neither rocket nor crank science to read a book that says, "aged 54, dated July 1938" and report that......i think we should apply the same rigor that a proper encyclopaedia or dictionary does and where there are two conflicting elements , take the oldest and most reliable one. Not the current corporate PR

54 in 1938 was written when kripalani was alive , with his full knowledge (and probably direction) and is repeated exactly by his advocate who went on to be the Chief Justice of India.......that really is good enough .

but let's not ignore the real issue here.........by the slavish adoption of the word of many little "laws" , the Core BKWSU Internet PR Team is attempting on one hand to wind me up.......and on the other hand , by simon's own admission , get me banned for itGreen108

Minor stuff

I just had a look and found the article rather difficult to understand, so I changed some punctuation to try to make it clearer. Also used the spelling "Mandali," as it seemed the more common, though both it and Mandli were used. If I got it wrong, please correct me. Regarding your sources, I think both sides will see it as a good thing if you cut out all refs that aren't supported by truly neutral and respected sources. Cheers. Rumiton 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton. This side would love to see an article with all the refs cut out that aren't supported by truly neutral and respected sources. This is best done by editors with no connection with the BKs or former BKs so that the required bold changes can be seen to be fair. Otherwise it just ends in deadlock and revert wars. Utcursch made a huge step forward in this direction. I would welcome you, or any other respected editor, making the changes you see fit. I would also appreciate some attention to the external links. Some of them are to testimonies and self-published or anonymously run websites and would probably fail WP:EL. I highlighted some concerns in the article analysis I did of the article as it was a month ago. The links are right at the bottom.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a problem with some of the references, each should be discussed individually. Reverting back and forth between versions never works. Both sides will likely need to compromise on some things. IPSOS (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be able to simplify things quite a lot by cutting out some refs. In general, sources acceptable as reliable should not include newspapers (except for uncontroversial facts and figures), nor writings by biased sources, which in this case would include Christian researchers such as Kranenburg. It is one thing to note that Catholic and Protestant churchmen opposed this eastern group, but to include their opinions in the article as facts is a bit like featuring Pope Benedict's opinion of Buddhists in an article on the Dalai Lama. Also apostates, who often are given to emotional statements, should be avoided. Similarly, the writings of current group members or officials themselves, unless uncontroversial, should not be used. The reason is that individuals are generally not trained in producing writings that resist misquoting or being quoted out of context. Professional researchers are. Also the list of refs, even if they are reputable and acceptable, does not include many verbatim quotes, so it is hard to see if they are being properly represented, and obviously I do not have the books at hand to check. If you apply these guidelines you might wind up with a pretty short article, but that may not be a bad thing. Cheers. Rumiton 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree on newspapers, as long as they are reputable. An article in The New York Times would obviously be usable, and other reputable newspapers would be as well. Also, conflicting opinions and controversies are frequently put in a Controversies section, but I agree that they have to be clearly identified as specific opinions of specific people or groups, and not given the status of fact. IPSOS (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. This is not, as far as I can see, a Biography of a Living Person, so the rules need not be as strict. But as you say, the sources of criticisms and controversies still need to be identified. Makes for an interesting and informative article, as well as a fair one. Rumiton 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am leery about getting involved in an article where there has already been arbitration and where sockpuppet accusations are being flung around. I will say right now that there should be no further sockpuppet accusations on this page or in edit comments. If any editor believe that they have solid evidence of sockpuppetry, they should follow the process outlined at WP:SSP. That includes filing a report, tagging the user pages of the suspected socks, and notifying the suspected puppetmaster on their talk page. All discussion should then take place on the sockpuppet report page. It shouldn't get mentioned here, as it simply looks like an attempt to bias neutral editors and as such constitutes a form of personal attack. I've had to deal with sockpuppetry myself, and have always followed the prescribed process. It works. So let's keep this talk page more civil, folks. IPSOS (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Understood. I apologise for my part in doing that. Regards Bksimonb 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then. Thanks. With that out of the way, I think we have a really good chance to come up with a compromise article that everyone can live with. There will something for everyone to dislike as well, but that's simply part of being NPOV. IPSOS (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Hope that the "we have a really good chance to come up with a compromise article" becomes a reality. Best, Avyakt7 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks. I'm still trying to simplify and neutralise things. No complaints so far, which is encouraging. A couple of questions. What is/was the Bhiabund? (The link doesn't seem to tell us.) And what does this sentence mean? ...disposal of women's sexuality should remain with their fathers and husbands. Is it just a complicated way of saying they should do what their fathers told them and be faithful to their husbands, or is there something stranger going on? Rumiton 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, spoke too soon. Innocuous though it seemed, it's all been reverted. Have to try another approach. Tomorrow. Rumiton 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops again! My edits were lost somehow, but not reverted. Off I go again. Rumiton 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the Om Radhe book and "Bhiabund" is used repeatedly in terms of the "Bhiabund community" which appears to be a community that Dada Lekhraj lived in or was a member of that consisted of both Om Mandali and those opposing them. It is also used as the surname of one of his daughter's husbands. A clan within the Sindh community perhaps?

I managed to find a definition of the word on Google here. Is says, "bhaibund, (Hindi) brother-in-arms; brotherhood; relation of a man of the same caste or community; a term Rajputs used in reference to the native BHILS. See also BHAI."

Ah ha! It seems the spelling is a bit unusual. Do a search for "Bhaiband" and "Sindhi" then more results come up (mainly matrimonial sites!). I found on definition that seems to match the context, time and place here, "Bhaiband literally brotherhood, term used to designate the lower segment of the Lohana caste, by extension applies to Sindhi business".

Regards Bksimonb 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

congratulation to simon for finally becoming a 'wiki scholar' instead of a 'wiki lawyer'!

