![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Danh, I disagree with "Mama's Murlis" being described as one type of Murli. BKs don't believe Mama was a medium of God, therefore I think placing it together as Sakar and Avyakt would only confuse that section, which is already unnecessarily lengthy. I think just a brief and objective explanation about what Murlis are believed to be is enough. If you want Mama's classes to be addressed somewhere in the article, I suggest "early history". GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 11:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I deciphered the importance of the date of 18 Jan, but what does 24 June mean to the BKSWU? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A new editor June24th (BTW the date Mama, the first coordinator of Brahma Kumaris passed away, January 18 is the date the founder passed away), reverted the whole article to the version previous to Januarythe18th being indef blocked. Obviously, it's a sock. I suggest a sock investigation. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that there needs to be a section titled "Practices". My logic is that Meditation is not a belief, it's something BKs do. The lifestyle would fit nicely into a section on practices. It's also good encyclopedic info i.e. What is a BK? 1. What do they believe, 2. What do they actually do. That would then flow on nicely into the Activities section. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 10:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The domain name dispute, in controversies section, was originally placed as a self-advert of a critical website. It was moved to controversies but it was not established that an organization disputing its own name is controversial. Any organization would dispute the use of its own name for a website. If no Reliable Source refers to a domain dispute as something particularly controversial, then it's unsupported to be there. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 13:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed "no religion" in Golden Age - As far as I understand, BKs believe there is a single religion - just not plurality. "No belief in God" in Golden Age also removed as this may well be understood as atheism, which is not a BK belief. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"Tree of Humanity" in "Central Beliefs" is the same belief as the Cycle, I see no reason to have the same belief documented twice, so I suggest removing "Tree of humanity". GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take silence as consent CiC. Sorry if I'm being impatient. By all means re-insert if good ref's can be found. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 10:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It was suggested by Vecrumba some time ago that the article would be better named [Brahma Kumaris]]. One is that the organisation has no accredited training programs so in many countries it is not allowed to use 'University', another is that because of this the name changes in different countries. At least reducing to Brahma Kumaris makes it international rather than regional? Opinions please :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Meditation needs improvement, with information describing what is the practice and/or why is it practiced or considered important. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Quote from criticisms section: "Followers are encouraged to undergo a ‘death-in-life’ and ‘die towards the outer world’ renouncing their families and thus be ‘divinely’ reborn in the ‘divine family[94] consequently, the Brahma Kumaris have been accused of breaking up marriages and families since the 1930s.[95][96]".
Please note that the statement before the word "consequently" is supported by one reference, the statement after it is a completely different one with a completely different reference. Where did the word "consequently" came from? It's solely WP:Synthesis of 2 unrelated references to push a critical POV.
Regarding the first statement, all religions have some kind of metaphor that means accepting its own faith, etc. Obviously "death in life" is just a religious metaphor and not controversial by itself. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 10:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The part of criticism that mentioned this reference: [4] was removed. It falsely attributed claims (for example, a magazine that reported a person who heard another person, etc. , but falsely attributed as a statement of a a cult expert), sounds more like gossip (it is a "gossip magazine" after all), can't see how any of those claims is really supported. Given their weight, they would need a more reliable and neutral source as basis (see WP:Exceptional).
The reference itself says "allegedly", "former members told me", which was misrepresented as "cult expert stated". GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed merging Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations into this article given the poor referencing and underdeveloped nature of that article, and support such a merger. John Carter ( talk) 15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a separate website, but i just tried and it's currently 'under construction' [7] and some information here [8]. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Rather than have a 'criticism of beliefs and practices', I was thinking what I really had in mind was more of a 'clarification of common misconceptions'. Owl, you have given a good example above, with the 'dying alive' metaphor, common to a number of spiritual traditions. However rather than deleting these things, I think it would be better to post content expressing both sides - i.e. the common misunderstanding (often a literalisation of metaphor) and the actual meaning and way the metaphor is played out in life. But there are other things I want to do first, so I'm not rushing into establishing this section yet, just flagging a plan. Thanks Danh108 ( talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph on the lede reflects the previous state of the article - a collection of sensationalist news and misrepresentation of sources. As was discussed here, no RS considers Brahma Kumaris to be a generally controversial NRM. That was the conclusion taken by an editor, not by a RS. Therefore, I suggest removing the 4th paragraph of the lede as undue weight. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Just in case I've started anyone looking...don't worry...Chapter 4 in Flows of faith 2012 (pgs 51-71) is the article "Brahma Kumaris: Purity and the Globalisation of Faith". It is already referenced in the article. If anyone knows how to upload things, I have a pdf version that can be uploaded. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 19:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a shot. I have references but find it easier to write it first and insert them later:
The Brahma Kumaris was originally called Om Mandali. The group started in Hyderabad, Sindh in North-West India [1]. It received this name because they would chant "Om" together, before having discourse on spiritual matters in the traditional satsang style. The original discourses were closely connected to the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most popular and revered religious texts in India. The Founder, Dada Lekhraj Khubchand Kripilani (then known as "Om Baba" – 1876 – 1969) was a wealthy jeweler and very well respected in his community [2]. He had a series of visions and other transcendental experiences that commenced in approximately 1935 and became the basis for the satsang to start. He felt there was a greater power working through him and many of those who attended these gatherings were themselves having profound spiritual experiences. The majority of those who came were women and children from the Bhaibund caste [3] - a caste of wealthy merchants and business people, whose menfolk spent considerable periods of time overseas for business. Once the group had been meeting for approximately 3 years it was starting to become clear that it was giving a very special importance to women and was also not adhering to the rigid caste system: the group named a 22 year old woman, Radhe Pokordas (then known as "Om Radhe" – 1916 - 1965) as its President, her management committee was made up of 8 other women, and they allowed people from any caste to attend satsang. In addition the group advocated that young women had the right to elect not to marry and that married women had the right to chose a celibate life. In tradition bound patriarchal India, these personal life decisions were the exclusive right of the men in their lives. On 21 June 1938 a group of males that had been forming in opposition to Om Mandali started to picket outside the organisation, preventing entry, causing considerable upheaval in the community and preventing Om Mandali from operating. Ultimately Om Mandali elected to avoid the uproar created and moved to Karachi in the latter half of 1938. Approximately 300 members made this move. They lived as a cloistered community seeking to understand the experiences they were having which ultimately comprise the BK beliefs and practices below.
