Talk:Dada Lekhraj

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Article for deletion?

Given the UN article got merged away, I thought a similar fate might be appropriate here. Most of the RS I've consulted estimates the 2 founders of the group only had a membership of 1000 at the most in 1969 when the 2nd founder died. So given it was like a local football club at that time, it makes more sense to me for there to be a separate article on this 'Dadi Prakashmani' or one of the women who really grew the organisation. Does anyone have any thoughts/concerns about me putting forward deletion for this article - just total lack of Notability would be my reasoning. The article also has a few factual errors and doesn't seem to add anything much to the main article - at best there could be a section for the founders, Mr Lekhraj and Ms Pokardas in the main article? Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year

The "Lekhraj's date of birth is 1884, not 1876" conspiracy theory is popular among BKWSU critics, and this topic has been discussed many times, on multiple talk pages (a couple of examples - 1, 2). Users like Green108 have been blocked in the past, and now we have a spate of IP addresses pushing for the birth year 1884 again.

The results of the past discussions has been that the vast majority of

reliable sources
state the year of birth as 1876. See above links for a list, or try a simple Google Books search ignoring sources that don't use Wikipedia as a source:

  • 1884
    • There are exactly 3 sources that mention the date of birth as 1884. One of them Religion by PediaPress is a Wikipedia mirror.
    • The other two are Prophecy in the New Millennium (2013) and the Spanish-language 40 Anos De Estudos Religiosos (2015), both of which are passing mentions.
  • 1876
    • ~30 sources that are not Wikipedia mirrors; many are more than 1-line mentions.

If I recall correctly, at the time of past discussions, there were no

reliable sources that mentioned the year of birth as 1884. Since then, we have two new sources that mention the year of birth as 1884. Still, there is no justification for changing the year to 1884 given that the vast majority of the sources mention the year of brith as 1876. At best, you can try adding something like "The year of birth is debated. ABC says its 1876, XYZ says its 1884", but even that is debatable considering both the books contain trivial mentions. utcursch | talk 15:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Unfortunately, in this matter you are ill informed and the given reference does state that the date of birth is 1884.
Moreover, if we look at the Brahma Kumaris own research website, http://brahmakumarisresearch.org/,
we discover it used here, http://brahmakumarisresearch.org/foundation/, and
the question of the date of birth controversy is answered here, http://brahmakumarisresearch.org/new-page/
from there, a copy of the birth certificate is to be found. I cannot publish the address here because it is on Dropbox.
It would appear your knowledge is out of date and it has now been corrected in academia. The authors of the website is a Brahma Kumari adherent with a PhD.
--79.64.210.51 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd request you to read
WP:BRD
- if you introduce a change, and someone reverts it, please don't simply add it back especially when there are multiple reliable sources contesting that change. Also, please don't undo all other changes with that.
Secondly, Tamasin Ramsay's website is not "Brahma Kumaris own research website". The Brahma Kumaris own website still stands by 1876. (It doesn't really matter though, per
primary sources
.)
I'm not affiliated with BKWSU or their critics -- I have zero problem with the birth year being changed to 1884, provided there are sources that actually substantiate your claim about this 'error' being corrected in academia. Prophecy in the New Millennium only includes a passing mention of the subjects. It refers to reader to Babb, who states "Dada Lekhraj was a wealthy jeweler who was born in 1876". From what I see, Tamasin Ramsay's findings about this alleged error have not been published in any scholarly source.
As I said earlier, given the current sources, at best, you can try adding something like "Sources differ about the year of birth". Even that would probably not survive at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, given that it's only a passing mention.
If there are better sources, I'd gladly agree to the change. utcursch | talk 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1884 as per the certified birth certificate.
Honestly? Use your brain. The reference given is the latest one, hence now corrected. -- --79.64.210.51 (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, "it's 1884" isn't a reason to add original research, POV, self-published tags and deprecated personaldata to the article.
Secondly, like I've said before, my concern is not whether it's 1884 or 1876. My concern is that the lack of non-trivial
primary source - it's not acceptable unless there are reliable secondary sources backing up its' validity: anyone can create a fake one. The other source is a just a passing mention - not even 5 words about the subject; "The reference given is the latest one" is not a valid argument - Prophecy in the New Millennium from 2013. This is from 2014, and this
is from 2015 -- both mention the birth year as 1876.
Find a better source, and I've zero problem with the change.
utcursch | talk 14:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, before you start any conversation, follow the link I gave you above to the copy of the authorized birth certificate and then come back and confirm whether or not it says 1884.
I don't want to hear anything else until you do so. At this point, I am not concerned by anything else you are saying, I just want to make sure you have read it.
I would appreciated that. Once you have done so, I take up some of the point your have made. --79.64.208.41 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already read the 'authorized' certificate. And I've already pointed out that
primary sources are not acceptable here. And please don't add bogus tags to the article. utcursch | talk 20:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
And what does the birth certificate say? --79.64.208.41 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says 1884. But wait, we have got another certificate which says Lekhraj was born in Kenya in 1880. Which one should we believe? utcursch | talk 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the non-fake says, 1884.
Now, take the references I gave Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist (2013) edited by Sarah Harvey, Suzanne Newcombe, p.117.
What year does it say? (I am not finished here). --79.64.208.41 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "non-fake says, 1884"? It clearly says 1876. It's even certified as original and genuine.
And Sarah's reference is from 2013. 2014 and 2015 references say "1876". To quote you: "Use your brain. The reference given is the latest one, hence now corrected." utcursch | talk 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you faking these up or is someone else faking these up for you? Please answer me.
Either way, you are discrediting your own integrity by confusing the issue and distracting conversation in this manner which is concerning for someone with administrative powers.
Let's progress this discussion logically and reasonably step by step. What does it say in 'Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist' (2013) edited by Sarah Harvey, Suzanne Newcombe, p.117 ? --79.64.208.41 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the reference you give was written by "Sister Chandrika Desai" who is a leading Brahma Kumari publicist for the BKWSO and so would therefore fail as a "reliable source". Given your presentation of falsified evidence and that you failed to notice, one has to questions your motivation and conduct here. --79.64.208.41 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've removed the Chandrika Desai reference, even though it's published in a volume edited by four third-parties. It'd be helpful, if you can maintain some consistency with this logic. Earlier you were arguing that we should trust "Brahma Kumaris own research website".

