Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 5

message: Dear Appledell, Once the article has been reverted by someone without previous discussion, that article will be reverted back again. Thus, whatever changes you made will be gone as well. I suggest if you could revert the article back to its version now ( containing Dr. Walliss correction of his last name, ver  Nov 28, 2006 13:33) and make your changes there, if they have been previously discussed here. If you gave a notice on previous links and the time has elapsed without response, you may go ahead and make the proposed changes. Thank you and Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did not know that - thanks. Appledell 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad to discover Dr Walliss consistent interest in the actions of the BKWSU and BKs. You have no such authority to make statement such as "that article will be reverted back again " Luis. 195.82.106.244 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To user Appledell

message: I have added the controvery tag to this talk page. Assuming no one objects to me placing it (if so, please discuss here), that does make it actual policy for this page that every significant change BE DISCUSSED HERE, after the change, and that you place descriptions in the edit summary field. 
Given the current climate, I concur with Riveros that disucssion should happen BEFORE major change.... and this is the best I know how to move in that direction.Sethie 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Tag

message: *While agree that Maleabroad's contributions are actually plainly inappropriate, if not just inaccurately placed, for the article on the BKWSU, I do not agree that his input in 'vandalism and have to caution you on your current tactics.
Luis, I appreciate that you are taking Shrimat on all this from your senior sister. It is clear that you are working for the BKWSU and so I appreciate your position BUT screaming "vandal" at an individual that is plainly a fairly inexperience newcomer is against wiki guideline of Please do not bite the newcomers.
Just stop Luis. It his opinion, it is different from your. It not vandalism. He just needs a polite word and help. Stop dumping vandalism tags on other contributor's talk pages, playing the game to supress others through intimidation. 
I am perfectly happy to play by the rules and use the references provided. I am happy that we have now clarified the BKWSU's own self published sources as it will make my life much easier.
No angry mastodons either, eh? ... 195.82.106.244 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear 244, Please do not change my words around. Maleabroad contributions are always welcome. I do not think they are inappropriate, I think they are appropriate; however, they may need the elements which I stated before. I am glad you finally understood that we need reliable sources in this article and BKWSU literature do not meet this criteria. I do not appreciate that you are placing me as the "bad guy" to earn user Maleabroad's trust.  Please stop playing infant games and concentrate in the article. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Riveros11|Riveros11]] continued intimidation of other contributors by the use of wiki tricks such as screaming vandalism 

message: To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]

message: I was wondering about the "Rape and physical violence from families and partners of Brahma Kumaris." bit.
This refers to firstly, the time a high profile case that was reported in the Australian press of which my sympathies lay entirely with the sister victim; and secondly during beginning of the BKWSU when it was called Om Mandali. This was refered to in Adi Dev and Purity and, I think, the "world rejecting" academic papaer. I must did it out. It does seem to have been formative in the orgs world view about "anit-parties" and sex lust as violence. 
Should it not be kept? Let's go thrugh these one by one instead of the blanket whitewash approach please. 
195.82.106.244 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than keep adding unreferenced material, that will obviously need to be deleted as per policy, it would be more useful if you move these to talk and discuss one at a time. You can do that to show some good will in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: He can remove any comments from his talk page, with the exception of warnings made by administrators. It would also really help of you stop from using the word "vandalism" in your edit summaries. It takes two to edit war, and you may be one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Jossi, I will avoid using the word "vandalism" as you pointed out. I would like to remind you that the "7 day course" will be erased on Dec. 4th for lack of "reliable sources." (according to previous discussions) Normally, when there is a change like this, we had users reverting the page without previous discussion. At that time it would be helpful if somehow this is being stopped from happenning and the corrected version stays. Now is the time to discuss the 7 day course and to show reliable sources so it can stay. I will go ahead and blank some of the user warnings issued in my talk page as well.  Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific controversies 

message: Can I suggest removing some of the External links, starting with the BK links: 
* http://www.geocities.com/bro_khem/ is a personal website of a BK. It certainly isn't an official website. I don't see the need to link to this site in the context of the other links.
* http://brahmakumaris.com.au/php/forum/index.php. This does appear to be an official BK forum setup in Australia, but there is very little on the site that enhances what is in the wikipedia article. I don't see what the aim of linking to it is in light of all the other official BK links.
* http://www.livingvalues.net. There seems to be some abiguity what exactly the relationship between the BKs and this website is - there is no mention of the BKs on the website. It is alleged that it is a BK "front". But no evidence has been forthcoming on that. I suggest deletion unless someone can establish some connection.
* http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=206345.  This is a dead link.
Under Bibliography, I suggest the following deletion:
* Report on Child Abuse,Beliefs and Lifestyle[26]. This is a personal website and the "report" is not an academic one, but a personal commentary from the author about his views of the BKs. It is out of context with the rest of the wikipedia article. I will give 7 days to discuss the above suggestions, before I delete them.  Appledell 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the dead link and found a citation for the Living values, so I propose it stays. Sethie 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an update link here http://web.archive.org/web/20050826175344/http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=206345 and it is wrong to state that the Living Values program is a UN program. Details to follow. 195.82.106.244 07:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning External Links and Bibliography

