Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:15, 28 July 2006

Archives
November 2005 - July 2006

BKWSU information technology team

Greetings! I am a member of the BK information technology team approaching you, on their behalf, regarding the content of the article about the Brahma Kumaris on the Misplaced Pages page. It is a fairly comprehensive article with a clear structure and leaves the reader with an appreciation of the effort that may have gone into its research.

However, it is misleading in that whilst appearing to be authoritative, it is written in a way as to bias the uninformed reader against the organisation. In a number of places, use of disparaging language and a gross misrepresentation of facts gives the impression that the article hasn’t been written in good faith.

An example of a straight untruth appears in the fourth paragraph under “Origins”, where the entry states that the community moved to Mount Abu in 1950 “mainly due to the religious resistance to its activities in Pakistan”. In fact, the group had become well-respected in Karachi, where local leaders tried to dissuade them from leaving. They moved to India at the request of relatives.

Everyone has an equal right to contribute to this article and we respect that individuals have a right to express their opinions about the organisation. However, as the Misplaced Pages site is used by many as a reference for what they consider to be a neutral point of view, the existence of such a biased article is an issue that warrants attention.

With respect to the rules that Misplaced Pages sets out for proceeding forward amicably, I look forward to engaging in discussion with you so that proposed changes can be reviewed before any implementation occurs. Having read the discussion pages, I plan to start proposing incremental changes to the page over a period of time.

In the first instance, bearing in mind the above and evidence of obvious questioning of neutrality in the discussion pages, we would like to re-instate the neutrality warning box. I hope that this is acceptable. Bksimonb 05:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome BK Simon.

From our point of view, we have watched this topic develop with interest and welcome your input. The previous propaganda whitewashes and outright vandalism have done nothing to benefit the reputation of either your organization nor the Brahma Kumars and/or Kumaris that perpetrated them.

Before any changes or edits are made, including re-instating the neutrality box as obviously your position is not entirely neutral, can we establish on which grounds you are wish to make these changes?

• Are you acting personally, on behalf of the "BKWSU MultiMedia and Global PublicRelations Wing" under B.K. Karuna, or under the instructions of some other individuals or element of the organization?

• How long have you been in the BKWSU/Gyan and what status do you have within the organization, e.g. surrendered or not?

The problems I can forsee are that ;

• a) The BKWSU has invested fairly heavily in a very high level PR campaign which it is obviously protective of. It also has a history of rewriting its own history, beliefs, controversies within; while portaying itself quite differently without. In essence you must be part of that PR campaign.
• b) Individuals have to come to expect an unwillingness on behalf of the BKWSU organization to make public sufficient easily referenceable original material in order that third parties could use it to check details.
• c) The lack of sufficient third party sources to validate any claims by any parties.

If you think that you can provide reference material when requested, where contention exists then I, personally, would say that we will be able to make progress towards the first complete, objective and public study of the BKWSU, its beliefs and its activities.

So, rather than fluff around at the conjectural edges, what one unnamed family felt in comparison to the damage done to many others in some small community decades ago, I would suggest the way forward is for us to address the main contentions the BKWSU organization has with the article.

Obviously, a Wiki topic should not be, and is never going to be, an advert for the organization, so;

• What do you, the Senior BKs or the organisation, consider to be the main points of contention?

Brahmakumaris.info 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am an ex teacher of the bks, Simon, and the official line of the bks was that due to resistance and the court injuctions imposed on the group to stop them gathering in numbers they decided to move. this was the official line until recently, and I would be interested in how you propose to prove otherwise.

Green108 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess that you would say that I have been in Gyan for 20 years or more. When you state, "proposing incremental changes to the page over a period of time", do you mean of the same sort the BKWSU have been making to the Sakar Murlis that contain that knowledge?

I do not want to interrupt the discussion raised by user Brahmakumaris.info but could you also please identify those "a gross misrepresentation of facts" you refer to as I am prepared to give a second opinion.

