Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Recent wave of Brahma Kumari (BK) editors

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

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

Most of these BK supporter appear to target the paragraph in the lede, [1]. Now, let's be honest about this, it is absolutely true. If the BKs could at least admit it was true to begin with then it would be more possible to trust in their intentions. I think it is necessary for them to establish evidence of goodwill and at least discuss their intentions first, as suggested to Danh108 already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the paragraph is question true? Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disingenuous use of edit summaries

I am sorry but I cannot afford to spend too much time on responding to you, Danh108, but you clearly don't understand how the Wikipedia works and I must flag up your disingenuous use of edit summaries, e.g. here [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of Bogus/dodgy references

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

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

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

1. This individual has posted on Wikipedia requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s [3].

2. He participates in the advocacy group run by the disgruntled John Allan, respondent in the Arbitration dispute mentioned in the BK Wiki article reference [4], and

3. He also openly names the people supporting the Applicant in the Arbitration dispute in what appears to be an attempt to injure their reputation [5].

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

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

Lede

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

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

Januarythe18th's editing motive - is this good faith?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re [6] Neo-Hinduism, which is what you removed earlier, is an important definer in this case and a well established concept or categorisation of new religions. Again, it qualifies some of the ambiguities in Brahma Kumarism liberally borrowing terminology from classical Hinduism, e.g. Raja Yoga but differing from it. The BKs are not Hindus and present themselves as being separate from it. For example, you re-introduce "service" but BKs are actually disencouraged form doing normal charity.

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

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

In no particular order...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• let us see it, and then

• let us discuss where merging the two is possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Tagging

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

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

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

Similarity with the lobbyst group BKInfo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taken at random, here is a snapshot from 2007 [7] which predates the book by 2 years and matches it almost verbatim. How would you explain that?

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of tags and BLP problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article is neither accurate:

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

nor comprehensive

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

nor well referenced

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

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

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

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

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

of this article. For example, J18 uses a reference from https://www.hinduismtoday.com/magazine/may-1995/1995-05-brahma-kumaris-conquering-a-callous-world-with-purity/?itemid=3415 to show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Lede

-Early history

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

-Expansion (some sort of map/picture?)

-Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations

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

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

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

-Other Activities and recognition

-Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs

-Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris

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

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

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

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

Sandbox version

Dan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing accidental about your personal attacks.

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

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

Radhi Pokardas Rajwani

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

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

Lede adjusted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello I'm new

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there Vecrumba,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier you described the Brahma Kumaris as (paraphrasing your actual words) "end of the world kooks bent on world domination who spent all their time staring at light bulbs" suggesting it was fantastically incorrect description (noto bene, you used the word "kooks" not me). Removing the derogatory tone, it's actually not. Albeit the "lightbulbs" are covered in red plastic or a photo transparency of their founder and called "trancelights", see [8] and [9] for examples and in modern cases, a projected point of light [10]. 10,000s of BKs, over a period of 40 years, have indeed spent upto a one and 1/2 hours each day staring at these "lightbulbs". Ask them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As evidence of my further goodwill, see here [11], I made a sandbox copy of BKWSU topic in Danh's user pages.

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

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

Continuing the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the risk of offending you, I don't see any references from "axe-grinding politicians". There are newspaper reports of senior civil servant's involvement in a rape, kidnap and murder case [12]. The Times of India is India's newspaper or record and would pass as a reliable source (WP:NEWSORG). There are many more sources in Hindi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hindu or not Hindu?

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

Are the BKs Hindu or not?

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

Do the Brahma Kumaris consider themselves Hindus? No.

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

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

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

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

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

Are the BKs Hindu? No.

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

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

Why don't they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard referencing?

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

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

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

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

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

source book title/chapter confusion?

The isbn in the citation (currently no. 9) "Walliss, John (2002). From World-Rejection to Ambivalence. Ashgate Publishing. p33" actually comes up in worldcat as "The Brahma Kumaris as a "reflexive tradition" : responding to late modernity" with "From World-Rejection to Ambivalence: A Genealogy of the Brahma Kumaris" is a chapter of that book.[13]. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Article Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-BK POV

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry but given the recent history I am going to have to step in and underline past conversations. I am unrepentant about flagging up at what is going on here which is WP:MEAT, pure and simple. [14] There is a tagteam of BK editors coordinating with one and other and being guided not just in their edits but also questionable strategies, such as invoking and using others. For example, with zero editing experience, we're expected to believe that GreyWinterOwl has the knowhow to construct complexly formatted accusations, and admin complaints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adherents of a religion contributing to topics on it

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit request 2013-09-07

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

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

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

How best to resolve this dispute

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

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

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

The way forward is simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think a simpler and more obvious explanation is that having been seeded with almost identical accusations by another member of the BKWSU tagteam, 2 years ago ( Riveros11, here [15]), Vecrumba was then cherry picked by you a month ago [16] as a useful device or distraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting on with Content: Article structure

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

-Lede

-Early history

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

-Expansion (some sort of map/picture?)

-Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations

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

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

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

-Other Activities and recognition

-Brahma Kumaris Core Beliefs

-Criticisms of the Brahma Kumaris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're underlining what we already know and that is, what you want is a WP:ADVERT that follows the religion's own websites and PR martketing, e.g. [17]. Your outline makes it look like it will be a cackhanded advert riddled with policy problems. We've also not got any examples of your quality of work and ability to handle formatting and references etc, because none of you have done any substantial work on the Wikipedia at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much of this has already been discussed. It places an unfair burden on other editors to have to go over it time and time again every time another BK follower comes forward to champion their religion, or have an admin make word by word changes on their behalf. This latest wave even admits it's being supplied with information and coordinated off wiki. [18]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, not starting on the lede was my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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