Ditto for your other argument. We have still got two references - both of them from 2014: 12. Again, by your own logic, these are "the latest one, hence now corrected". It'd be great if you can come directly to the point, and explain why we should ignore two other sources (from 2014), and consider only Prophecy... (2013), which contains literally less than five words about Lekhraj or Brahma Kumaris.

As for the certificate, I'm just trying to show you why primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. There is no reason why we should trust the certificate image labeled 'Genuine' and 'Original'. Similarly, there is no reason why we should trust the certificate issued to "M/s Wanda Babansky & David Sheard" of "247, Staff Line, Fatima Jinnah Road, Hyderabad" (FYI: there is no such address in Hyderabad - 247, Staff Lines, Fatima Jinnah Road is located in Karachi, and is the address of Dar-ul-Khushnud, a charity managed by the Church of Pakistan's Karachi diocese).

I'm not saying that the "Wanda Babansky" image is necessarily fake, but it's worthless as a source on its own. Like I've stated earlier, I don't have any problem with the year 1884 -- I'll myself remove 1876 from the article, when a reliable source confirms the validity of this birth certificate.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of repetitive arguments. If this were a purely content dispute, I would not have problem discussing it more. But your consistent removal of other references and addition of bogus tags to the article is not constructive. I'm not going to explain again why you shouldn't even mention the birth certificate in this discussion. So, let's stick to this: why more weight should be given to Prophecy... (2013) than the other two sources? utcursch | talk 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued on the topic that the topic page for using the certified birth certificate. I argued the use for the 'Prophecy in the New Millennium' for the correct date.
I'm taking you through the logic of why we should use the correct day, how the falsified date came about, and why the BKs resist correcting it so you can understand the situation clearly.
Did you fabricate those fakes or were you supplied them and other information by the BK followers? --79.64.208.41 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please
the reliable sources noticeboard for more opinions. clpo13(talk) 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm OK with this being taken to
WP:RSN
or another noticeboard.
And to the anon: You continue rambling endlessly, or stick to the point: why should Prophecy... be given more weight than other sources? (And no, please don't mention the certificate again unless you can find a secondary, reliable source that says it's valid). utcursch | talk 02:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My questions or comments are short and to the point, Utcursch. Please stop distracting from the line of conversation and allow me to progress it.
Did you fabricate those fakes or were you supplied them and other information by the BK followers? --79.64.208.41 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. I'm not wasting time here. Feel free to take this to
WP:RSN or any other noticeboard. utcursch | talk 17:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I share the opinions of Utcursch above and oppose the IPs idea that "1884 is the correct date supported by references [and] the 1876 date is wrong" (Diff of User talk:Sam Sailor).