Thank you. 85.25.141.60 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Brahmakumaris.info!

This is a response to your first post. I will respond your second post re. copyright shortly. Hope that's OK.

I must admit to being a little surprised since I was anticipating a response from the main contributors and maintainers of the page who are, as far as I can tell, 195.82.106.244 and TalkAbout . I notice just one or two contributions from brahmakumaris.info in the page history. Do you have any connection with the other editors? Are you working in some sort of formal or informal team? Are 195.82.106.244 and TalkAbout happy for you to assume the role of discussing / changing content on their behalf?

Also, your name suggests some connection with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website. Is this the case? If so what is your involvement with that website?

I would like the questions in the above two paragraphs clarified before I take up any of your points. I'd like to know in what capacity you represent the editors I wish to discuss the article with.

As already mentioned, I am a member of the BK information technology team approaching this discussion on their behalf. Most team members, myself included, have been with this organisation for a long time. This approach is an initiative of the team. My posts and responses have their consensus.

You have stated “Obviously, a Wiki topic should not be, and is never going to be, an advert for the organization” Yes, we very much agree with you. It should not be a tool to express a strong personal opinion / understanding of an organisation either. For this reason we would like to reinstate the NPOV warning box.

In response to 85.25.141.60, I will take up one topic at a time in order to keep the discussion page clear and simple for all of us to follow and also because I/ we are quite busy on a number of projects and can't deal with too many discussion threads to research/document all at once.

In response to Green108’s post, “resistance and the court injunctions” occurred shortly after the Yagya relocated to Karachi in 1937, not in 1950. A simple reference regarding my statement for the reason for the move is the Book, Adi Dev by Jagdish Chander, first published in 1981. That is as close to what you might call the ‘official line’ as you are likely to find. I have a copy of the third edition (2003, p. 181) and the second edition (1983, p. 181) in front of me; another team member has the 1981 edition. The text of the section, “Returning to Bharat” in all three editions is identical. It says,

“At last, in 1950, the children prepared to leave Karachi. When the Muslims of Sindh came to hear of this they tried to persuade them to stay. ‘We will give you better facilities,’ they said. ‘You will not experience any unhappiness here. Why are you going away then? If you stay here, there will not be any unholy acts done in this country. We will take care of you in every way. You are of God; you have no connection with the politics of the Hindu or the Muslim.’”

We propose correcting the article to read, “In 1950, the community moved to Mount Abu, at the invitation of relatives of the organization.” Do you agree?

Bksimonb 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings BKSimonb,

I am honored by your request to partake in these discussions here.

• First, I would like to point out that I monitor the Brahma Kumaris Wiki article from a factual and historical perspective.
• Secondly, I am not associated with BrahmaKumaris.info, nor with .244.
• Thirdly, I monitor the article for vandalism, spelling, open discussions and because the Misplaced Pages is used by a large global community as an information resource.
• Fourthly, I keep an open mind, will research items, and will acknowledge when I make a correction or addition in error.

I have been active in the prior discussions with Brother Jesselp and have rather enjoyed his earnest intent and vigor for the debate on the issues being discussed. That said it would be good if you would point out the sentence in the Origins that you object to and then provide evidence, which can be referenced via link/s or postings here. If you had an independent source, it would be preferable. In addition, it would be good if you provided the sentence you are proposing so that we can see it and comment on it.

By “we”, I am referring to all the participants on this article and not implying a team effort. As you may have seen .244 and I do not always agree but look to bridge that divide with the facts put forth. PEACE

TalkAbout 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Simon

Firstly I see no reason why any of the contributors here should reveal any information about themselves or any affiliations they have with each other. The very nature of this site is 'open source' and anyone whoever they are has a right to contribute without the need to justify themselves to anyone else. Also why do you think you have the right to enquire about what other websites people belong to, this seems to be a very arrogant approach on your behalf, you would do well to remember that the function of this page is to solely :D discuss the article and nothing else. Just because you feel you are representing the brahma kumaris here doesn't afford you any special privilage or authority.