In April 1950 the organisation moved to Mount Abu in Rajastan India. From it's beginning the organisation's focus has been on education not forms of worship, and for this reason renamed itself as Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University...
Agreed. Have a look in about 30 minutes :-) Danh108 ( talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it seems good wishes and pure feelings are part, although not necessarily, of the practice of soul consciousness. What do you think about the possibilities of either renaming that section to "soul consciousness" or spliting/adding a new "practices" section called "soul consciousness"? GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, While I don't think the article is perfect - actually it still has quite a bit of work required and I'm still trying to get some photo's sorted out. However I neutrality has been achieved and have removed the tag. Comments are welcome if anyone is not comfortable with this. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 08:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I plan to move this into the controversies section as it's not just giving the BK belief, but dealing with a lot of history and background issues that relate to the greater emphasis the BKs place on destruction at it's inception and early period. In most of the stuff I've been reading, Destruction is not a separate section, and if anything that's WP:Undue. It's just an aspect of the cycle of time. So I will put a cut back version of 'Transformation' into the cycle of time. Incidentally, the cycle of 4 ages only makes mention of 2 ages, so that gap needs filling sometime as well. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm keen to get feedback on the images inserted - feel free to improve the captions or give feedback about their placement/size. I'm still learning....hopefully it's okay. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Anti
Hi CiC, perhaps when I get time I can trace the original sources i.e. the Judicial Commissioner of Sind reported cases etc and site that directly rather than 'care of' Is this Justice. As far as I'm aware Is this Justice doesn't contain affidavit material of allegations that were never proven in Court. Presumably if there was a case to answer they would certainly have taken it against Mr Lekhraj as that would have been the easiest way to stop the movement. Like our conversation with the Hindi newspapers earlier, allegations aren't encyclopedic and can have a highly prejudicial affect on people's minds (and Om Mandali alleges they intentionally leaked these materials to the media which is what ignited public opinion against them in '38). There were some inflamatory allegations by Om Mandali against the 'anti-party' about force feeding pig flesh, rapes, beating with weapons, public naming shaming and being walked through the city, and torture - in 'Peace and Purity' and some primary source material given to me. In the interests of fairness and keeping the 'encyclopedic feel', I didn't specify these details. I hope that clarifies. Best wishes Danh108 ( talk) 23:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Graeme, you made exactly the edit I was going to make. No RS mentions the site, much less characterizes it as persecution. Saying so would be OR, a position not assumed by any RS. Until a reliable source mentions it and assumes a position towards it, there is no point in including the site. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 19:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Staphysagria, Maybe you were part way through your work, but the photo's inserted didn't correspond to the content, where as the photo you deleted did, and you also kind of mucked up the layout. I note that these are your very first edits on Wikipedia, so it would help if you explain yourself. Thanks Owl, I was thinking a similar thing. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This article covers everything the "beliefs and practices" do. Unless there are any objections, I will propose deletion of Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Following the same reasons for beliefs and practices, I am proposing merger for List of Brahma Kumaris. Unless there is any objection, I will propose deletion. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This page reads like it has be written by Brahma Kumari followers to promote the religion. Has no one been discussing the changes on this page? It's become like an advert.
It's ridiculous. Where do I start? Where do I find the box that says so? Peace,
It's OK. I found it.
There are so many falsehoods or exaggerations on it I don't know where to begin. They have not even got the right date of birth for their leader! -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where to start regarding it being an advert.
Look at the beginning, "often references its association with the United Nations".
What does that mean in plain English? Firstly, the religion does not have an association with the United Nations, it has a consultative status with one office of one to two departs of UNESCO etc. That's a gross exaggerated the Brahma Kumaris like to make. So "often references its association with the United Nations" means just that, "the Brahma Kumaris often exaggerate their relationship with the United Nations".
Now, that is true but is it an important and notable enough to warrant being in the first paragaph? Of course not. It's only there because the BKs want it there for the PR value and to hide the rest of their beliefs and activities.
Then we look at their beliefs, to the bit you restored McGeddon.
There are the Brahma Kumari beliefs and there is how the Brahma Kumaris want their beliefs to be seen. Now, is that actually full, complete or accurate? The fact it is not. If we look at their beliefs, actually they think that all other religions are impure and degrades and all other human beings are "Shudra" (lowest caste), only they are Brahmins (highest caste). Therefore the advertising the BKs have insert is their PR version of their religion.
For the lack of discussion or opposition on this page, the Brahma Kumari followers have turned the article into a vague, misleading and inaccurate PR job.
I believe that is their intention. Ask them if it is true. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Shocked at the state of this article. It's a puff-piece. Work to be done on it that's for sure. Gefetane ( talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot afford the time to go through everything today, but the BK followers have littered the topic with factual inaccuracies and misleading content that do not reflect the references given.
They have also added exaggerated elements which are not referenced.
In addition, they are using references written by other followers and their direct, often long term supporters.
It is nothing less than conscienceless and deliberate self-promotion. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
I also have to underline the bad faith involved with the current editors.
The date of birth of founder was 1884. Everyone knows that now. It's on his birth certificate. So why do they keep reverting it to 1876?
