Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 8

message: There haven't been any posts since early June so I thought now would be a good time to archive old discussions. Hope that's OK with everyone. Regards Bksimonb 06:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only archive it when it is necessary due to its size.PEACETalkAbout 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any debate that the talk page wasn't too large?! I just also try to take care with live conversation threads because archiving can be a bit of a conversation-killer (literally;-)) if done without consideration. In the past when there have been live threads I have archived everything else except the conversations that seem to be active since within a week. Regards Bksimonb 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: i just fixed a small typo made by a new user , the line is not exactly accurate according to gyan.......you know the Bk stuff about nuclear war , natural disasters , the continents sinking and only india being left for krishna to reincarnate in
i am not fussed by it the way it is just if you want accuracy then you want accuracy Green108 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edit

message: :Placed template stating a dispute. According to wikipedia custom made templates stating a discussion or/and dispute are valid.The article per say hasn't been changed, thus there is no reason to take the tag off, since it does not affect the article. The cycle started to repeat again, eh? Best, avyakt7 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User green108 reverted article tag. Left a friendly warning in his talk page requesting proof of his statement. Will place template tag again. Best, avyakt7 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User Green108: Innocent until proven guilty. Did you know that? You are accusing me innecesarily and tarnishing my integrity. I have not been found guilty of anything, according to wiki rules. That is the game here.  I haven't made any changes to the article. The tag in the article is to show any reader that there are some issues with the article which they need to be aware of. Please be reasonable. The proposed changes are here  Please read the "red" items and discuss about them here, hopefully with reliable sources to back up your claims. You have broken 3RR. I will not. Simple. Yes, things are repeating.. (it is a good time to review the cycle class...)hope you don't make the same mistakes... Best, avyakt7 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Update

message: very interesting.....look at that! World_Renewal_Trust_Deed
ramesh shah started the world renewal trust in 16th january 1969 and lekhraj kripalani / kirpalani died the day after he was shown it from a heart break..........and to think that the BKs actually celebrate his death on january the 18th.
ok ,we have to have this in the article.........is it agreed as a reliable date?
this is perfectly sound evidence and imagine , the BKs have said all along they were run by women and here is proof that a man set up the trust and was a trustee from day oneGreen108 19:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. it is not agreed. Do you know what reliable sources are? Take a look at some of the "back issues" of this article. Probably October/November. It was explained at lenght what a reliable source constitutes. Waiting for your proof about "many people think the article is alright." Best, avyakt7 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Green108 This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. Also the document has been tagged with an inappropriate license. Fair-use? Possibly. But GFDL??? Also the edit summary contains significant opinion, conjecture and a quote from an unspecified source (presumably at channeled message courtesy of Mr.Dixit). Why are such primary documents being uploaded to Wikipedia anyway? This is not a document repository.Bksimonb 04:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BK Ramesh sets up trust Lekhraj Kripalani dies day after he is shown

message: i spent some time on minor housekeeping........would those habitual reverters please pay heed to this
i put a space before references and fullstops after trying to tidy the article up , please try and keep it uniform and lets try and get the page listed on the front of the wikipedia one day!Green108 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I see your "minor housekeeping." Perhaps, others should be able to see all the changes you have made not even listening to admin Utcursch  are you related with 244? or just taking advanced lessons from him? I can see a pattern here. Obviously, you don't think that you will get away with this, do you? Best, avyakt7 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor housekeeping 

message: It seems that someone is rather working overtime...Another piece for the akashic records of Wikipedia. Note the immediacy of changes and complete reversal of other edition. I wonder who could that be? 
inetnum:        212.126.145.0 - 212.126.147.255
netname:        FREEUK-NETS-1
descr:          FreeUK modem pool
country:        GB
avyakt7 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IP from UK making changes

message: We need more Om Shanti, Brothers and Sisters. BKs do not defame the Father in this way. Please stop making conflict in this way.
BK Angel
::BK Angel...It seems you had no problem in making changes in the article in such an angelic way ... As a BK you even re-instated this unsourced material:"An article in Newsweek magazine portrayed Lekhraj as a modern-day Krishna surrounded by admiring gopis and as a justification for him to set up a harem of upper class women."  Very Om shanti, Bro! You see, I have a problem with that. "An Article" is just to vague, which article?...I see all the angels coming to help bro. Green108 now...May you keep flyn' high... Best, avyakt7 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Om Shanti 

