Talk:Brahma Kumaris

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. The principals in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Posted by Srikeit for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.

This page reads like an advert

This page reads like it has be written by Brahma Kumari followers to promote the religion. Has no one been discussing the changes on this page? It's become like an advert.

It's ridiculous. Where do I start? Where do I find the box that says so? Peace,

It's OK. I found it.

There are so many falsehoods or exaggerations on it I don't know where to begin. They have not even got the right date of birth for their leader! --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we've an advertisement here that clearly isn't being maintained to WP:MOS or our other basic content policies/guidelines. Lots of work to be done! --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm just commenting on the state of the article. I've not looked at any editor's contributions to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the edits made didn't relate to advertising concerns. They deleted RS - lede content primarily lifted from other encyclopaedia's. Good if edit comments are directed towards content issues or Wiki policy. This page has also suffered from ongoing skirmishes between WP:SPA editors committed to the BK world view and WP:SPA editors who seem to have an aversion to that. Unfortunately User: Truth is the only religion you may have innocently walked into an article with a bit of history. Hope you understand. Please also read WP:JDL. Really, if you have legitimate concerns you should be able to identify the offending text and put forward your preferred rewording. Just wholesale deletion of RS doesn't make much sense. BTW, if you can find RS on the founders birth date that would be great. I tried to change it but got reverted and all the RS was stacked against me. Apparently the birth certificate isn't any good because it's not in a published source! Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to start regarding it being an advert.

Look at the beginning, "often references its association with the United Nations".

What does that mean in plain English? Firstly, the religion does not have an association with the United Nations, it has a consultative status with one office of one to two departs of UNESCO etc. That's a gross exaggerated the Brahma Kumaris like to make. So "often references its association with the United Nations" means just that, "the Brahma Kumaris often exaggerate their relationship with the United Nations".

Now, that is true but is it an important and notable enough to warrant being in the first paragaph? Of course not. It's only there because the BKs want it there for the PR value and to hide the rest of their beliefs and activities.

Then we look at their beliefs, to the bit you restored McGeddon.

There are the Brahma Kumari beliefs and there is how the Brahma Kumaris want their beliefs to be seen. Now, is that actually full, complete or accurate? The fact it is not. If we look at their beliefs, actually they think that all other religions are impure and degrades and all other human beings are "Shudra" (lowest caste), only they are Brahmins (highest caste). Therefore the advertising the BKs have insert is their PR version of their religion.

For the lack of discussion or opposition on this page, the Brahma Kumari followers have turned the article into a vague, misleading and inaccurate PR job.

I believe that is their intention. Ask them if it is true. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Truth is the only religion, it is great if we can focus on content. You have mentioned one point regarding the UN reference. My recollection was that banned User:Januarythe18th advocated for this reference as he/she held a firm view that the BKs were the ones referencing themselves to the UN (hence the way it's worded in the lede), so making a similar point to you. But now you are having a different take on that, so I have removed it. If you want it re-inserted with a more specific wording about the particularly departments etc the association relates to that's fine with me. I will reinstate the large volumes of RS that was deleted without explanation. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Shocked at the state of this article. It's a puff-piece. Work to be done on it that's for sure. Gefetane (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I strongly disagree with the edits of TITOR, which bring the same kind of content of the previous blocked user Jan18 (fringe views, OR, etc.), I do agree that the article in its current state seems to have an excess of content that is possibly irrelevant or undue. Although I find irrelevant whether the excess of content is praising or cursing the subject, what I do find relevant is that we must identify what is due/undue weight and bring the article to a more encyclopedic state based on secondary sources. In my humble opinion, I think this article should be much shorter and more objective. Gefetane and McGedon, please do discuss here and/or edit the article if you think you can help with that. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gefetane. Actually it's even a really badly written puff-piece. It's awful. But perhaps all you will say is that Gefetane must be Januarythe18th too? You're just trying to distract from the fact.

I have another concern. Many of the references are from Brahma Kumari followers. Basically, what you have are Brahma Kumari followers quoting other Brahma Kumari followers about their own religion. This must be a conflict of interest. It is distorting the objectivity of the topic. They have removed many of the third party references because they are critical of the religion but perhaps given their extreme beliefs, those criticism are valid? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Gefetane is Januarythe18th because he doesn't make identical edits, comments and accusations like you do, nor is he a brand new account that all of a sudden has intimacy with the content of this article and understands how to edit WP fairly well.