If they cannot admit his date of birth, and they are not committed to allow a simple accuracy over such a simple issue, how can they be trusted with the rest of the topic? What is their intention?
The thing is, left to their devices, the topic now reads terribly bad. It's full of uncomfortable constructions, unreferenced and fairly meaningless statements most relating to how they want to be seen not how what the religion is. It's a poorly attempted PR job.
Please start with an honest questions to the followers. Was your founder's date of birth 1876 or 1884. If the answer is 1884 then they credibility is zero. They are only here to confuse, distract and control it plain and simple. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 15:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I have been on holiday. And I am editing from a public internet connection today.
This article is awful. It is badly written. It is factually inaccurate. It has clearly be re-written by followers of the religion like an advert whether boasting about having an office at United Nations or this whole business about being a "spiritual organisation"? What is that?
It is a clear act of bad faith for one of them to deliberate provoke matters by reverting the topic to a version with specifically wrong facts.
I need more time to look at it but at present it is an embarrassment. That is the way I feel. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The beginning of discuss is simple. Please answer the two questions above first.
Thank you. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
...happens to be the religion's representation of God, I don't think removing it is right. There are Christ pictures on Christian articles, Buddha pictures on Buddhist articles, etc. etc.
The reason why the Brahma Kumaris article can't have a picture of their believed God is because...?
BTW I agree with most of the other recent edits by McGeddon and Adjwilley, I think they have improved the quality of the article and removed some promotional tone, thanks. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The massive oscillations are getting a bit mundane. There are 'puff' allegations. Please substantiate something e.g. advertising tag has been used. WHAT IS THE TEXT THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE 'ADVERTISING' in this article. If anyone cares to read the RS used, the article is very much in line with other major encyclopaedia's. My understanding is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soap box for 'fringe views' and rolling out the cherry picked quote collection to try and portray the BKs as a "bunch of whacko's". This appears to be what User:Truth_is_the_only_religion wants to do. And yes, this page suffered an identical problem last year....until that user was blocked. Danh108 ( talk) 21:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As long as we start editing from the neutral version. Not the advert version.
But I would still like an answer from the three BK editors; GreyWinterOwl, Changeisconstant and Danh108 whether they are being coordinated off Wikipedia to control this topic and no more accusations. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 15:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Adjwilley,
I don't want you to be offended but I disagree with your recent summary and edits many of which are unsubstantiated or contradicted by references, for example the claim Om Mandli attention was focused on education. In fact, one of the reasons for public criticisms of Om Mandli was that it was not educating the children at all. The old version of the BKWSU topic is just too full of some problems.
I welcome reasonable edits to develop the topic, but not such mass reversion as are going on. I've included most of your recent edits. Thank you. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's quite nice to see some good editing happening that makes sense. In particular thanks to Adjwilley and McGeddon. There were a couple of things that seemed a bit funny to me:
There could be good reasons, and these are minor compared to the over all tone of the changes i.e. these questions shouldn't detract from the feedback about the good editing. Thanks again :-) Danh108 ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The aims of the religion are stated in a too vague manner. BKs believe that Sat Yuga or heaven on earth is reserved for only 900,000 BK followers and that Europe and America (and the rest of Humanity) will be destroyed by nuclear war and sink under the oceans.
I found one references to support that which has their leaders quote and so it can be accepted at the religion's own view. Does anyone have any others, or is that good enough? TIA. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Truth_is_the_only_religion I also note when I raised
my COI concern on your talk page your response has been to blank the whole page. I am taking this as evidence you have something to hide.
Danh108 (
talk)
20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As the editors participating here must already be aware, many editors have expressed concern that this article appears promotional. For that reason, although I wish the consensus was more specific and actually described the parts of the article that appear promotional, and although, unfortunately, some editors have even jumped to accusations that include myself before they even attempted to edit the article directly or use the talk page, and after I have supported edits that removed promotional content, I will of course follow this consensus and search for everything that seems promotional about this article and delete it.
I must remind everyone once again that I never made a single edit to this article that added promotional tone or content. And until the contrary is proven, I want to assume good faith towards the ones who did, that they did so unintentionally.
I must let it clear, though, that in no way does this mean I agree with User:Januarythe18th's claims. I saw how this article was when he owned it (and anyone can see on the history), a festival of WP:OR to say the least. Even though I agree and never denied that this article at the moment appears promotional, I believe that to be, for Jan18, just an excuse to cover his real propaganda, and the reason why he made big reverts to try to insert contentious content without discussion. To all other editors, I sincerely respect all of you and am here for the purpose of Wikipedia, not any agenda as Januarythe18th exhaustively and falsely accused me. I hope there will be no doubt about my good faith based on my following edits and that they will please those who expressed the concerns. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I was doing some homework on this, and it appears it is an interesting and distinguishing feature of this group. According to the UN website while there are over 2,700 NGO's associated to UN/UN departments, however there are only 147 that have general consultative status with ECOSOC. Flicking thru the list, it's not full of NRMs. It is interesting that the BKWSU has NGO functionality. While the UN itself is prone to being criticised as largely bureaucratic etc., the BKWSU must meet whatever the reporting requirements are to get to participate as an NGO. It's also given significance in the RS.