message: This is messy.  I note first factual matters.  1) Google appears not to index this page, as I found no search that included it in its results.  2) Copies or excerpts of the report have been posted on at least two discussion boards that Google indexes, but these boards are clearly inferior sources to the original.  3) Wikipedia discourages the posting on Wikipedia of letters or emails (or other communications) without consent of the original author.  4) Serious academic research in the social sciences considers letters and emails to be primary sources, and further to be ones of significant evidentiary value.  5) E. Romain was a published author under BKSWU's auspices on the subject of teaching.  One work of which he was an author is cited as "Church, A., Edwards, L. and Romain, E. (1990) Cooperation in the Classroom. London, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Global Cooperation for a Better World." in a book on promoting mental health in schools.  6) I was unable to find any academic links to this particular source.  7) The article is under article probation from the ArbComm (link at top).  8) Wikipedia considers secondary sources more reliable than primary sources for the purpose of building the encyclopedia.
With that background I prepare to evaluate this situation.  There are two separate questions.  First, is this a reliable source for use in the article?  Second, if it is not a reliable source, is it a good external link?
Is this a reliable source for use?  I avoid the question of whether using it adheres to the neutral point of view policy, as the answer to that will depend on the entire content of the article, including how the source is used, not on the content of the source, and further was not a topic on which feedback was solicited.  First, is this a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?  It is clearly not a tertiary source.  I believe that the appendices are clearly primary sources.  The purpose of the document is described as "a personal assessment of the current level of child protection and child welfare practices in the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU)" [emphasis added].  With this purpose, and reading the document, I would say that it is better described as a primary source than a secondary source.  "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." (from WP:PSTS).  The report is clearly self published.  WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."  The only evidence I found that E. Romain had published in the relevant field was a book published by BKWSU.  The ArbComm findings include a finding that "material published in Brahma Kumaris related publications is considered self published and thus not verifiable by reliable sources."  With this decision made, I have no evidence that E. Romain meets the test of "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", even though he is now independent of BKWSU and more of a critic than a supporter.  Accordingly, the report does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source - but if we found evidence that his work in this field had been published by third-party publications then this answer would reverse.
Second, is it a good external link under our guideline?  Although the source is not strong enough for use as a source, it is in my eyes reliable enough to be considered a serious report and evaluated as such.  Use of communications in academic research is not considered a copyright infringement, and the site is not blacklisted, so neither restriction on linking applies.  The report also does not meet any of the four criteria for things that should be linked.  The fourth point of "Links to be considered" is "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  The report clearly meets this test.  Contrary to Bksimonb's assertion above, this report does not fail "Links normally to be avoided" #2, which is further defined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples#Use of electronic or online sources; the forums at which excerpts or copies have been posted would fail that test, the original of the report does not.  However, "Links normally to be avoided" #11 is a real issue.  As discussed in the reliable source question, we probably can't treat E. Romain as a "recognized authority".  This leaves the link caught in both the categories of "to be considered" and "normally to be avoided".  I think the right answer to this is consider and avoid.  The ArbComm restrictions ice the cake, and thus we should exclude it.  GRBerry 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GRBerry. Thank you so much for bringing your time and expertise to this Rfc. As I read it I wasn't sure quite where it was heading sometimes but I was certainly relieved when I got to the last sentence! All the best Bksimonb 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Response

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

message: In the interests of making this a "nice" article to be involved with I am proposing we archive the talk with the exception of the above "Edits?" post. Although a lot of the threads are live they have become huge and are full of civility and other issues.
We can restart any important threads as required. Let me know if you have any views otherwise I will perform the operation tomorrow.
Regards Bksimonb 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for asking, I'd say go for it Simon. Best, Avyakt7 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the question of mediumship to be open. Compromise is required not deletion. The centrality appears to be well argued. Faithinhumanity 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The misreprentation that this misinterpretation belongs in the lead violates the policy of not giving undue weight to a minor point or a single source. IPSOS (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Archive proposal