Rumiton , can i ask you an honest question.........? what do you actually know about the Bkwsu and how many of the books and references listed have you actually read properly , as in read not looked up in google?

i appreciate your attention to detail on fixing the typos but have to flag up that ON MORE THAN ONE OCASSION you actually EDITED A CITED REFERENCE rather than the article..........you cannot do that!!!!!!!!!!!! the references are what the authors wrote!!!

a few other minor things , if you are sticking around.......i never really understood why folks feel the need to fiddle on the wiki , make minor insigificant changes for no obvious good........i dont understand why you would need to put in extra 'as' like........as "poison", as "criminal assault" and "the gateway to hell.".......also folks are putting back in extra fullstops where they are not need , what's the protocol? i put the reference tag INSIDE the fullstop to which they relate NOT outside........you and simon seen to put the full stops before the references , i think this is because you dont get how the tags work and you think there has to be a fullstop instead of realising that there is already one AFTER the tag

personally , i'd also say indian english and british english rule on this topic no need to change stuff so no need to changing legal actions to lawsuits..........technically there legal actions are correct because not all or any of them became lawsuits . again this is why i ask , what do you know? Green108 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up the references, although you did sneak your WP:OR version of the birth date back in which was a bit naughty. I take it you have read all of the discussion on this. While we are on the subject of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s, do you think you could start indenting your talk page comments correctly, please? Just start each new para with as many ":"s as it needs to be indented. Thanks. Bksimonb 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i removed the book licenteous comedy by chander , it was written by a different jagdish chander......what is prakashmani's real name so i can list her?Green108 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, engagement! First, Green108, you fairly ask what I know about the BKWSU, and I cheerfully reply nothing. Coincidentally, I have read some of Kranenburg's writings in connection with another group, but I had never heard of the BKWSU until a few days ago. That puts me in the same category as the other millions of people who turn to Wikipedia daily for information, the customers of this project. I tried to learn something of the organisation from the article and found it difficult. The grammar and phraseology seem somehow stilted and in-house, which is more of a hindrance to comprehension than might be thought, and there are a number of unexplained foreign words. So figuring that if I can't understand what is being said, probably most other people would not either, I tried to make it a bit clearer.

You say I have edited a reference...Gasp! Serious mistake. Please correct it or tell me where it is and I will do so.

Regarding the trivial things, I think most good articles put the reference outside of the sentence, i.e. after the point. It looks untidy and further hinders comprehension to have the point hanging out there in mid-air. The extra "as" just seemed to make the sentence flow better.

I don't agree that "Indian English" should be the norm. This is the English version of Wikipedia, it is not written specially for Anglo-Indians. When an Indian English version comes along, that will be fine. Until then the norms of British (or American, as appropriate) English prevail.

I found "legal actions" clumsy, if it was, as you say, the plural of "action." To me, action is an abstract noun here, and the plural doesn't make sense. Again, I seem to hear an Indian-English speaker here. It doesn't matter much.

Simon, thanks for your scholarship on the "Bhiabund." I don't know what the Om Radhe book is, but perhaps you need to explain the term in the article, rather than just quoting it? Rumiton 08:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

no , its little to do with the topic someone needs to start a page on it...... Bhiabund

yes , legal actions is correct English , ask an English lawyer..........it is English-English which is what i write in......there is some talk about British versus American English on the wikipedia

yes , i agree, i found the style guideline page and it says references should go out side fullstops but one only not before and after!!! if no one beats me to correcting them all at once , i will do it at some pointGreen108 12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we are making progress. Green108, a small point. Please don't shout at me (or anyone else) like this (!!!) Civility here is the key to just about everything. Rumiton 13:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding aliases, what I have seen work elsewhere is to include all the AKAs in the lead, then pick the most recent or the most common and use that throughout the article. Rumiton 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya and found it rather bizarre and quite incomprehensible. There is a note that expert help is required to clean up (or even decipher) the article, but I think they will have some problems finding someone neutral who knows what it is all about. This article to me looks savable. Do the current editors want to work together? If you can explain what the main points of contention are, I will try my best to help you arrive at an acceptable (though not perfect) compromise. Rumiton 13:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton; If you have the chance to take a look at the history of that article[22] you will see that it was started by brahmakumaris.info and the banned user from this article 195.X.X.244, both users historically have been known to attempt to place a negative image of the BK movement in Wikipedia, thus there is a degree of bias input in that article. The article you mention was written with the assumption that Brahma Kumaris and PBK (AIVV members) will be the only ones reading it. It is not written for the general public, as you pointed out. Only BKs/PBKs could make sense out of it. So, that is a point of contention. Another point, is that the article seems to try to compare both ideologies giving undue weigh to one side, rather than to explain what the movement is all about,ie. beliefs, practices, membership, etc.I understand that historically BK and PBK have a common origin, though.I find interesting your comment," I seem to hear an Indian-English speaker here." It gives some light on some thoughts I had. Thanks. Best, Avyakt7 14:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is almost 100% original research and opinion. I suggest is it stubbified pending any reliable sources. The only reliable source I am aware of is Walliss. I quote what I found below.

From Walliss - The Development of Millenarianism in the Brahma Kumaris p381

Having examined the historical creation and elaboration of the millenarian message of the Brahma Kumaris, l would like to address its current status in the final section of this paper. I will sketch two ongoing re-interpretations of the original message: one from within the movement and another by a radical break-away sect known as 'the Advance Party' or `the Shankar Party'.

p382

This new direction has, however, caused some discontentment within certain segments of the University. The most vocal of these being the self-styled `Advance Party' who, through their critique, offer a new, radicalised rendition of the original millenarian message.

In many ways, the Advance Party may be seen as a sectarian response to the Brahma Kumaris. A central theme, reiterated throughout their website,7 is what they see as the increasingly worldly and therefore corrupt nature of the University, manifested particularly through their UN work and increasingly New Age orientation. Again, using the metaphor of the cycle they assert that the University has 'fallen' from its original (in the era of Lekhraj) purity to a state where adulteration of Godly knowledge and subtle corruption is rampant and ignorant students arc being exploited by the higher-ups ('Advance Party' website: Churning Points V). Moreover, through a close re-reading of Leckhraj's communications the University, they claim-that Cod has manifested Himself through another body in order to not only correctly interpret the original Brahma Kumaris teachings, but also to reveal to the Advance Party, amongst whom He is Currently living, the `true' nature of future events.

This focuses particularly on Lekhraj's original eschatology, although differing at specific points. Primarily, where Lekhraj is said to have given no date for the end; although 1976 was the unofficial line, the Advance Party promote 2001.

Similarly, while the Brahma Kumaris hold that the world will recognise Lekhraj as God incarnates shortly before the end, the Advance Party present a more radical vision. They claim that it will be God's present incarnation, an Advance Party member, that will be revealed to the world and that, as a result, the Brahma Kumaris, recognising their error, will merge with them. Finally, in contrast to the Brahma Kumaris view that at the end, all life on earth will die, the Advance Party claim that they, that is the Advance Party, will survive in order to prepare the world for the Golden Age which will begin in 2036.

The website that he would probably be refering to looked like this circa 1999.

What appear to be newspaper clippings and pictures about the founder of the AAIV can be found here (note that I am not affiliated with that website linked to. In fact, I am often a target of their critisism). Most of them are in Hindi. Maybe Utcursch can help translate them if they are useful as references.