It is something distinctive about this organisation and no doubt something that can be better developed in the article after the merger with 'Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations'. If people have preferred wordings or views about this, please to add them here. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@James, it probably answers the points you've raised if I address CIC's point at the same time. In essence, to my mind the inclusion is highly uncontroversial and I find the responses here amazing, and the fact that you all snubbed the talk page for 3 weeks and then get excited only when I edit the page is disappointing. It seems to me people with a personal religious connection to the group are biased to see the organisation in that light. But this whole article talks about NGO activities (not religious) that the organisation will have to report to ECOSOC on annually to maintain it's status - the article content is primarily NGO content. It strikes me as particularly empty to say it's 'promotional' - what exactly is it that editors are claiming is being advertised? The language is neutral, the facts described are in a wide range of RS (and James, if you click that link given, the heading below "Civil Society Participation" is "....Organisations in consultative status with ECOSOC - general") - pages 65-68 of Whalings 'Understanding Brahma Kumaris' goes into some detail about the UN/NGO connection. Having non-secular belief's does not mean the group is not an NGO. It is the activities (as per the article) which are definitional. I'm kind of speechless that this point is being debated. GWO and CIC especially, please read up on this (at least on NGO) and broaden your views (sorry if that sounds arrogant...but I don't think people realise how much the other editor influenced people's thinking). Danh108 ( talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The expansion section is extremely brief. However I don't propose to address that at present. I note that it states the movement started to expand overseas in the 1950's, then states later it spread first to London in 1970....these statements can't both be true. Plus 'international expansion program' sounds a bit weird. Any thoughts? Danh108 ( talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, while there some good independent editors attention on this article I thought to do some tweaking. I propose the following modifications the early history section:
Danh108 ( talk) 10:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Another error created by recent editing is the incorrect impression given that on 21 June 1938 an opposition group formed. That's wrong. As originally written the date relates the picketing and rabble rousing which was also the date of police involvement, commencement of Court proceedings resulting from that, which lead to the first 'ban'. The opposition group formed prior to this date. So I will edit to fix this up now. Danh108 ( talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
0. This "movement" operates as a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.177.9 ( talk) 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Many beliefs are not mentioned in the article.I like to propose to add some beliefs.
1)Brahma kumaris say theory of evolution and big bang are wrong. 2)They say earth is flat and does not move.
Please view this video. [4]
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Supdiop ( talk) 05:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)supdiop
Earth is flat and static at 38:00
Evolution and big bang are wrong at 48:25
why isn't that video reliable? It is official Brahma kumaris video and it is from bk member. Supdiop ( talk)supdiop — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you watch the video? It clearly says evolution is wrong and big bang is also wrong. It says earth is only 5000 years old which also adds to the fact that Brahma kumaris clearly opposes evolution and big bang.
The video is from website which is run by official bk members. Brahma kumaris say that everything in universe repeats itself every 5000 years(You can find that in wikipedia article itself) which is itself denial of evolution and big bang. Supdiop ( talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I want article to reflect real beliefs of BKs and I want you all to do the same.
The video may be not working for you but it clearly says Brahma kumaris denies theory of evolution and big bang,it also says earth is flat.
why do you need secondary source when I provided primary source? The video is as reliable as any other source in the article. thank you Supdiop ( talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay I am focusing on beliefs rather than non beliefs.brahma kumaris believe in flat earth.Actually there is very less information of bk in Internet.On official website we don't find any information.
Can you provide links in which it shows brahma kumaris believe in flat earth?
I found a conversation in which brahma kumari say earth is flat and conventional science is wrong. http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=904
Is this enough?
Supdiop ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. You probably all know me from the article history. I can see that the conditions here are thankfully very different to when I retired a few years ago. I would like to help, if I can, to move the article to a state where there is a consensus that it is well written and doesn't have any remaining issues. I will be operating under COI restrictions. Bksimonb ( talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There are reliable sources which say Brahma Kumaris is a cult. Based on a third opinion, it was removed that "Brahma kumaris is considered as cult". Please write your opinion in "Support" section if you want to re-add it (with suggested re-wordings) or write it in "Oppose" section if you don't want to re-add it. There is also a discussion section. Result of the RFC will be based on strength of the arguments not on the number of votes. Thanks
From what I can tell from the recent history, there was a consensus that the article recently had a promotional tone and an appropriate Conflict of Interest warning tag was applied.
It seems some clean up has taken place since then so my question is; has the article reached a point where it is sufficiently cleaned up such that the warning tag is no longer required? I am unable to contribute to that consensus myself since I also have a conflict of interest so this question is directed towards experienced editors with no particular association with this article.
I will leave this topic open for a week then, if no consensus is reached locally, file an article Request for comment. Regards, Bksimonb ( talk) 07:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the whole article in question quoted from the Hindu.
Produce the missing girl by May 5: HC
The Orissa High Court on Wednesday directed the State police to trace, rescue and produce the missing Dalit minor girl from Pipili in Puri district before the Court by May 5 positively.
The girl reportedly went missing on a pilgrimage to Farrukhabad in UP in November last year.
Adjudicating over a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl’s father, a Division Bench comprising Justices Indrajit Mahanti and Biswanath Rath gave the direction to the Pipili police.
In his petition, the girl’s father had stated that his daughter had gone on a pilgrimage to a spiritual centre with two followers of Prajapita Brahma Kumaris :Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya in November last year. The two followers have already returned but his daughter has gone missing, the petition said.
And here is the text in the article.
A petition has been filed in Orissa high court by a father that his daughter has gone missing after going to a brahma kumaris center in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Here are the reasons I removed the item.
Best regards Bksimonb ( talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
To all intents and purposes the name, "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" is a bit of a mouthful. I suggest moving the page to "Brahma Kumaris" for the following reasons.