Also what you call "third party sources" that have been removed, are primary sources, non-verified documents written by anti-BrahmaKumaris groups and published by an anti-BrahmaKumaris website. Those documents were only supported by Januarythe18th and were considered inappropriate by many users and admins. And it seems now you want to bring them all back too. It surely must be just a coincidence and I must be a mad zealot. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusion and inaccuracies

I cannot afford the time to go through everything today, but the BK followers have littered the topic with factual inaccuracies and misleading content that do not reflect the references given.

They have also added exaggerated elements which are not referenced.

In addition, they are using references written by other followers and their direct, often long term supporters.

It is nothing less than conscienceless and deliberate self-promotion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The principle that articles should be based on independent sources seems to have gone out the window here. Needs addressing. Gefetane (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I as someone who has looked at the existing material in a number of reference sources on this topic have to say that many or possibly in some cases most of the references they provide are to BK literature. I wish that were not the case myself but it seems to be and unless good independent reliable sources are produced it isn't unreasonable for us to effectively duplicate the substance of the material in highly regarded reference books using basically the sources they use. I can and do wish that were not the situation but my wishes unfortunately aren't enough to bring such sources into existence.John Carter (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I also have to underline the bad faith involved with the current editors.

The date of birth of founder was 1884. Everyone knows that now. It's on his birth certificate. So why do they keep reverting it to 1876?

If they cannot admit his date of birth, and they are not committed to allow a simple accuracy over such a simple issue, how can they be trusted with the rest of the topic? What is their intention?

The thing is, left to their devices, the topic now reads terribly bad. It's full of uncomfortable constructions, unreferenced and fairly meaningless statements most relating to how they want to be seen not how what the religion is. It's a poorly attempted PR job.

Please start with an honest questions to the followers. Was your founder's date of birth 1876 or 1884. If the answer is 1884 then they credibility is zero. They are only here to confuse, distract and control it plain and simple. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why others revert the birth date but the reason I revert it is because all secondary sources say it's 1876. There is a document published by an anti-BK website that says 1884, but I can't see any particular reason or wikipedia guideline to support that document here, even if it's true. It basically classifies as WP:OR and no secondary source has ever refered to it. It might also be worth checking out the guideline WP:NOTTRUTH, so even the discussion about whether or not it's true is meaningless in Wikipedia. But even if that document is true and that alone mattered for WP, it says "Dada Lekhraj", and I don't think only one Lekhraj has ever lived in India, so it could easily be someone else with the same name. There is no reliability whatsoever for 1884. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert explained.

• While I personally support the DOB date change to 1884, there is an issue with all the RS stating it's 1876. Somewhat like Jimbo's birth date being incorrect on Wiki....them's the rules.
• Apart from that, no other grounds were put forward for deleting 20% of the article in one shot. As per my comments on ANI, I'm not 100% confident in User: Truth_is_the_only_religion yet. But if he/she can find RS to support their date, I will definitely support that edit.
• Tags removed as no consensus. See comments/discussion here
• There is no doubt content to add to this article. The lede has relied primarily on other major encyclopedia's to ensure the Wikipedia article is of a similar standard - not that more obscure information about the group gets stuffed into the lede and littered randomly through the article (as was the situation previously).
• It would be really useful if talk page comments related to content rather than making accusations that turn the page into a battleground (incidentally, that was the reason User:JamesBWatson declined User:Januarythe18th unblock requests. I am happy to collaborate with other editors to improve the article.
• It would also really help if talk page comments corresponded to the edits made and could specifically identify text that people think should be changed. Just general assertions and accusations is the real 'puffery' that is presently happening on this talk page, and unfortunately accusations without evidence can be very influential....especially when Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit skeptical about anyone who edits pages on small religious/spiritual groups.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TITOR, if you are genuinely interested in bringing back this article to Wikipedia standards, why not follow Wikipedia guidelines on taking consensus please. Deleting 20% of article in one go will not improve it. Please discuss changes here supported by sources Changeisconstant (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an editor with a personal connection to the Brahma Kumaris group to decide that the article has no COI issues: under WP:COI such a person should not be editing the article directly at all. I have restored the {{coi}} template, and also the {{advert}} regarding the concerns raised above. --McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have been on holiday. And I am editing from a public internet connection today.

This article is awful. It is badly written. It is factually inaccurate. It has clearly be re-written by followers of the religion like an advert whether boasting about having an office at United Nations or this whole business about being a "spiritual organisation"? What is that?

It is a clear act of bad faith for one of them to deliberate provoke matters by reverting the topic to a version with specifically wrong facts.