message: Just to get back to the topic, I found a citation to back up external charitable giving of the BKWSU, it is here . Relief to the victims of the Indian tsunami from The Hindu, Wednesday, Jan 05, 2005.
Actually, it is not great news for an NGO that pulls $2 million per year from one European country alone. All it says is that "Bed sheets, foodstuff, clothes and vessels "worth" about Rs.10 lakhs had been rushed to the different places in the last few days." 10 lakhs is about $20,000 but it does not state whether these items were new, second hand, theirs or pulled from third parties. So, I am not convinced that it is notable nor that the org engages in alleviating poverty etc as it claims. Sorry. Back to the BKs for an answer on this one. 195.82.106.244 09:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As said many times before: Please do not use this page to discuss your opinions of the subject. You would be better doing that in your blog or personal homepage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear .244, Fortunately, this is not about convincing you but rather about providing reliable sources to back up statements. BTW, tomorrow is Dec. 4th and unless you or any other editor provides reliable sources to back up the "7 days course" write up, it will be promptly deleted. Have a good weekend! Best, avyakt7 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Donations/achievements 

message: A user named Bkwatch has archived a lot of "live" conversations. Jossi- any hint/clue how to bring them back?
To Bkwatch- would you be willing to not archive something in the future if it has been active in the last two weeks? Sethie 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go to the history and copy and paste back the deleted discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving?

message: Dear All, The unreferenced material was deleted from the article as previously discussed and after a 2 week period. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 day course 

message: Luis, it is not for you to dictate.
* Riveros11 said;
" ... you cannot quote Chander ". 
Of course, I or anyone else can. And it does not require to be verbatim either. If it was published; complete, detailed and objective is not biased. Ditto other materials such as the teaching posters but we will leave that for later. Actually, I checked and they are in Chander too.
195.82.106.244 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear .244, Please review the protocol on how an encyclopedia is written. No one cares about your interpretations of Chander's writings. You are not an expert in this matter and your opinion is as valuable as mine. Just opinions. Everyone has one. That is why we rely on neutral writers experts on the field of religious studies to give their non bias input on these topics. This is not my "dictate" this is rather the way encyclopedias are written. Hope you can contribute to this article by giving a fully reliable source. Please visit your nearby library. That is all it takes. Best, avyakt7 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ps: Still waiting for your "diffs." You do a good job trying to look like the "innocent boy" in your plead for arbitration. Good impersonation! avyakt7 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Chander 

message: Dear All, I just wanted to point out that I finally got the chance to post my side on  user .244 request for arbitration.  It is an account on how I view this issue. I have also added several "diffs" which I hope admins will take a look at them. These "diffs" portray a pretty accurate account on user .244 activities, intentions and character. These "diffs" are factual. It  is not my own "paraphrasing." Finally, perhaps I should have added this  as well, which emphasizes .244 feelings.  I thought .244 was younger than me!...but then he calls me "young hot head." Such is the paradox... One more time, the seed of the problem in my view is content. We need reliable sources here. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: In case anyone has missed it, the BKWSU Arbitration case is open and here;  195.82.106.244 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration hearing 

message: Cleanup Co-ordination	Cleanup Co-ordination
                     	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
*the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. 
*the article has multiple overlapping problems. 
*the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
You can use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. When there is a consensus that the article is cleaned up please remove the cleanup tag from the article
===Discussion===    	
===Discussion===
*Clean up, Clean up, is a good idea and as soon as the arbitration case is done I will get the mop and the bucket ASAP! PEACETalkAbout 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 

message: |}</div>
*Clean up, Clean up, is a good idea and as soon as the arbitration case is done I will get the mop and the bucket ASAP! PEACETalkAbout 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There was a whole section on BK lifestyle deleted. It was concurrent with exact quotations from Whaling, e.g. 4 am ... 6.30am, strict acetiscism etc. Why was it removed?
As far as I can see it was accurate and non-contentious. 195.82.106.244 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whaling on lifestyle 