Would be interested in hearing thoughts from others. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 14:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support: Yes, current title is long and unpopular. I support the move. Supdiop talk 00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University →
Brahma Kumaris – 1) Most references refer simply to the "Brahma Kumaris", 2) The organisation has different full names in different countries e.g. BKIVV in India and BKWSO in US. Only the name "Brahma Kumaris" is common to all countries, 3) The name as it is too long if a shorter common name is available. The request is potentially controversial only because of my
WP:COI status. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Bksimonb (
talk)
10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Danh, I disagree with "Mama's Murlis" being described as one type of Murli. BKs don't believe Mama was a medium of God, therefore I think placing it together as Sakar and Avyakt would only confuse that section, which is already unnecessarily lengthy. I think just a brief and objective explanation about what Murlis are believed to be is enough. If you want Mama's classes to be addressed somewhere in the article, I suggest "early history". GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 11:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I deciphered the importance of the date of 18 Jan, but what does 24 June mean to the BKSWU? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 16:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A new editor June24th (BTW the date Mama, the first coordinator of Brahma Kumaris passed away, January 18 is the date the founder passed away), reverted the whole article to the version previous to Januarythe18th being indef blocked. Obviously, it's a sock. I suggest a sock investigation. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that there needs to be a section titled "Practices". My logic is that Meditation is not a belief, it's something BKs do. The lifestyle would fit nicely into a section on practices. It's also good encyclopedic info i.e. What is a BK? 1. What do they believe, 2. What do they actually do. That would then flow on nicely into the Activities section. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 10:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The domain name dispute, in controversies section, was originally placed as a self-advert of a critical website. It was moved to controversies but it was not established that an organization disputing its own name is controversial. Any organization would dispute the use of its own name for a website. If no Reliable Source refers to a domain dispute as something particularly controversial, then it's unsupported to be there. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 13:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed "no religion" in Golden Age - As far as I understand, BKs believe there is a single religion - just not plurality. "No belief in God" in Golden Age also removed as this may well be understood as atheism, which is not a BK belief. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"Tree of Humanity" in "Central Beliefs" is the same belief as the Cycle, I see no reason to have the same belief documented twice, so I suggest removing "Tree of humanity". GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take silence as consent CiC. Sorry if I'm being impatient. By all means re-insert if good ref's can be found. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 10:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It was suggested by Vecrumba some time ago that the article would be better named [Brahma Kumaris]]. One is that the organisation has no accredited training programs so in many countries it is not allowed to use 'University', another is that because of this the name changes in different countries. At least reducing to Brahma Kumaris makes it international rather than regional? Opinions please :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Meditation needs improvement, with information describing what is the practice and/or why is it practiced or considered important. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Quote from criticisms section: "Followers are encouraged to undergo a ‘death-in-life’ and ‘die towards the outer world’ renouncing their families and thus be ‘divinely’ reborn in the ‘divine family[94] consequently, the Brahma Kumaris have been accused of breaking up marriages and families since the 1930s.[95][96]".
Please note that the statement before the word "consequently" is supported by one reference, the statement after it is a completely different one with a completely different reference. Where did the word "consequently" came from? It's solely WP:Synthesis of 2 unrelated references to push a critical POV.
Regarding the first statement, all religions have some kind of metaphor that means accepting its own faith, etc. Obviously "death in life" is just a religious metaphor and not controversial by itself. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 10:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The part of criticism that mentioned this reference: [4] was removed. It falsely attributed claims (for example, a magazine that reported a person who heard another person, etc. , but falsely attributed as a statement of a a cult expert), sounds more like gossip (it is a "gossip magazine" after all), can't see how any of those claims is really supported. Given their weight, they would need a more reliable and neutral source as basis (see WP:Exceptional).
The reference itself says "allegedly", "former members told me", which was misrepresented as "cult expert stated". GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed merging Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations into this article given the poor referencing and underdeveloped nature of that article, and support such a merger. John Carter ( talk) 15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a separate website, but i just tried and it's currently 'under construction' [7] and some information here [8]. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Rather than have a 'criticism of beliefs and practices', I was thinking what I really had in mind was more of a 'clarification of common misconceptions'. Owl, you have given a good example above, with the 'dying alive' metaphor, common to a number of spiritual traditions. However rather than deleting these things, I think it would be better to post content expressing both sides - i.e. the common misunderstanding (often a literalisation of metaphor) and the actual meaning and way the metaphor is played out in life. But there are other things I want to do first, so I'm not rushing into establishing this section yet, just flagging a plan. Thanks Danh108 ( talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph on the lede reflects the previous state of the article - a collection of sensationalist news and misrepresentation of sources. As was discussed here, no RS considers Brahma Kumaris to be a generally controversial NRM. That was the conclusion taken by an editor, not by a RS. Therefore, I suggest removing the 4th paragraph of the lede as undue weight. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Just in case I've started anyone looking...don't worry...Chapter 4 in Flows of faith 2012 (pgs 51-71) is the article "Brahma Kumaris: Purity and the Globalisation of Faith". It is already referenced in the article. If anyone knows how to upload things, I have a pdf version that can be uploaded. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 19:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a shot. I have references but find it easier to write it first and insert them later:
The Brahma Kumaris was originally called Om Mandali. The group started in Hyderabad, Sindh in North-West India [1]. It received this name because they would chant "Om" together, before having discourse on spiritual matters in the traditional satsang style. The original discourses were closely connected to the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most popular and revered religious texts in India. The Founder, Dada Lekhraj Khubchand Kripilani (then known as "Om Baba" – 1876 – 1969) was a wealthy jeweler and very well respected in his community [2]. He had a series of visions and other transcendental experiences that commenced in approximately 1935 and became the basis for the satsang to start. He felt there was a greater power working through him and many of those who attended these gatherings were themselves having profound spiritual experiences. The majority of those who came were women and children from the Bhaibund caste [3] - a caste of wealthy merchants and business people, whose menfolk spent considerable periods of time overseas for business. Once the group had been meeting for approximately 3 years it was starting to become clear that it was giving a very special importance to women and was also not adhering to the rigid caste system: the group named a 22 year old woman, Radhe Pokordas (then known as "Om Radhe" – 1916 - 1965) as its President, her management committee was made up of 8 other women, and they allowed people from any caste to attend satsang. In addition the group advocated that young women had the right to elect not to marry and that married women had the right to chose a celibate life. In tradition bound patriarchal India, these personal life decisions were the exclusive right of the men in their lives. On 21 June 1938 a group of males that had been forming in opposition to Om Mandali started to picket outside the organisation, preventing entry, causing considerable upheaval in the community and preventing Om Mandali from operating. Ultimately Om Mandali elected to avoid the uproar created and moved to Karachi in the latter half of 1938. Approximately 300 members made this move. They lived as a cloistered community seeking to understand the experiences they were having which ultimately comprise the BK beliefs and practices below.