I need more time to look at it but at present it is an embarrassment. That is the way I feel. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You gave no argument at all for your 4000 characters bulk delete, except that "followers wrote it". Please explain what exactly is factually wrong based on secondary sources, and please follow WP:TPG to understand what are valid or invalid arguments about article content on WP. By the way, I have given multiple arguments why the only encyclopedic date of birth is 1876, you haven't answered any of them, yet you use DOB as a summary for your bulk delete. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You all have a strong conflict of interest. The article reads like an advert and needs re-writing as I explained above. I have only started. The fact you revert to inaccurate facts on this and other topic is bad faith. Thank you --22:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, now all other editors have a problem, except the editor who keeps deleting 4000+ words to change someone's date of birth - he's is the only sane one....ironically I disagree with User:GreyWinterOwl on this and would happily back you, but we need some RS behind us. Empty accusations are not really that helpful to getting this fixed. Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that all three of you have Brahma Kumari connections?

And that Brahma Kumari followers are coordinating their campaign on the Wikipedia?

I developed the article to be more accurate and put emphasis on the notable elements. The BKs are reverting to their advert version.

If the BKs would care to confirm or deny my first two questions, then I am happy to continue a discussion of why I think the changes are justified. I would like to suggest that their revision of facts which even they know to me truth is deliberately provocative and its intention is to provoke the appearance of a conflict which they can then use to promote their agenda and discredit anyone that questions them. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to prove that any number of editors here shouldn't be editing the article, then certainly the talk page is not the place to do that. I have asked you many times, but I'm going to ask again: Please read WP:TPG, it's a guide that says how a talk page of an article should be used, which is to discuss the content of the article. You don't discuss any content, you just spray accusations and personal attacks for which you have no evidence, and even if they were true, this is not the place for them. Your edits directly contradict all reliable, secondary sources about the subject, and are themselves based on no reliable source, just your assertion that they are true, and that what you don't like is an advert written by followers. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Bring the reliable sources and valid arguments and see if they support your edits. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The beginning of discuss is simple. Please answer the two questions above first.

Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No preconditions. You say you have problems with sections of the article. Say which bits and where the content is wrong. Propose alternate wording with sourcing. That's the way it's supposed to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Did the Brahma Kumari editors discuss every change they have made over the last few months turning the article in to the mess and advert it is?

Or do different rules apply to them?

Is so, then let's remove all of their edits first and discuss them. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia ban on Scientology editors

A question to editors or admins who are not Brahma Kumari followers.

I read that Wikipedia banned Scientology editors from editing, shouldn't Brahma Kumari editors be banned from editing on Brahma Kumari topics as they have a conflict of interest* and unreliable bias?

If so, how do I propose it and where?

Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University_2

• Yes, the earlier editor and blocked sock puppet account loved to rant about this same topic Danh108 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Content Focus

The massive oscillations are getting a bit mundane. There are 'puff' allegations. Please substantiate something e.g. advertising tag has been used. WHAT IS THE TEXT THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE 'ADVERTISING' in this article. If anyone cares to read the RS used, the article is very much in line with other major encyclopaedia's. My understanding is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soap box for 'fringe views' and rolling out the cherry picked quote collection to try and portray the BKs as a "bunch of whacko's". This appears to be what User:Truth_is_the_only_religion wants to do. And yes, this page suffered an identical problem last year....until that user was blocked. Danh108 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks McGeddon - in my view, these were fairly good edits. I relocated one piece of text from the lede to lower down in the article. I think it's a bit a more obscure aspect of the group and fits more appropriately in the detailed explanation of the groups teachings. This is the risk when using very detailed reference materials to try and write a more 'generalist' article - or at least this has been a challenge I've faced in giving a fair appraisal of the group. Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything. The fawning tone. The repeated revision of known false facts. Conclusions being draw about legal decisions not found in the original sources (which were self-published BK defences). Accusations of criminality which has never been suggested or proven.

BK followers using BK published materials written by BK authors.

It's outrageous. At what point does "conflict of interest" step it?

I believe we have passed that point a long time ago, that is why the first step towards discussion is for a disclosure. That is why I asks the questions

It is true that all three of you have Brahma Kumari connections?

Are Brahma Kumari followers are coordinating their campaign on the Wikipedia?

If they deny it, progress will be impossible because what they are doing is not playing by the Wikipedia's rules but using the Wikipedia and manipulating other editors to serve their own religion.

To editors or admins who are not Brahma Kumaris, please trust me on the importance of this and allow me explain why after they answer.--Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This time you removed 15000 characters in one edit without explanation, instead of your usual 4000. I also noticed that you re-established many parts of the old version of the article, when it was owned by User:Januarythe18th.