Regards Bksimonb 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

why not discuss the other topic on its own discussion page then? there are thousands of wiki pages in a similar state............

i have no idea what a beef the Bkwsu has over the AAIV but the way in which it handles the whole matter......the secrecy , the repeated character assassinations , banishments and beatings is awfully immature but adds to a complete picture of how the Bkwsu operates........Walliss documents this well , it is a matter of record nowGreen108 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I answer where I see the question. If it develops further then maybe we move the discussion there.

The second half of your post is just blatant propaganda so I will ignore it. I personally have no "beef" with the AAIV and I can't comment for anyone that does. Regards Bksimonb 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not following the editing, except for the editing summmaries, but I am concerned about the edit summary "biased sourced". In politics and religion all sources are biased and hence that is not a reason not to use them. In Wikipedia we follow what reputable sources have stated regardless whether some contributors consider them biased. Andries

Yes. Probably not the best description. Certainly the website is self-published and would fail point (2) and point (11) of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I agree that simply being a biased source is not grounds for removal and you are right that virtually all sources are probably biased to some extent. It was just a really clumsy edit comment. Regards Bksimonb 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Successful Subtle Soft-sell of Raja Yoga" is an important essay because it captures exactly one particular aspect of how the Bkwsu works that others dont

Here are the author's qualifications.......17 years in pastoral ministry, qualified teacher, Diploma in Ministry, Diploma in Religious Education, Diploma in Teaching, Diploma in Theology, a Graduate Diploma in Educational Technology, Post Graduate Diploma of Arts (Religious Studies).........i would say that is good enough

How qualified the author is is not relevant. Nor is how well he captures your POV. The point is that pamphlets are transient sources and are therefore not verifiable. If you are still not convinced then I will seek a third opinion on the matter. Bksimonb 08:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of E.Romain's website as an external link

Eromain has two degrees, developed the Bkwsu teacher's programme , was a long time Bk . he documents child sex abuse at the organisations Madhuban and Delhi headquarters and the leadership's response to it , its is not an easy subject to handle...........what makes him biased? it takes real steel to handle such subjects

i am sorry but i have read some of the organisations directions on this subject and how they want to avoid all references to it............may be you were at the meeting about it at the oxford? if i had not heard that they are denying it now , i might not think that other motives were at play here . its fine and should stayGreen108 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Although E.Romain may be well qualified, the issue here is not related to how qualified he is and what he is discussing. The issue is that the link is to a self-published website and that what he has written has not been either academically peer reviewed or been through any recognised editorial process. The link clearly fails point (2) and point (11) of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.

There are also other issues with the website

1. It publishes many private email addresses
2. It makes public emails that were clearly written by people (and not just Jayanti Bhen) on the understanding that the communication was confidential. They were made public without their consent or even, in one case, their knowledge.

This possibly also flags it as an attack site unsuitable for linking to from Wikipedia.

I suggest you refrain from speculating regarding other editors motives for editing. It is certainly a form of intimidation to do so.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i suggest that you refrain from editing other people's posts on this discussion page

as you are a member of the BKWSU Internet PR Team , then i would prefer that this matter is discussed in its full and accurate contextGreen108

I agree with Bksimonb on this issue. The reference is self-published, and that rules it out both as a references and even as an external link. It'll have to go. IPSOS (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless he is a "recognized authority" then this link is out.... Sethie 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie. And good to see you back in town! Best wishes Bksimonb 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC Response

This is messy. I note first factual matters. 1) Google appears not to index this page, as I found no search that included it in its results. 2) Copies or excerpts of the report have been posted on at least two discussion boards that Google indexes, but these boards are clearly inferior sources to the original. 3) Wikipedia discourages the posting on Wikipedia of letters or emails (or other communications) without consent of the original author. 4) Serious academic research in the social sciences considers letters and emails to be primary sources, and further to be ones of significant evidentiary value. 5) E. Romain was a published author under BKSWU's auspices on the subject of teaching. One work of which he was an author is cited as "Church, A., Edwards, L. and Romain, E. (1990) Cooperation in the Classroom. London, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Global Cooperation for a Better World." in a book on promoting mental health in schools. 6) I was unable to find any academic links to this particular source. 7) The article is under article probation from the ArbComm (link at top). 8) Wikipedia considers secondary sources more reliable than primary sources for the purpose of building the encyclopedia.

With that background I prepare to evaluate this situation. There are two separate questions. First, is this a reliable source for use in the article? Second, if it is not a reliable source, is it a good external link?

Is this a reliable source for use? I avoid the question of whether using it adheres to the neutral point of view policy, as the answer to that will depend on the entire content of the article, including how the source is used, not on the content of the source, and further was not a topic on which feedback was solicited. First, is this a primary, secondary, or tertiary source? It is clearly not a tertiary source. I believe that the appendices are clearly primary sources. The purpose of the document is described as "a personal assessment of the current level of child protection and child welfare practices in the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU)" [emphasis added]. With this purpose, and reading the document, I would say that it is better described as a primary source than a secondary source. "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." (from WP:PSTS). The report is clearly self published. WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." The only evidence I found that E. Romain had published in the relevant field was a book published by BKWSU. The ArbComm findings include a finding that "material published in Brahma Kumaris related publications is considered self published and thus not verifiable by reliable sources." With this decision made, I have no evidence that E. Romain meets the test of "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", even though he is now independent of BKWSU and more of a critic than a supporter. Accordingly, the report does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source - but if we found evidence that his work in this field had been published by third-party publications then this answer would reverse.

Second, is it a good external link under our guideline? Although the source is not strong enough for use as a source, it is in my eyes reliable enough to be considered a serious report and evaluated as such. Use of communications in academic research is not considered a copyright infringement, and the site is not blacklisted, so neither restriction on linking applies. The report also does not meet any of the four criteria for things that should be linked. The fourth point of "Links to be considered" is "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The report clearly meets this test. Contrary to [[Bksimonb's]] assertion above, this report does not fail "Links normally to be avoided" #2, which is further defined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples#Use of electronic or online sources; the forums at which excerpts or copies have been posted would fail that test, the original of the report does not. However, "Links normally to be avoided" #11 is a real issue. As discussed in the reliable source question, we probably can't treat E. Romain as a "recognized authority". This leaves the link caught in both the categories of "to be considered" and "normally to be avoided". I think the right answer to this is consider and avoid. The ArbComm restrictions ice the cake, and thus we should exclude it. GRBerry 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry. Thank you so much for bringing your time and expertise to this Rfc. As I read it I wasn't sure quite where it was heading sometimes but I was certainly relieved when I got to the last sentence! All the best Bksimonb 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lekhraj Kripalani's Age

This is the quote from "Is This Justice?"

In correspondence with U.M. Mirchandani the District Magistrate of Sind

2 July 1938, "Please let me have the list of members of the Mandli and the guardians of the children in the Om Nivas School". Signed U.M. Mirchandani

4 July 1938, " Enclosed please find the list of Om Mandli members and guardians of the childreen living in Om Nivas." Signed Om Radhe.