Secondly I do not agree that Jagdish Chandlers works are in any way 'proof' of anything, they may be the official line as you say, but that doesn't mean they are factual and therefore the final word. In actual fact I would say that seeing as Jagdish was a fully surrendered member of the Brahma Kumaris it is quite likely that his version of events might be coloured by his own ideas.

So, no I am not yet ready to agree to the change you are suggesting.

Green108 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User Bksimonb

Firstly, with regards to the NPOV notice ; I would disagree on the grounds that you have still not provided any major point of contention nor suitable evidence to suppport an alternative view. In my opinion and experience, I would say that the topic presents accurate and objective documentation of facts. I understand why the BKWSU is deeply unsettled by it in the same manner as Scientology is unsettled by anything that documents their beliefs. It lays out a complete overview of the organization and its beliefs in a manner that shortcuts the usual slow and incrimental initiation to the facts that happens as an individiual become indoctrinated into the BKWSU's practices.

The only area that I would accept requires work is clarifying the relationship between the BKs and the PBKs, their channelling medium and spiritu guides. Towards the end of the archived discussion, a PBK contributor raised some valid comments that should not be ignored by those working on this topic and require incorporating. Specifically relating to the question of the historic relationship between the BKs and the PBKs, and their leaders. Having looked it, I would have to agree that the use of the term "sub-sect" is probably wrong although I can understand why, from an outsiders point of view, it would appear that way Perhaps, given your access to the BKWSU hierarchy, you can help in clarifiy this.

Essentially, I would suggest that your suggestion of a NPOV notice is a "yukti" to be used to raise doubt or discredit an entire article. Generally, such notices are used by only used by interested parties on one side of a debate or the other. In your organizations case, as you are the only full aware and true representatives of God on Earth, I would expect a higher set of ethics applied here and repeat my request that your organization makes clear its major contentions with the article - and supporting evidence - before we proceed. So that would be atleast 3 to 1 against the NPOV. It appears that other contributors have more or longer experience within the BKWSU that you do.

With regards to the move to Mount Abu, I question why you are focusing on an almost inconsequential aspect of the topic and also see it - and the intended slow incrimental change of the topic - as a ploy on behalf of the organization to reduce resistance and re-write the article to suit your organization's PR. If we simply look at the organizations main website it says, " '... you have no connection with the politics of the Hindu or the Muslim'. But the institution had the Godly command to go to India and so they moved to Mount Abu in India ". .

The BKWSU headquarters therefore contradict what you are saying. BKWSU says that Shiva instructed medium Lekhraj Kirpalani to move the organization. You are saying that un-named, non-BK relatives of some un-named BKs were instrumental in moving the BKWSU. That would be considered "following Manmat" by the organization and its Seniors, "lokik attachments" and their opinions are give low to absolutely no priority within the organization and so I find it highly unlikely that they had any part in the move. The quotation also hints that there was indeed social and political conflict in the background. Given a general awareness of the history of the Partition, the strained relationships between Hindus and Moslems and the horror stories reported by Jagdish Chander elsewhere in his canon which you do not reference and to give you the benefit of doubt, may not be aware of; the burden of violence would suggest that you are wrong and attempt to re-write the BKWSU history.

You do not state that the book "Adi Dev" is a BKWSU publication and that BK Jagdish Chander was the main publicist for the BKWSU for most of his surrendered life. On the basis of that, I would also support Green108 assertion that his work in not impartial and cannot be entirely relied upon and bring into question your ethics by not disclosing this.

I have absolutely no representative powers over any other contributor nor the website ]. To the best of my awareness there is nothing that you could say constitutes a team effort, or if there is I am not party to it. I take personal benefit from and contribute to the above mentioned website, on an ad hoc basis, but to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that would constitute a team or organization effort or again, if there is, I am not aware of any. If pressed, I could tell you very little about any contributor to ] other than what they have made public on that or the previous xBKChat.com forum and prefer it that way. Personally, I would say it is all in the public domain now.