In April 1950 the organisation moved to Mount Abu in Rajastan India. From it's beginning the organisation's focus has been on education not forms of worship, and for this reason renamed itself as Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University...
Agreed. Have a look in about 30 minutes :-) Danh108 ( talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it seems good wishes and pure feelings are part, although not necessarily, of the practice of soul consciousness. What do you think about the possibilities of either renaming that section to "soul consciousness" or spliting/adding a new "practices" section called "soul consciousness"? GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, While I don't think the article is perfect - actually it still has quite a bit of work required and I'm still trying to get some photo's sorted out. However I neutrality has been achieved and have removed the tag. Comments are welcome if anyone is not comfortable with this. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 08:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I plan to move this into the controversies section as it's not just giving the BK belief, but dealing with a lot of history and background issues that relate to the greater emphasis the BKs place on destruction at it's inception and early period. In most of the stuff I've been reading, Destruction is not a separate section, and if anything that's WP:Undue. It's just an aspect of the cycle of time. So I will put a cut back version of 'Transformation' into the cycle of time. Incidentally, the cycle of 4 ages only makes mention of 2 ages, so that gap needs filling sometime as well. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm keen to get feedback on the images inserted - feel free to improve the captions or give feedback about their placement/size. I'm still learning....hopefully it's okay. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Anti
Hi CiC, perhaps when I get time I can trace the original sources i.e. the Judicial Commissioner of Sind reported cases etc and site that directly rather than 'care of' Is this Justice. As far as I'm aware Is this Justice doesn't contain affidavit material of allegations that were never proven in Court. Presumably if there was a case to answer they would certainly have taken it against Mr Lekhraj as that would have been the easiest way to stop the movement. Like our conversation with the Hindi newspapers earlier, allegations aren't encyclopedic and can have a highly prejudicial affect on people's minds (and Om Mandali alleges they intentionally leaked these materials to the media which is what ignited public opinion against them in '38). There were some inflamatory allegations by Om Mandali against the 'anti-party' about force feeding pig flesh, rapes, beating with weapons, public naming shaming and being walked through the city, and torture - in 'Peace and Purity' and some primary source material given to me. In the interests of fairness and keeping the 'encyclopedic feel', I didn't specify these details. I hope that clarifies. Best wishes Danh108 ( talk) 23:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Graeme, you made exactly the edit I was going to make. No RS mentions the site, much less characterizes it as persecution. Saying so would be OR, a position not assumed by any RS. Until a reliable source mentions it and assumes a position towards it, there is no point in including the site. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 19:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Staphysagria, Maybe you were part way through your work, but the photo's inserted didn't correspond to the content, where as the photo you deleted did, and you also kind of mucked up the layout. I note that these are your very first edits on Wikipedia, so it would help if you explain yourself. Thanks Owl, I was thinking a similar thing. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This article covers everything the "beliefs and practices" do. Unless there are any objections, I will propose deletion of Brahma Kumaris beliefs and practices. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Following the same reasons for beliefs and practices, I am proposing merger for List of Brahma Kumaris. Unless there is any objection, I will propose deletion. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 16:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This page reads like it has be written by Brahma Kumari followers to promote the religion. Has no one been discussing the changes on this page? It's become like an advert.
It's ridiculous. Where do I start? Where do I find the box that says so? Peace,
It's OK. I found it.
There are so many falsehoods or exaggerations on it I don't know where to begin. They have not even got the right date of birth for their leader! -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where to start regarding it being an advert.
Look at the beginning, "often references its association with the United Nations".
What does that mean in plain English? Firstly, the religion does not have an association with the United Nations, it has a consultative status with one office of one to two departs of UNESCO etc. That's a gross exaggerated the Brahma Kumaris like to make. So "often references its association with the United Nations" means just that, "the Brahma Kumaris often exaggerate their relationship with the United Nations".
Now, that is true but is it an important and notable enough to warrant being in the first paragaph? Of course not. It's only there because the BKs want it there for the PR value and to hide the rest of their beliefs and activities.
Then we look at their beliefs, to the bit you restored McGeddon.
There are the Brahma Kumari beliefs and there is how the Brahma Kumaris want their beliefs to be seen. Now, is that actually full, complete or accurate? The fact it is not. If we look at their beliefs, actually they think that all other religions are impure and degrades and all other human beings are "Shudra" (lowest caste), only they are Brahmins (highest caste). Therefore the advertising the BKs have insert is their PR version of their religion.
For the lack of discussion or opposition on this page, the Brahma Kumari followers have turned the article into a vague, misleading and inaccurate PR job.
I believe that is their intention. Ask them if it is true. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Shocked at the state of this article. It's a puff-piece. Work to be done on it that's for sure. Gefetane ( talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot afford the time to go through everything today, but the BK followers have littered the topic with factual inaccuracies and misleading content that do not reflect the references given.
They have also added exaggerated elements which are not referenced.
In addition, they are using references written by other followers and their direct, often long term supporters.
It is nothing less than conscienceless and deliberate self-promotion. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
I also have to underline the bad faith involved with the current editors.
The date of birth of founder was 1884. Everyone knows that now. It's on his birth certificate. So why do they keep reverting it to 1876?