Lekhraj Khubchand Kripalani aged 54

I took the time to copy this out. In July 1938, Kripalani was aged 54. Kripalani was alive, why would feel any need to fake it back then?Green108 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed exhaustively here. What you are doing is clearly original research and does not have consensus. Utcursch is an experienced editor and an admin and has a good understanding of policy and has investigated your claims.

In maths classes we learn that 1938-54=1884. However on Wikipedia, 1938-54=Original research. That's the score. No matter how obvious the maths, it's still original research. Also Utcursch identified many inconsistencies in the various dates that could be arrived at using the primary sources you are presenting. It is just your own opinion which is the most likely.

Please leave the article in line with what the numerous reliable sources say the date is until this matter is resolved.

If you still feel you want to pursue this then I suggest you seek a third opinion or request for comment.

Thanks ::::::& regards Bksimonb 06:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the minor revisions I made to try to make the article more understandable have been reverted in a pretty antagonistic way, and no other editor has commented. It seems to me I was wrong about this article being improvable. I think you guys intend to spar here forever. I have passed the situation here to more experienced editors and admins. Good luck. Rumiton 11:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by to say "hello," Rumiton. I guess the "we have a really good chance to come up with a compromise article" is just another nice comment. This article could be improbable if wikipedia decides to fully enforce its arbitration decision and get the banned user out of the game. If they need an idea on how to do that.. I could help with that. best, Avyakt7 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Avyakt7 I don't think you mean "improbable" there. Also, please don't be so hard on arbcom. I got the impression that they were doing all they could under the circumstances and from an outsiders perspective the situation isn't as clear-cut as it is to you and me.

Regards Bksimonb 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one Bksimonb. I meant "improvable." I don't believe I am being so hard on arbcom however; after going through so many months of "back and forwards" between editors and then many pages of lawyer stuff to comply with wiki requirements (arbitration) and then after that, not to see their desicion being enforced... it sends the wrong message to the internet and most important, this episode takes away their credibility. The message is clear cut to me: " If you have no scrupulous you can do whatever you want in wikipedia." It is a real shame. Best, Avyakt7 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Ps: I see that "conflict resolution" paperwork is on the way again...it is a cycle, huh? Avyakt7 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the war should stop. I apologise for being simple and too logical but is this really too much to ask? Could one of the Brahma Kumari followers please resolve this matter? Present all the evidence from both sides and ask your leaders for an official statement. Its appears the organization is run by his relatives. It should not be too difficult. Thank you. Faithinhumanity 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an "official statement" would carry much weight here. Also the organisation is not run by his relatives, despite the similar names. Also, birth certificates were unheard of in India 19th century from what I can ascertain. Certainly I am following some leads in the background in the areas you suggest but these things take time.

For now, though, I suggest we maybe state the birthdate as being vague if we can't be precise. How about one of the following, "1870s or 1880s-1969", or "late 19th century-1969", or "1876/1884-1969". If that makes the info box look too ugly we can maybe select the most reliable source for the infobox and the date range in the text. However reaching consensus as to which is the most reliable date for the info box may still be challenging. Views?

Regards Bksimonb 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree......just ask!!! stop dodging the issue and playing wikilawyer simon

you are the BK PR man , go to Dadi Janki......and say , "Mama Saraswati says Baba was 54 in 1938.... in the 70s BK Jagdish Bhai said he was around 55 when god entered him......now we say he was 60 in 1936 , which one is true and why did it change?"

its so easy.......then report back to us (his son is still alive and in contact......why ask him!!!)

the whole problem stems from these people's inaccuracy and re-writing of their history , let us at least hear what they have to sayGreen108 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You indicated that you would do some research to assertain which date was accurate. Have you completed this? Faithinhumanity 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

This article has been protected from editing for 48 hours due to persistent edit warring. Please discuss the issue to find consensus. Disruptive editing and revert warring are not acceptable. If you cannot come to an agreement or compromise through discussion, please seek dispute resolution. If the conflict and behaviour continues, preventative blocks may be used to disrupt the conflict. Thank you. Vassyana 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First attempt to find consensus

I will analyze the first part of the article. If there is a positive response, I will continue with the remaining article otherwise, I will consider that compromise in this article may need additional measures.

1.The practise taught by BKWSU involves spirit possession (where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of the male spirit) and mediumistic channelling[5][6]. The practice taught by BKWSU does not involve spirit possession. Please supply a scholar reference where this is stated. the practice of Raja Yoga has no relationship with channelling. Raja Yoga students are not engaged in channeling. The way the first part of the article is written is misleading.

2.Hardy, Hardayal's book is referenced several times. I argue that he is not a scholar who has expertise in the subject. This could be considered a secondary source, if anything but i would like to come to terms with the editors about the sources that we are going to use. I believe most of us agree that Walliss for instance, is a good source. He is a scholar and have expertise in the subject matter, just to give an example.

3."Hindu organizations denounced Om Mandali as a disturber of family peace and some followers were mistreated by their families. " I would like to see the reference for this statement.

4."He was also accused of forming a cult and controlling his community through the art of hypnotism; children were removed from his school[8]." I think this paragraph is misquoted. there are 2 issues here which are not related, hypnotism and children. which one of them the supplied reference points to?

5.Radhe, Brahma-Kumari ? She was stated as a source for a reference. Qualifications , please?

6."To avoid persecution, lawsuits and opposition from the family members of his followers, Lekhraj Kripalani moved his followers from Hyderabad to Karachi." Where is this coming from? I doubt that to be scholar. It is not a fact. The fact is "Lekhraj Kripalani and followers moved to Karachi." The part before that is just speculation.

7.Problem with this paragraph: "To avoid persecution, lawsuits and opposition from the family members of his followers, Lekhraj Kripalani moved his followers from Hyderabad to Karachi. The Anti-Om Mandali Committee, led by the father-in-law of his daugher, and composed of members of his Bhaibund community, which had opposed the group in Hyderabad, followed them[15]. Some Hindu members of the Sindh Assembly threatened to resign unless the Om Mandali was outlawed. Finally, the Sindh Government used the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 to declare the Om Mandali an unlawful association[7]. Under further pressure from the Hindu leaders in the Assembly, the Government also ordered the Om Mandali to close and vacate its premises[16]. The Om Mandali successfully appealed against the Government order in court." The end result was that the Om Mandali was successful and accepted. Why place so many accusations which at the end were proven wrong? (because "The Om Mandali successfully appealed against the Government order in court.") I can accuse anyone from anything. Innocent until proven guilty.