Rather contrary, 1876 is well supported by reliable sources, and 1884 is not.

IP refers to "Brahma Kumaris own research website" http://brahmakumarisresearch.org/new-page/ a website made and maintained by adherents and thus not an independent, secondary source. Let me point out what appears to be just one mistake these women make in their research of their own organisation and its founder. They write: "... memories of local politicians (Hardy 1984) of the 1930s declare that he was 54 years of age in 1938 making his birth year 1884." Hardy 1984 is

  • Hardayal Hardy (1984). Struggles and sorrows: the personal testimony of a chief justice. Vikas Publishing House Private, Limited.
    ISBN 978-0-7069-2563-0
    .

From the little I can see in a Google Book search, the age of Dada is not stated as "he was 54 years of age", but "... Dada Lekhraj was about 54 years old" (Search).

Let me expand a bit on Utcursch's remarks above to give the anon editor insisting on 1884 a better understanding:

Dada Lekhraj 1876–1969

When searching on Dada Lekhraj 1876 I get:

That's 30 {{cite book}}s in support of 1876 as birth year.

Dada Lekhraj 1884

There is, as noted above, three current book sources found through a Google Book search that has 1884 as the year of birth:

1. Religion. PediaPress. pp. 89–. GGKEY:ZC3QLDN75FX.

Comment: The book is a mirror of Wikipedia pages from PediaPress and is not a reliable source.

2. Octavio Da Cunha Botelho (3 June 2015). 40 Anos De Estudos Religiosos (in Portuguese). Clube de Autores. pp. 115–. PKEY:90187276. Esta onda de novas oportunidades para as mulheres também alcançou uma instituição indiana, a Brahma Kumaris (Filhas do Deus Brahma), a qual, apesar de ter sido fundada por um homem, Lekhraj Kripalani (1884-1969)

Comment: Octavio da Cunha Botelho is a staff member at the Federal University of Uberlândia. He does not explain from where he gets the 1884 birth year. If my understanding of other sources is correct, then when considering Botelho writes that Brahma Kumaris "was founded [...] in 1932 in Karachi" I think he can be dismissed as a reliable source.

3. Dr Suzanne Newcombe; Ms Sarah Harvey (28 May 2013). Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 168–.

ISBN 978-1-4724-0061-1
. The Brahma Kumari movement, founded by Dada Lekhraj (1884–1969), considers that we are in the transition between the Kali and Satya yugas (Babb 1986: 113 ff.)26.

Comment: The quote in its entirety is the above, i.e. a passing mention. We can't see footnote no. 26 in Google Books, but doing an in-book search like this it appears to be

With an inauthor:Babb search restricted to 1986 like this we can be pretty sure that the only work by any author named Babb published in 1986 and containing the word "dada" is the above Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition.

What does Babb write then? Here it is:

Browsing forward to p. 113 there is nothing regarding the birth year. Whatever the explanation for this is, I would not know. But bottom line is that there are zero independent, reliable sources as far as I can tell that convincingly support the 1984 birth year. I am going to boldly remove this claim from the article. Should anyone wish to re-add it, observe