If they cannot admit his date of birth, and they are not committed to allow a simple accuracy over such a simple issue, how can they be trusted with the rest of the topic? What is their intention?
The thing is, left to their devices, the topic now reads terribly bad. It's full of uncomfortable constructions, unreferenced and fairly meaningless statements most relating to how they want to be seen not how what the religion is. It's a poorly attempted PR job.
Please start with an honest questions to the followers. Was your founder's date of birth 1876 or 1884. If the answer is 1884 then they credibility is zero. They are only here to confuse, distract and control it plain and simple. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 15:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I have been on holiday. And I am editing from a public internet connection today.
This article is awful. It is badly written. It is factually inaccurate. It has clearly be re-written by followers of the religion like an advert whether boasting about having an office at United Nations or this whole business about being a "spiritual organisation"? What is that?
It is a clear act of bad faith for one of them to deliberate provoke matters by reverting the topic to a version with specifically wrong facts.
I need more time to look at it but at present it is an embarrassment. That is the way I feel. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The beginning of discuss is simple. Please answer the two questions above first.
Thank you. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
...happens to be the religion's representation of God, I don't think removing it is right. There are Christ pictures on Christian articles, Buddha pictures on Buddhist articles, etc. etc.
The reason why the Brahma Kumaris article can't have a picture of their believed God is because...?
BTW I agree with most of the other recent edits by McGeddon and Adjwilley, I think they have improved the quality of the article and removed some promotional tone, thanks. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The massive oscillations are getting a bit mundane. There are 'puff' allegations. Please substantiate something e.g. advertising tag has been used. WHAT IS THE TEXT THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE 'ADVERTISING' in this article. If anyone cares to read the RS used, the article is very much in line with other major encyclopaedia's. My understanding is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soap box for 'fringe views' and rolling out the cherry picked quote collection to try and portray the BKs as a "bunch of whacko's". This appears to be what User:Truth_is_the_only_religion wants to do. And yes, this page suffered an identical problem last year....until that user was blocked. Danh108 ( talk) 21:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As long as we start editing from the neutral version. Not the advert version.
But I would still like an answer from the three BK editors; GreyWinterOwl, Changeisconstant and Danh108 whether they are being coordinated off Wikipedia to control this topic and no more accusations. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 15:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Adjwilley,
I don't want you to be offended but I disagree with your recent summary and edits many of which are unsubstantiated or contradicted by references, for example the claim Om Mandli attention was focused on education. In fact, one of the reasons for public criticisms of Om Mandli was that it was not educating the children at all. The old version of the BKWSU topic is just too full of some problems.
I welcome reasonable edits to develop the topic, but not such mass reversion as are going on. I've included most of your recent edits. Thank you. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's quite nice to see some good editing happening that makes sense. In particular thanks to Adjwilley and McGeddon. There were a couple of things that seemed a bit funny to me:
There could be good reasons, and these are minor compared to the over all tone of the changes i.e. these questions shouldn't detract from the feedback about the good editing. Thanks again :-) Danh108 ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The aims of the religion are stated in a too vague manner. BKs believe that Sat Yuga or heaven on earth is reserved for only 900,000 BK followers and that Europe and America (and the rest of Humanity) will be destroyed by nuclear war and sink under the oceans.
I found one references to support that which has their leaders quote and so it can be accepted at the religion's own view. Does anyone have any others, or is that good enough? TIA. -- Truth is the only religion ( talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Truth_is_the_only_religion I also note when I raised
my COI concern on your talk page your response has been to blank the whole page. I am taking this as evidence you have something to hide.
Danh108 (
talk)
20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As the editors participating here must already be aware, many editors have expressed concern that this article appears promotional. For that reason, although I wish the consensus was more specific and actually described the parts of the article that appear promotional, and although, unfortunately, some editors have even jumped to accusations that include myself before they even attempted to edit the article directly or use the talk page, and after I have supported edits that removed promotional content, I will of course follow this consensus and search for everything that seems promotional about this article and delete it.
I must remind everyone once again that I never made a single edit to this article that added promotional tone or content. And until the contrary is proven, I want to assume good faith towards the ones who did, that they did so unintentionally.
I must let it clear, though, that in no way does this mean I agree with User:Januarythe18th's claims. I saw how this article was when he owned it (and anyone can see on the history), a festival of WP:OR to say the least. Even though I agree and never denied that this article at the moment appears promotional, I believe that to be, for Jan18, just an excuse to cover his real propaganda, and the reason why he made big reverts to try to insert contentious content without discussion. To all other editors, I sincerely respect all of you and am here for the purpose of Wikipedia, not any agenda as Januarythe18th exhaustively and falsely accused me. I hope there will be no doubt about my good faith based on my following edits and that they will please those who expressed the concerns. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I was doing some homework on this, and it appears it is an interesting and distinguishing feature of this group. According to the UN website while there are over 2,700 NGO's associated to UN/UN departments, however there are only 147 that have general consultative status with ECOSOC. Flicking thru the list, it's not full of NRMs. It is interesting that the BKWSU has NGO functionality. While the UN itself is prone to being criticised as largely bureaucratic etc., the BKWSU must meet whatever the reporting requirements are to get to participate as an NGO. It's also given significance in the RS.