8. "In April 1950, after the partition of India, the Brahma Kumaris moved to Mount Abu in India, claiming that they had been instructed by God to do so[10]. After Kripalani's death in 1969, his followers expanded the movement to other countries[17]." Jagdish Chander should not be there. As we know he is not considered a reliable source from the perspective of an encyclopedia.

It would like to offer this alternative: (references could be added if required) Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU), or Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya, is considered by several religious scholars and academicians to be a new religious movement (NRM).[1], [2] Founded in 1936 in Hyderabad, Sindh[3] (present day Pakistan), its adherents are commonly called BKs.[3] Religious scholar Reender Kranenborg, a research professor at the Institute for the Study of Religion, the Free University, Amsterdam writes, “The entire way of the Brahma Kumaris can be characterized as raja yoga” [4]; however he distinguishes it from the widely known raja yoga defined by Patanjali in that it is not based on the classical astanga, eight-limbed yoga.[5] BK Raj Yoga bears some similarity in aim to other yogic practices, as it can also be considered ”the ladder to spiritual liberation, a practical method of union with God.”[1]

Origins

The movement was founded in 1936, in the region of Sindh which is now in the country of Pakistan, by a retired diamond merchant named Lekhraj Khubchand Kirpalani.[3] At that time, Lekhraj chose to withdraw from worldly life and devote his time to his spiritual practice as a devout Hindu.[1] That experience and the many that were to follow that day were understood to be that God had descended into the body of Lekhraj to impart a “message(s) for humanity regarding the nature of the present age.”[17]

However, the experiences that Lekhraj had and continued to have were not received very well universally in those early days as there was much controversy within the Sindh community over the establishment of Om Mandali, the spiritual school that Lekhraj founded.[17] Lekhraj told the followers that Shiva had renamed Lekhraj who was now called Prajapita Brahma, the Father of Humanity.[17]

A number of cultural factors may be seen to have led to such societal reaction. The primary factor that seems instrumental to the opposition was that the spiritual study and lifestyle drew attention away from family life as chastity was a primary discipline of the practice. Another significant factor for the persecution of the proto-Brahma Kumaris was the significance placed on female religiosity which was a direct challenge to the male-led social order and particularly the role of women within the family and community at that time.[17]

The spiritual school moved from Hyderabad to Karachi (now part of Pakistan) for fourteen years which was, at that time, part of colonial India. The founding group of approximately 300 individuals lived as a self-sufficient community spending much of their time in spiritual study and meditation in an effort to attain the “true self”[4] which is akin to the previously mentioned capacity for total non-violence in thought and deed.[10]

The group moved to the present day location of Madhuban in Mt. Abu, following the partition of India in 1949.[18]

From the time of establishment, through the time of opposition, Brahma Baba encouraged women in particular to “develop their spiritual lives and take leadership roles.”[19] Though the Brahma Kumaris membership in the early years and even now is primarily composed and administered by women, in the Western environment, while they clearly do promote female leadership, they have frequently given leadership roles to men. There appears to have been much variation in gender ratios over time and space across the history of the BKs which seem to be due to the differing patterns of gender relations in the societies of the countries in which the organization operates.[20]

Versions of the organization’s history can be found on the BKWSU websites [9][10].

BKWSU Philosophy

BKWSU philosophy originated from the experiences of the founder, Lekh Raj Kripilani, a devout Hindu diamond merchant who had profound religious experiences. “He felt himself to be an instrument of the Supreme Soul who had passed on the knowledge to him or had him experience it, intending that Lekh Raj pass it on to others. Or, as it was stated, he experienced the love of God who gave him the highest spiritual knowledge.” This experience was different than that with which he was acquainted from his Bhakti.”[6] Lekh Raj reportedly had such encounters for some time.

In the philosophy of the BKWSU, the body is considered to be a “garment” for the soul.[7] Souls are understood to have three components: intellect, conscious mind, and unconscious mind. The intellect receives and digests wisdom or Truth; reasons and discerns; and exhibits will and understanding. Depending on the intellect’s strength, it guides the thoughts that the conscious mind creates. The conscious mind produces thoughts and ideas; emotions, feelings and experiences and can be influenced by either the subconscious mind or by the guidance of the intellect. The unconscious mind contains impressions (sanskaras) that form personality as a consequence of action (karma).

BK ideas about God are a marked departure from Hindu concepts. God is an eternal and conscient being of light, the ‘All-Highest Soul’, ever-pure and good. Although having all knowledge and in that sense being omniscient, he is not omnipresent. Not only is God eternal—an eternal power or energy—but matter and human souls are also eternal; neither are they created by God nor do they emerge from God.

Kranenborg describes the essence of BK cosmology: “In the beginning all souls lived together, with the All-Highest Soul in a non-material world, but because of the law of karma the souls left this world for the material world and entered into human bodies. All souls play their own roles in the material world and therefore assume a body in order to give expression to their original positive qualities… When the soul enters into matter, in the world of action, the game of action and reaction between intellect, mind and subconscious mind begins…. The purpose of this life and future lives are determined by this whole process.” Rebirth is exclusively in human bodies. To be liberated from the game, the human being must learn to burn away negative karma and produce positive karma by attuning himself to the All-Highest Soul. “In other words, only through knowledge of God and the connection with God is a human being liberated.”[6]

Brahma Kumaris teachings accord with classical Hinduism with respect to four world ages: the golden age (sat yuga), the silver age (treta yuga), the copper age (dwapar yuga) and the iron age (kali yuga). Striking deviations from Hinduism are the inclusion of a fifth ‘diamond age’ or confluence age (sangam yuga) and the belief that the whole cycle lasts only 5000 years.

The BKWSU philosophy is considered millenarian, similar to a number of other faith traditions including Christian, Mormon, Rasta, Shakers, Nostradamus, et al., in that there is belief in a coming major transformation of society after which all things will be changed in a positive direction. References in BK teachings on this matter often refer to this world transformation culminating in the Hindu epic of the Mahabharata War. [8]

• you may note that Kranenborg is used. He is a scholar just like Walliss.

Would like to hear the input from other editos about this version. What do you like?, what you don't like? why?

Best Wishes, Avyakt7 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Avyakt7

Hi Avyakt7. At first I wasn't sure what to make of all this since I was working along the lines of addressing the article one point at a time. However after seeing Renee's comment below, and seeing what happened to the Sahaj Marg article, I guess it is under some circumstances possible to make more radical changes to an article but this would need some consensus that it was the best thing to do to improve the article. In that case it would get my support. The content seems to be from the Citizendium article I uploaded some time ago. They have a different license to Wikipedia but since it hasn't been modified (except for one intra-wiki link) I can declare it to be dual-licensed.