WP:BURDEN and present sources accordingly. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That is because, if you read the reference, you would know it relates to the comment about cosmic ages and not his date of birth.
Utcursch, a simple relevant question.
Did you fabricate those faked references or were you supplied them and other information by the BK followers? If you could answer and then we can pick up the thread again.
Thank you. --79.64.208.85 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@79.64.208.85: Please respect your block. Please also stop arguing if you have no reliable sources to back up your claims. Nobody is taking your baits here. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but it's important to establish what is going on here. Did the admin Utcursch falsify evidence to confuse and distract the discussion, or were they acting on behalf of the Brahma Kumari followers who had supplied the falsified evidence? I think we're due a straight answer instead of all the conspiracy theories and accusations.
The way it breaks down is this.
Lekhraj Kirpalani's date of birth is 1884.
Birth certificates are accept as accurate information [1], especially when used by reliable secondary sources [2]. We have the birth certificate and both the early reliable sources and latest ones confer, e.g. court affidavits in "Is this Justice?", early newspaper reports, Hardy (as above); and latterly Newcombe etc.
Hardly the "zero" as you state.
What happened in the middle period? I will answer that so you understand, although it is not necessary to do so in order for the correct date of birth to be included. I am doing so for your information, only so that you can understand what is going on. I am not doing so to justify any point. It is highly irrational to have to justify a knowingly correct date.
It appears that the Brahma Kumaris (BKs) has had a dispute with a splinter organisation called the PBKs (this is referred to in Walliss, 2007) regarding the interpretation of the mediumistic messages their religion is based upon since the 1970s. In those mediumistic messages, an individual is referred to as being 60 when God allegedly entered them. The BKs believe that individual was Dada Lekhraj Kirpalani. The PBKs point out that Kirpalani was not 60 at the time and believe it was another individual in the religion's early history, a relative and partner of his.
Since that time, and especially since their expansion into the West where there was no PBK representation, the BKs have employed their resources to re-write the history of the religion including their founder-gurus date of birth to match the predictions. This was then taken from granted and repeated by the media, specifically their historical revision of his date of birth from 1884 to 1876. It related to a failed End of the World prediction in 1976.
Until recently, very little academic study and especially no historical study of the Brahma Kumaris had been done and the religion's own publicity was depended upon, consequently 1876 became the established date. The reason for the falsification was not known. Latterly, we had also had the complication of the religion itself entering into the academic realm to promote it's version of events in a partisan manner and so one needs to be cautious of the sources.
Now it appears that is being corrected and the religion itself is admitting the error. It does not make sense that we must use an incorrect date merely because it has been vigorously promoted by one party in a dispute of faith.
I came onto the Wikipedia to make a simple correct correction and was immediately assaulted by an administrator, Utcursch, and a hail of irrational and erroneous accusations regarding conspiracy stories, critics, and using falsified evidence who is clearly colluding and taking directions from the BK side of this dispute or being played by them.
This is why it is important to establish who falsified the evidence he presented and who is poisoning the well. As an admin, I would have expected that he was required to be impartial. --88.144.240.189 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although Ramsay is an BK adherent, she is also a PhD anthropologist and this issue is touched upon in 'Custodians of Purity - An Ethnography of the Brahma Kumaris' (2009) where the 1884 date is concurred with. It would seem to be unreasonable to have to accept the knowingly falsified 1876 date. --88.144.240.189 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Don't want to feed this sock, but leaving this reply for others) You've already been given the answer here ("I'm just trying to show you why primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia"). The "falsified evidence" you keep blabbering about was an obvious joke to show why the supposed "birth certificate" presented by you is worthless unless validated by a reliable source -- nobody has offered it as "evidence" for the birth year being 1884.

The page you're referring to (the one that talks about birth certificates being an acceptable source) is a portion of an essay added by a random user, not a policy or a guideline (it says right there at the top). And it assumes that the "birth certificate" is unanimously accepted as genuine.

As mentioned in the same edit, your certificate is issued to someone at an address that doesn't even exist. And that name ("Wanda Babansky") returns exactly zero results on search engines, apart from this discussion. Unless validated by a reliable source, it's as good as a certificate that states Kenya as Lekhraj's birth place.

Neither me, nor anyone else here, has any problem with 1884 being mentioned as the birth year, provided acceptable sources are provided. I actually added 1884 as one of the possible years of birth to the article -- it was removed by Sam on the grounds that the only reliable source for it (Prophecy..) was a trivial mention.

It'd be great if you could come up with acceptable sources instead of repeating the same arguments, indulging in theatrics ("immediately assaulted") or coming up with conspiracy theories ("acting on behalf of the Brahma Kumari follower"). utcursch | talk 23:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should common names be used instead of original full names or just surnames?

See discussion on Brahma Kumaris talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bksimonb (talk • contribs) 08:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Contradiction?

There appear to be many instances of internal and self contradiction. For example, the legal case against

Om Mandali
started on 18 January 1939. After that legal and social pressure began increasing on Om Mandali. However, the corrective action came in 1908, as the following sentence demonstrates:

Finally, the Sindh Government used the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 to declare the Om Mandali as an unlawful association.

Would somebody clarify this please?

Thanks

Neotaruntius (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dada_Lekhraj&oldid=1203546213"