Regarding content: As per WP:TPG, you need to be more clear about your concerns with the content, because your points that are supposed to justify the edits are vague and don't provide any basis from reliable sources. And I haven't seen you come up with any reliable source, despite you claiming that most of the sources are published by the subject. As John Carter said, the sources are the ones present in the article, and many of them were provided by him. If you know better sources, bring them to the article, but without them, you just have your own opinion, which is either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed stuff like "In interfaith dialogue the BKWSU is often considered a spiritual organisation rather than a religion." because it is unreferenced and fairly meaningless. Same too, "sees itself as a vehicle for spiritual teaching rather than as a religion". It's also how the religion want to be seen (future), rather than how it is seen. Obviously it is a religion. As the edit was written by a follower, I suspect a conflict of interest or behind the scenes coordination of how the religion wants the page to be. To me, it is as if the followers are just turning the page into an advertising article about their religion.

Also, there is a problem between how they define the word "education" and how the rest of the world defines education. It think to the rest of the world it would be evangelism as they are not teaching real skills, such as reading and writing or subject.

I removed flowery irrelevant stuff like "one of the most popular and revered religious texts in India" because it is irrelevant and misleading. A simple like to the Gita is enough.

The Karma section needs to be re-written as it is unreferenced.

I removed "they consider these to be projections of body conscious thinking - trying to force the universe to fit the human life cycle" and "The primary enlightenment was the innate understanding of the self as a soul" as it is unreferenced and using cultic language which is unclear.

There are problems with the Education section as the education work it refers to is done by an organization which claims it is separate from the Brahma Kumaris Living Values, as is the governmental work which is done by Oxford Leadership Academy. This page is about the BKWSU, not them. Simple links will do.

There is a question how notable the organic farming section is as the Time of India article is a copy of a BKWSU press release.

I removed all links to retreats as advertising. No references, no notability.

There's also a problem with the way the BK followers have interpreted the conflicts the religion faced in its early period. Some of it is clearly unimportant, e.g. kids throwing stones. Some of it unproven, they claim it was coordinated by anti- leaders. They have also left out the original accusations against the Satsang, of the leaders breaking up families, encouraging minors to run away join the religion and of improprieties, sexual and other wise, between the elderly founder and the young women under his influence.

There is another problem with the word Paramdham and Nirvana. According to 'A Dictionary, Hindustani and English' by Duncan Forbes, Paramdham in Hindi refers to paradise not what the BK followers are saying. Nor does it equate to the Wikipedia page on Nirvana.

--Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of your many concerns trown at a time may be true, but even if all of them were true, they are far from justifying a mass-deletion of 20,000 characters. I suggest you slow down a bit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on discussion, reliable sources and consensus. I don't want to be against all of your ideas, but you could give each of your edits enough justification, instead of a general justification for a half-article deletion. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked back at the points raised above, the majority of which seem reasonable and entirely justified, and have implemented the following edits:

• removing that others consider BKWSU to be a "spiritual organisation" as unsourced and redundant after introducing it as a new religious movement earlier in the paragraph;
• cutting that the Bhagavad Gita is "popular and revered";
• editing the Karma section to read as "BK believe" rather than a statement of fact;
• rewritten the "Cycle of time" more plainly and flagged the undated "present";
• copyedited and de-WP:PEACOCKed the environmental and achievements sections;
• cut the meditation retreat WP:LINKFARM;
• copyedited Dadi Janki and removed the award sourced only to a press release;
• flagged the Nirvana sentence as disputed.

Would suggest starting new talk threads for the education and conflicts issues. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting that User:GreyWinterOwl has just said in an edit summary to my comments there that "BTW I fully agree with your edit, thanks.". --McGeddon (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as we start editing from the neutral version. Not the advert version.

But I would still like an answer from the three BK editors; GreyWinterOwl, Changeisconstant and Danh108 whether they are being coordinated off Wikipedia to control this topic and no more accusations. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling your version that changes 20,000 characters the "neutral version" doesn't magically make it true.

About your accusations, as per WP:TPG, they should never have been made on a talk page of an article in the first place. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where we start from, it's where we end up. (I'm not sure your reverting and attempting to reapply subsequent edits has helped, here; you've restored the "Peace Manifesto-2000 in the International Year of Culture of Peace −2,000 as proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in the year 2,000" mess I rewrote earlier.)

GreyWinterOwl has said "I fully agree" to the eight edits I made based on your concerns. If you're clear about the edits and people are clear about their objections (or are forced to agree that no, they have no objection to that bit because it's undeniably a contradiction or a self-published source or whatever), we can clean up the bulk of the article and discover the (possibly only two or three) issues that editors actually disagree on, and then focus on those issues in detail. This "oh, it's all advertising" "oh, you're just saying that" back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and just leaves other editors (with less interest in the subject) to do the actual cleaning up. If you care about getting this right, be clear about it, and edits that deserve to stick will stick. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)