Also I suggest creating a subpage, perhaps in your own userspace, rather than filling up the talk page with a whole article, similar to how I did the article analysis recently. It may be more appropriate to create it as a subpage of this talk page though I'm not 100% sure.

I agree with the most of the points you raise. Some of them are echoing concerns I raised earlier in this talk page. Not entirely sure about the how far or not we need to go with ruling out primary sources. They can be used with care however GRBerry highlighted a strong recommendation from arbcom that we use reliable secondary sources wherever possible as part of the terms of this article's probation.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Rfc

This post is in response to the RFC posted today. [23] I have never heard of this group before and have not read the discussion archives, so I am reading this purely as an outside, neutral party.

As an outside reader, the article seems very anti-Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University -- first because of word choices and second because of topic selection. For example, "spirit possession" has a very negative connotation in the West. Does this group say they do spirit possession, or is this someone looking at their literature and then deciding to call it that? If it's the latter it's a clear violation of WP:OR and must be deleted. Another example, in the "Early History" section, many accusations are listed. If these accusations were not proven in a court of law or some other neutral venue, then they cannot be included in the article, because an accusation can be made without proof.

Regarding the Eugene Romain post that prompted the RFC, it is a self-published website (where people can say the earth is flat and the ocean is two feet deep and all other sorts of nonsense), so it should be removed immediately.

If the editors truly wish to have a balanced, neutral article, one suggestion is to reduce this article to a stub of simple facts, and then work from there. Right now there is so much POV material that it seems an overwhelming task to accomplish.

Good luck. Renee --Renee 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If the word spirit possession is used in reliable sources then it should stay, I think. NPOV (which should not be confused with neutrality) means following what reputable sources have stated. Not significantly changing their wording. Andries 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree if something is verifiable, in an outlet that is vetted by fact-finders or in a peer-reviewed outlet, and in context (key point!) then it is valid. Best wishes, Renee --Renee 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that it is a poor choice of reference for the first paragraph since it makes for a misleading description. I suggest that the first paragraph doesn't aim to be so shocking and controversial and if that particular reference must be included, then it is placed in a more appropriate section. I know it is tough to argue with an academic source but the claims they are making look plain loopy to a BK as I tried to articulate earlier. It has so many academic names attached to it I wonder if it was peer reviewed or just "designed by committee". Not sure how to proceed on this one. Regards Bksimonb 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the citation is wrong. Only one of the listed person is the author and Wilson the editor of the whole book. Andries 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the most common word for what happens to the women? Andries 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If an accusation is mentioned in reputable sources and a notable controversy then it can stay. From what I have read (Nagel in German who has a pro BK bias), at least the activities of the anti-BK group are notable and sourced in reputable sources. Andries 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that accusations are not allowable. I'd check with an administrator on this. Also, it's my understanding that "anti" groups are not reliable sources because they are by definition not neutral(they are "anti" that group, hence, promote a specific point-of-view). Renee --Renee 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again the anti-group is mentioned in secondary reputable sources. Andries 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But is that the anti-Om Mandali group, the Advance Party? Certainly not Eugene's website or the internet-based anonymous anti-BK group. Bksimonb 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Om Mandali group. Andries 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying? If the anti-group is mentioned in a secondary source then that would be fine for an article on the anti-group. But it can't be extended beyond that. Also, an anti-group is by definition POV (it is "anti" the group, which makes it unsuitable as a Wiki source). Academic and mainstream newspaper/magazine articles (i.e., those with known fact-checking procedures), for example, are generally welcome. Renee --Renee 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the anti-groups is treated in a reputable scholarly book about the BK so it should be treated here. Andries 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

May I just ask Andries and Renee if you are both talking about the same anti-group. The one Andries is referring to, the anti-Om Mandali, is documented as part of the early history. But if Renee is referring to the new internet-based anti-BK groups of today then that is something totally different. They haven't been reliably documented yet and what they publish themselves is not a reliable source. The "Shankar/Advance Party" have been briefly documented by Wallis as quoted earlier in this talk page. Bksimonb 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the reference on the internet about the "spirit possession" taught by BK [24]unfortunately the index of the book in question did not have even the name "Brahma Kumaris" listed. I am very leery about some of the references in this article. I don't want to buy all the books that are mentioned there either to check the accuracy. A look at the table of contents does not mention brahma Kumaris as well. The page number is not mentioned in the reference. Where is it? Last but no least; for what i was able to find, Bryan Wilson is a lecturer of Journalism and he is more interested in subliminal messages and that sort of thing. Unless there is another Bryan Wilson who is an authority in religious studies, I argue that the current reference is not suitable for this article. It is very important to choose the academic sources. yes, we need to use reputable scholarly books and we need to come to a consensus as to which one to use. Best, Avyakt7 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bryan R. Wilson. Andries 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the Brahma Kumaris in the index. Andries 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andries for doing the search on Wilson and also for finding BK in the index.

Actually the author of that quote about "spirit Possession" was Elizabeth Puttick. The quote is a follows:"The Brahma Kumaris present a similar pattern of a founder who favoured and promoted women, and has been run mainly by women since his death. In some respects the role reversal is more complete than in the Osho movement, since women are teachers as well as administrators, and there is a very clear doctrine on gender equality. They are concerned with women's issues and spiritual leadership. However, as with sannyasins, Brahma Kumaris women become core members by being fully `surrendered'; and their prominence derives from their mediumistic cababilities, channelling murlis (sermons) from their dead founder. As a result, `their power is veiled through the device of possession. Women, even when they; possess power, cannot be seen to wield it. Hence, the importance of spirit possession where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of a male spirit." Now, if we compare that with our current article: "The practise taught by BKWSU involves spirit possession (where women are the instruments or mouthpieces of the male spirit) and mediumistic channelling[5][6]."

We can see that the quote even though legit, is used out of context. Raja Yoga (the practise taught by BKWSU) does not involve spirit possession. The quote clearly specifies about women capabilities of becoming instruments to this "male spirit."

Best, Avyakt7 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

May be it does not belong in the lead, but to remove term "spirit possession" from the whole articles strikes me as flawed. Andries 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The quote is entirely in context and key to the bkwsu

Thank you for confirming that you have no intention of actually buying any books to do the work, to check the reference as other have done. But at least, Riveros, you ought to go and read some more murlis (channelled messages of the Bk god) so that you can understand what it is you are involve in as a Brahma Kumari follower.