It is something distinctive about this organisation and no doubt something that can be better developed in the article after the merger with 'Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations'. If people have preferred wordings or views about this, please to add them here. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@James, it probably answers the points you've raised if I address CIC's point at the same time. In essence, to my mind the inclusion is highly uncontroversial and I find the responses here amazing, and the fact that you all snubbed the talk page for 3 weeks and then get excited only when I edit the page is disappointing. It seems to me people with a personal religious connection to the group are biased to see the organisation in that light. But this whole article talks about NGO activities (not religious) that the organisation will have to report to ECOSOC on annually to maintain it's status - the article content is primarily NGO content. It strikes me as particularly empty to say it's 'promotional' - what exactly is it that editors are claiming is being advertised? The language is neutral, the facts described are in a wide range of RS (and James, if you click that link given, the heading below "Civil Society Participation" is "....Organisations in consultative status with ECOSOC - general") - pages 65-68 of Whalings 'Understanding Brahma Kumaris' goes into some detail about the UN/NGO connection. Having non-secular belief's does not mean the group is not an NGO. It is the activities (as per the article) which are definitional. I'm kind of speechless that this point is being debated. GWO and CIC especially, please read up on this (at least on NGO) and broaden your views (sorry if that sounds arrogant...but I don't think people realise how much the other editor influenced people's thinking). Danh108 ( talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The expansion section is extremely brief. However I don't propose to address that at present. I note that it states the movement started to expand overseas in the 1950's, then states later it spread first to London in 1970....these statements can't both be true. Plus 'international expansion program' sounds a bit weird. Any thoughts? Danh108 ( talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, while there some good independent editors attention on this article I thought to do some tweaking. I propose the following modifications the early history section:
Danh108 ( talk) 10:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Another error created by recent editing is the incorrect impression given that on 21 June 1938 an opposition group formed. That's wrong. As originally written the date relates the picketing and rabble rousing which was also the date of police involvement, commencement of Court proceedings resulting from that, which lead to the first 'ban'. The opposition group formed prior to this date. So I will edit to fix this up now. Danh108 ( talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
0. This "movement" operates as a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.177.9 ( talk) 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Many beliefs are not mentioned in the article.I like to propose to add some beliefs.
1)Brahma kumaris say theory of evolution and big bang are wrong. 2)They say earth is flat and does not move.
Please view this video. [4]
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Supdiop ( talk) 05:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)supdiop
Earth is flat and static at 38:00
Evolution and big bang are wrong at 48:25
why isn't that video reliable? It is official Brahma kumaris video and it is from bk member. Supdiop ( talk)supdiop — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you watch the video? It clearly says evolution is wrong and big bang is also wrong. It says earth is only 5000 years old which also adds to the fact that Brahma kumaris clearly opposes evolution and big bang.
The video is from website which is run by official bk members. Brahma kumaris say that everything in universe repeats itself every 5000 years(You can find that in wikipedia article itself) which is itself denial of evolution and big bang. Supdiop ( talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I want article to reflect real beliefs of BKs and I want you all to do the same.
The video may be not working for you but it clearly says Brahma kumaris denies theory of evolution and big bang,it also says earth is flat.
why do you need secondary source when I provided primary source? The video is as reliable as any other source in the article. thank you Supdiop ( talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay I am focusing on beliefs rather than non beliefs.brahma kumaris believe in flat earth.Actually there is very less information of bk in Internet.On official website we don't find any information.
Can you provide links in which it shows brahma kumaris believe in flat earth?
I found a conversation in which brahma kumari say earth is flat and conventional science is wrong. http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=904
Is this enough?
Supdiop ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. You probably all know me from the article history. I can see that the conditions here are thankfully very different to when I retired a few years ago. I would like to help, if I can, to move the article to a state where there is a consensus that it is well written and doesn't have any remaining issues. I will be operating under COI restrictions. Bksimonb ( talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There are reliable sources which say Brahma Kumaris is a cult. Based on a third opinion, it was removed that "Brahma kumaris is considered as cult". Please write your opinion in "Support" section if you want to re-add it (with suggested re-wordings) or write it in "Oppose" section if you don't want to re-add it. There is also a discussion section. Result of the RFC will be based on strength of the arguments not on the number of votes. Thanks
From what I can tell from the recent history, there was a consensus that the article recently had a promotional tone and an appropriate Conflict of Interest warning tag was applied.
It seems some clean up has taken place since then so my question is; has the article reached a point where it is sufficiently cleaned up such that the warning tag is no longer required? I am unable to contribute to that consensus myself since I also have a conflict of interest so this question is directed towards experienced editors with no particular association with this article.
I will leave this topic open for a week then, if no consensus is reached locally, file an article Request for comment. Regards, Bksimonb ( talk) 07:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the whole article in question quoted from the Hindu.
Produce the missing girl by May 5: HC
The Orissa High Court on Wednesday directed the State police to trace, rescue and produce the missing Dalit minor girl from Pipili in Puri district before the Court by May 5 positively.
The girl reportedly went missing on a pilgrimage to Farrukhabad in UP in November last year.
Adjudicating over a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl’s father, a Division Bench comprising Justices Indrajit Mahanti and Biswanath Rath gave the direction to the Pipili police.
In his petition, the girl’s father had stated that his daughter had gone on a pilgrimage to a spiritual centre with two followers of Prajapita Brahma Kumaris :Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya in November last year. The two followers have already returned but his daughter has gone missing, the petition said.
And here is the text in the article.
A petition has been filed in Orissa high court by a father that his daughter has gone missing after going to a brahma kumaris center in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Here are the reasons I removed the item.
Best regards Bksimonb ( talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
To all intents and purposes the name, "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" is a bit of a mouthful. I suggest moving the page to "Brahma Kumaris" for the following reasons.
Would be interested in hearing thoughts from others. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 14:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support: Yes, current title is long and unpopular. I support the move. Supdiop talk 00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University →
Brahma Kumaris – 1) Most references refer simply to the "Brahma Kumaris", 2) The organisation has different full names in different countries e.g. BKIVV in India and BKWSO in US. Only the name "Brahma Kumaris" is common to all countries, 3) The name as it is too long if a shorter common name is available. The request is potentially controversial only because of my
WP:COI status. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Bksimonb (
talk)
10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)