I would strongly agree with the completeness and accuracy of the work others have put into this topic, given the contraints of the medium, and would expect all BK related individuals to have to agree. Being a BK is a fairly narrow experience. As other contributors state, this discussion should not be about personalities but objective facts. If you want an opinion from others involved in ], you will have to ask them yourselves on the discussion forum provided. I do not see any real division between BK, PBK and ex-BK. The only divisions I can see arising is where in the first two cases each party has a self interest in their particular formal, legal and financial organizations. In the latter case, I have always respect the wish for anonymity of individuals.

Now, to return to my questions to you, looking at the BKWSU websites, I see no mention of a "BK information technology team" except for Karunabk's wing and so I do not consider that you are making an honest disclosure of your interest. You state that you are "approaching this discussion on their behalf". I asked you if you are acting "on behalf of the BKWSU MultiMedia and Global PublicRelations Wing" under User:Karunabk, or under the instructions of some other individuals or element of the organization?". In short, and in language you will understand, I am asking if you have taken Shrimat from the Senior Sisters about the re-writing of this topic, whether you are acting on the basis of your own manmat or the manmat of others you associate with. You have no satisifed my question as whether your actions are official representative of the BKWSU organization.

I understand that you have been in Gyan for about 12 years, a period entirely after the major re-writing and re-structuring of the BKWSU in the West. You state that " most team members, myself included, have been with this organisation for a long time ". That is not a specific nor honest enough response but by not answering it you have disclosed a lot. I read that to mean 'unsurrendered, junior members of the BKWSU' with little historic involvement. You state, "this approach is an initiative of the team. My posts and responses have their consensus". Frankly, if that is true, it means very little given the 'fluidity' of relationships between the individual and the organization and the way in which the organization presents these.

What we need to now is put aside the diversion of the move to Mount Abu and be told;

• whether you have taken, and are taking, Shrimat on the issues that are arising here?
• whether through the organization and Seniors Sisters you have access to easily referable sources of documentation rather than merely repeating BKWSU instigated publicity materials such as Adi Dev, as would be in your own self interest?
• whether they are willing to disclose them into the public domain?

If you wish, I am happy to start to suggest a list of documents kept by the organization to be placed into the public domain in order that the truth be revealled. Like you, I see this as a process that is likely some time. But given that " the 900,000 " - the first BK residents of the Heaven, are going to be ready this year, no doubt heralding the closeness of [[Destruction

195.82.106.244 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Godly Intellectual Property.

In order to illustrate the Misplaced Pages article on the BKWSU, we propose to reference original teaching posters as inspired and authenticated by God Shiva and Brahma Baba.

We have listed the following images but these require a correct copyright to be assigned to them. This raises an interesting dilemma ;

• Who owns the copyright to God's works or God's versions? Are they covered by limited, proprietory licenses or are they open and unlimited?

To our minds, the answer has to be no one. They must surely be in the public domain, or Copyleft, as they have been given freely by God, and Prajapita, to humanity in order that eacha nd every individuall may use them to earn their own inheritance. In a sense, God Shiva appears to support the GNU 'General Public License' principle.

Following on from this ;

• What is the accredited creation date for The Cycle, The Ladder, The Trimurti, and the Lakshmi and Narayan concepts?

Presumably the individual artists gave over their personal rights to the images, as the ideas were not theirs in the first place, but perhaps you can clarify what rights Shiva Baba - or the BKWSU - exert over Godly Intellectual Property in your role in the Global IT Team.

• Lastly, if possible, we would like to give proper credit to the original artists.

We await your advises with concern.

Thank you.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bklandn_A4.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bkcycle_A4.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bkladder_A4.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bktree_A4.jpg

Brahmakumaris.info 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)