Now , I hope others can see the problem we have faced. If other editors will not even check the references , how can we converse with them? Green108 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope you realize that is not about how many books you can buy and the size of your wallet. In the past I provided copies of my sources for everyone to see, that is something which you will not do. As an editor I would like to trust in your references, but as demonstrated above, even though you have a legit reference, you have used it in a different way, out of context. The problem as I see it is that I could erase most of the stuff you have written by using my own references. Kraneborg comes to mind. In my viewpoint, He has grasped pretty well what the BKWSU is all about. His expertise is religious studies as well. I cannot say the same thing about a sociologist, for instance. A sociologist explains a religious movement based on his own referential view point of what is considered to be acceptable by the current standards of society. Someone who has a terminal degree on religious studies on the other hand, will describe the movement and compare it with other religious movements as they see pertinent. That is why is very important that we choose which authors we will use. I wouldn't mind buying 3 or 5 books if I have to. Hope you see that what I am suggesting here is reasonable. Best, Avyakt7 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What has Kranenborg written of any depth? His is not even a proper paper, its just a conference piece that repeats BKWSU PR. It uses all the fluffy language beloved of BK publicity material, e.g. "He had the feeling that he had come into contact with the Supreme". Its a little bit different from the way they tell it to their students, see belowGreen108 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"A preliminary version of a paper presented at CESNUR 1999" Green108 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you are not acquainted with academia at all. [25] You may want to know what is Cesnur. Here a quote from the site:"The texts of this site, selected because of their scholarly interest, represent the point of view of their authors." Now, are you going to say that Kranenborg is a BK? or that he was hired by BKs to write this paper? Just say it.Here is a link to the article itself. The beauty of this is that everyone can look at it and see for themselves if my references are being applied correctly.[26] So much for "His is not even a proper paper." If your opinions is all you got to support your opinions....what is the value of that? Best,Avyakt7 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read much by Kranenborg, both in Dutch and English and I think that he is generally a reliable scholar. What is the problem with Kranenborg? Andries 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Full context for BKWSU channelling, possession and mediumship reference

I wanted to address this issue of mediumship and possession from, in the first place, primary sources in order that those that are not BK followers can appreciate what is being referenced here and why. I am going to use on a Word processor on this one as it is important.

Firstly, can I remind contributors that Simon and Riveros are both dedicated BK followers and, at least Simon, a member of the BKWSU organization core Internet PR Team. I tend to see them as a single voice of the BKWSU; Simon and his shadow. The BKWSU invests considerable energy and resources keeping the the more freaky part of its operation.

Secondly, BK Raja Yoga and classical Raja Yoga have nothing in common. The focus of attention in BK Raja Yoga is a channelled entity, a spirit being, that “possessed” Lekhraj Kripalani in the 1930. The BKs claim this spirit entity is, of course, the God of all religions. I emphasise this so that individual realise that we are not talking about some numinous influence or general inspiration, which is how the BKs often sell it to non-BKs.

Channelling or possession is referred to in a variety of different cases in the BKWSU;

• the possession of Lekhraj Kripalani,
• the possession and mediumship of Hirday Mohini who is said to channel both Lekhraj Kripalani and God Father Shiva,
• the possession and mediumship by Hirday Mohini of other deceased senior BK followers,
• during two periods in the history, namely the beginning and immediately after the death of the medium Kripalani there were numerous cases of possession and mediumship by other BK follwoers until the spirit settled down for one medium
• regular trance mediumship not involving posssession
• and, of course, the current training up of new mediums

I guess to be exact, we would have to qualify the difference between channelling, possession, overshadowing and mediumship; and examine the relationship between the channel or medium and the possessing spirit entity. But that is beyond the scope of this article. What is unquestionable is whether there is the practise of possession, mediumship and channelling going on.

I have to laugh when Riveros says, “used as an instrument”. “Instrument” is a BK word that means the victim of possession or channelling medium in plain English. This is very typical of the BKWSU to attempt to use a word that they are very clear about the meaning but which is hidden to outsiders. “used as an instrument” means either possessed, channelling or acting as a medium.

He goes on to say that “the practise taught by BKWSU) does not involve spirit possession”. This is complete untrue. He may be ignorant of the facts of his own religions but more likely, he, like they “corporate” want to hide all this stuff from newcomers until they are hooked in a relationship with their god spirit.

Beyond the introductory possession and channelling mentioned above, the channelled messages that the possessing spirit speaks through the mediums (called Murlis), clearly confirmed by the largely spoken tradition, identify two more types of psychic influences;

• firstly, the primary possessing spirit they claim is god (Shiva) also states that he enters into his BK followers in order to do good service through them.

• Secondly, the BKWSU talks about “The Inspiration Party”. “The Inspiration Party” is a said to be group of deceased senior BK followers, now dead and without a body of their own. In some way, they spiritually possess or work through living BK followers again to promote the religion.

So part and parcel with the core meditation on the primary possessing spirit they call Shiva is the preparation of the BK follower to be used as a channel of the mind and energy of these other paranormal influences.

Both the original and paraphrase quotations are correct. High social status and importance does go to those sisters that are channels and trance mediums for the male spirits. Without them there would be no Raja Yoga. It might be hard to visualise for non-BKs, but what we are talking about is 1,000s of people sitting down believing that God has entered into a little old Indian lady in Mount Abu, speaking to them personally and meeting them eye to eye. In the old days, it used to be possible to have conversations with him.

The final context we have to put this is in the BKWSU determination to hide all this from non-BKs and how ill it fits with their corporate and political ambitions.

Forget all the waffle, this is what the removal is all about. The BKWSU does not want outsiders to know that they are being initiated into an relationship with a ghost that possesses an old Indian lady. The BKWSU wants outsiders to think that they are meeting a universal God or some vague, inspirational “energy” or “source”. This is the language they prefer to use.

I argue against this. I think we have a responsibility to the greater community, through the Wikipedia, to provide factual truths; not some organization's PR or whitewash.

Without the "Ghost", there would be and could be no BK Raja Yoga. If the ghost, to quote the Indian presidential stories, turns out to the God of all religions as the BKs believe, then we are fine. We have done a good job advertising his coming. But you non-BKs must understand that the BKs believe this is god that has possessed Lekhraj Kripalani and has “come to destroy all other religions”. That is an exact quote.

The BKWSU followers wants to re-write this topic into some vague, flattering New Agey advertisementGreen108

I would like to request that you act in a civil manner. Trying to belittle our beliefs as BKs shows your true side. That is a big part of the problem. It is hard to reason with someone who has anger towards the BK movement. Please put your negative emotions some place else and use good manners. Thank you. Avyakt7 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about that summary. Is that really the best response you can come up with? Another personal attack and more projection? More PR spin? That is just the cool, detached truth in non-BK language. To answer Simon above, I do not know of any anti-BK websites … (oh, may be one; The Owelsong website).