message: OK. Now the article has been re-written, what remains that is NPOV or unreferenced? Is it not time that tag is removed? 195.82.106.244 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick look I don't see anything particularly POV. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. My position entirely. The NPOV tag is merely discrediting for all of the article, Likewise all the ugly clean up stuff. 195.82.106.244 07:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've taken off that tag from the article - it's not been discussed on this page. Also, I'd contest the claim that it reads like an advertisement - I can't find a single positive adjective in any of the wording. Unless the problem lies with the "Achievements" section - in which case that should also be discussed here. I can understand how that could be viewed as an "advertisement". Appledell 15:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Smeelgova in that it does read like an Advert and the contents are a cut and paste job.  Also, you must refute with "evidence" that this is not the case, and offer cite other material within the current article 12.15.2006 that would not warrant the tag. So, I am placing it back. PEACETalkAbout 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, I'm not getting into reverting stuff again...but surely it's beholden on Smeelgova to show why the article reads like an advertisement before he/she puts the tag up? He/she has given no reasong why it reads like an ad - nor you, for that matter. Smeelgova is the one that made the change, not me. Appledell 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "This article reads like an advertisement"

message: I replaced the Vallabhacharya references as I believe it is both a fairly innoculous fact whilst also putting into some context Kirpalani's and Om Mandali's later development. The justification for this is based on Vallabhacharya's identification between Krishna and Param Brahman, or Paramdham in BK speak, and all of the other gods of Hinduism as parts or aspects of his all-encompassing being. As a note, the Pushtimarg view of deities other than Krishna is not that they do not exist but that they are inferior to and dependent on Krishna's existence. After a someone is initiated into the sampradaya, Krishna is ideally the only god who is to be worshipped making Vallabhacharya essentially monotheist because of his complete focus on Krishna as deity (even to the the diminishment of Shiva). For more discussion on the BKWSU and this sect, please see Barz. 
The BKs, of course, believe that Kirpalani and Krishna are the same soul as referenced elsewhere. 195.82.106.244 03:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced Vallabhacharya references 

message: As far as I am aware the mantra "Om Shanti" does not mean "I am a peaceful soul". This is at worst nonsense and at best a very free interpretation of the mantra. May be the Brahma Kumaris believe that the mantra has this meaning but this should be stated as such. This meaning should not be written down as a fact without a reputable third-party source. Andries 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your definition? "Nonsense" is a bit of an exaggeration. MY interpretation: "Om" means "I am", "I am the one", "my original, true self".  "Shanti" means peace. You might feel that "I am peace" is a more accurate definition - which is fine. Although if its such a problem for you, I don't mind attributing it to what the BKs believe the mantra to mean. Appledell 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attributing would be fine for me. Aum does not mean "I am". Source: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion Shambala Boston 1994. Andries 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appledell, Andries is asking you for a source for this meaning, not to play with, interpret and repeat the meaning you have already given.Sethie 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily a source. I have little problem with a sentence like, "Brahma Kumaris teaches that the mantra Om Shanti means "I am a peaceful soul." " Andries 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As somewhat of a rare independent expert in BK matters, it is also not true of you to say, "MY interpretation: "Om" means "I am" ..." Appledell and I am sorry to see you slipping as I took you to honesty and integrity as a BK. Your given meaning is the BKWSU's meaning. Lesson One, Day One, taught and repeated 10,000s ... . Andries's resolution would in all fairness be accurate as, like the other nomenclatures, they are all taken from Classical Hinduism or yoga practises and used to hide new meanings. I appreciate that as a BK you will believe these meanings are the true meanings and Classical Hinduism is wrong, so please don't take offense at this but the Wikipedia has to come from a standard, objective point of view. 195.82.106.244 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Erm...that is "my" definition as that is what I believed it to mean - what's the problem? I've already said I'm happy to attribute it as a BK interpretation as per Andries' request. I don't appreciate you calling into question my honesty and integrity and can you stop labelling me as a BK as if its some sort of stick to beat me with - I have never referred to you as an ex-BK. Appledell 14:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of the mantra "~[[Om]] Shanti"

message: I've protected this page as per the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. A Train take the 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: *I realize that this article is locked and in arbitration at the moment, but it seems very odd to have no information about criticism in this article at all.  I must admit I am unfamiliar with the subject matter myself, but surely some of the information from those critical sites is valid and deserves a section of itself called "Criticism"?  Or perhaps a fork to an article called "Criticism of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" ???  But not to have virtually anything at all in the main article on any kind of criticism seems really weird.  Smeelgova 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it depends what you mean by "criticism". There are plenty of aspects in the article which I'm sure the BKs would challenge for giving undue prominence and weight to certain of their beliefs, while not giving enough emphasis on other aspects. This might not be outright criticism, but it can certainly leave the reader with a negative view of the BKs. For example, the aspect of Destruction/End of the World...this is an aspect that is looked at near the end of the BKs' 7-day-course and not touched on at all in 99% of the talks/lectures/meditation seminars the BKs give. This is because it's not something the BKs obsess about. Yet, it is something that is prominently featured in this article - skewing the work of the BKs. There are plenty of other examples in the article of this sort of thing - but I'll leave it at that for now. Appledell 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical information???