" 

 ::: 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 , especially when used by reliable secondary sources . 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.   "