Let’s look at the BKWSU own stories of "the possession of Lekhraj Kripalani" (although personally I do not believe it is actually true as written) and how he became a medium and channel to this other “spirit entity”.

On one occasion, the BKWSU claims his eyes shone red, the room was filled with red light around him and a booming voice spook out of him. (I doubt that it said “Shivohum, Shivohum” because there was no mention of Shiva until after 1950 at least).

On another occasion, the BKWSU claims he was falling to pieces and becoming like a child drawing Swastikas and Circles on the wall of a family house, they had to send him away because, presumably, they thought he was cracking up. It is reported that he thought he was going mad. Then it is said he had psychic visions. And during the early period, so were all the kids going into trance, having psychic experiences and dancing

Now, frankly, that is close to Linda Blair territory. I appreciate that. after all its financial investment, time and energy spent in PR, the BKWSU is uncomfortable at having its inner truths made public, but what else is the mechanism at play here?

To BKs, it is no problem. The possessing spirit is God. It is not about the mechanics, it is about the quality of this spirit entity which you/they think is Supreme. Fine. The rest of the world might think otherwise, especially if he is set on destroying their religions and way of life.

I think what underpins it as “possession” is the involuntary nature of it. Kripalani did not want it, did not ask for it, did not prepare and exercise himself to become a medium; but medium is what he was called in the organisation for most of its existence and channelling is what Gulzar does. Was her initiation as medium voluntary or did Shiva and the deceased Kripalani just possess her?

For non-BKs all the other references are accurate and taken from the organisation’s own channelled messages (almost and mostly verbatim) and publicity material which I can reference and are included in the article itself Green108 09:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think spirit possession is pushing it too far and reflects a Western bias. It's clear the group does medium channeling and the sort they do seems consistent with many Eastern traditions.

Where the evidence is contradictory from reliable citations, I suggest removing whatever is being claimed and refer people to the contradictory pieces of evidence. For example, "BKWSU advocates celibacy, vegetarianism, and XXX..." should be more than enough said about sex. The quotations on sex are POV (selectively chosen to make spiritual celibacy look strange). Many spiritual traditions advocate celibacy (Roman Catholic priests come to mind first). Renee --Renee 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First you write that "spirit possession" that should be removed and then you write that we should follow what reliable sources have stated. This strikes me as contradictory because the term is mentioned in reliable sources. Andries 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From my read of the source, which does appear reliable, the author is doing a type of post-modern analysis of gender roles and power (and as a former university professor, I've reviewed many papers like this). The basic gist of her article is that even though women appear to be in positions of power, they possess their power only through the male voice speaking through them (showing that the power is still male). If you read what she says, she's not speaking of the common meaning of "spirit possession" (in which the common, connotative meaning usually is "demonic possession"), but of mediumistic channeling. So as I said above, it appears the group definitely says they are involved in mediumistic channeling, but the words "spirit possession" are not neutral and have a lot of connotative meaning for English speakers.

Also, when I edited it, it didn't seem right to put it in the lead paragraph, because it's not THE central core belief or practice. I think it should be in the article, but not in the lead, and it certainly should be written in a neutral manner.

Best wishes, Renee --Renee 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. remember our goal is to have an article that everyone can live with, though it may not be exactly how each person wants it. For example, I doubt if the pro-BKWSU group wants "mediumistic channeling" in the article because frankly, most Westerners would run for the hills at that statement. But, spirit possession really seems to be an intentional "anti" provocation, so I hope that the phrase "medium channeling" is a reasonable compromise. Renee 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the reference used is in itself misleading. It implies there are more than one medium delivering the murli in the present tense. This is simply not the case and if necessary I can show other references that show otherwise. It also seems to give the impression that these mediums (in plural) are in some kind of competition for prominence on account their mediumistic capability to do this. This is also patent nonsense. It's a very clunky and strange citation to be using, as it was, out of context, for a first paragraph. Some degree of care and common sense is needed when using Western academic citations to explain Eastern religion because sometimes it's clear they profoundly just haven't got it. Regards Bksimonb 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits?

Per the discussions above, I'd like to take a crack at streamlining this article where issues are contested (just give a neutral statement and retain the cites) as well as neutralize the language a bit. Feedback welcome. --Renee 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Help!! I edited the first two sections (as well as streamlined some of the later text) but lost most of the references. Everytime I tried to retain them they would either move everything to a footnote or highlight everything. So, I figured it was easier to write the text, and then have someone knowledgeable about how to do references go back in and add the references.

So, can someone please re-insert the references where they belong?

Also, if someone could please refer me to a reference tutorial, I'd appreciate it. This is just a start to the revamping of this article.

Thanks! --Renee 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it definitely reads with less of a sting now :-) I will see if I can re-insert the references now. Otherwise congratulations for a much needed cleanup of the language. And there's me thinking it would take another rfc to get that through...

I just managed to re-insert one reference OK. I'll try an put others back as required. I just copy and pasted from a previous version everything between and including the relevant <ref></ref> tags.

Best regards Bksimonb 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working on re-inserting the references. Remember, we're not trying to make the article nice or pleasant (just like we're not trying to make it negative or hostile), but neutral and balanced. Thanks. --Renee 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"neutral" and "balanced" is all I've ever hoped for. I was referring to the atmosphere on this talk page rather than the article.

What references need to be re-inserted other than the one I tried? I tried to tie-up the other refs to the text and from what I can tell the others are redundant now.

Regards Bksimonb 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think some third-party references are needed after the last sentence in the first paragraph. Do you know of any academic or journal citations that might be appropriate? Also, if possible the Barrett reference should be re-inserted after the second paragraph (starting "Some members...") in the Early History section. Thanks. --Renee 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I've re-inserted the Barrett reference but it seems to be referring to something else. The Om Radhe reference cites the problems with the community but is a primary source. Is that the one you meant? If so then there are secondary sources that say the same thing. Will look into it tomorrow. Regards Bksimonb 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I was just re-inserting sources basically where they appeared in the earlier version, trusting that the sentence was sourced properly. If there's a better secondary source saying what the line says, by all means please use that. Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Archive proposal

In the interests of making this a "nice" article to be involved with I am proposing we archive the talk with the exception of the above "Edits?" post. Although a lot of the threads are live they have become huge and are full of civility and other issues.

We can restart any important threads as required. Let me know if you have any views otherwise I will perform the operation tomorrow.

Regards Bksimonb 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, I'd say go for it Simon. Best, Avyakt7 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider the question of mediumship to be open. Compromise is required not deletion. The centrality appears to be well argued. Faithinhumanity 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The misreprentation that this misinterpretation belongs in the lead violates the policy of not giving undue weight to a minor point or a single source. IPSOS (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)