Talk:Kalki Bhagawan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Awaiting a response from ProdigyHK

There is still no response from User:Prodigyhk regarding the WP:COI questions I have raised. I have a long memory regarding this editor. Back in early 2013, User:Prodigyhk appeared to be editing on behalf of someone else, an IP user who was posting requests regarding this article. The IP user was using the term "Dear ProdigyHK", and I quote: I am one of those users without a reliable/authority registered account @ WP; of which fact I am turning to dear Prodigyhk, askng him to keep-up (again) the good work @ Kalki_Bhagavan's article; so with that said, here are my requests: .... which was followed by a list of requests. And I note the use of a gender pronoun in this comment from the IP user, implying an off-line relationship of some sort. When I queried this at the time, User:Prodigyhk became quite rude and described me as an "unscrupulous fellow". merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Prodigyhk has engaged in questionable tactics like deleting well sourced content on this page. I have over-looked such behavior, and given the benefit of doubt to them. However, I will not hesitate to escalate such behavior in future with appropriate WP authorities. User:Prodigyhk, I hope you take note of this, and that WP is a neutral information aggregating platform, not an avenue to advertise and propagate lop-sided information based on one's bias. Keepit real (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

After 2013, I became less active on this page, and then took a long wiki-break. However, I was surprised to start looking at it again earlier in 2020, and to find User:Prodigyhk still using the same methods against other editors. There's a definite pattern: i.e. do a few small edits, then delete another editor's content, followed by a few more small edits. Constantly nibbling away at the text to get it back into alignment with Kalki Bhagwan's officially sanctioned mythology. merlinVtwelve (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 User:Prodigyhk should come clean on what sort of vested interest they have in doing propaganda for kalki bhagwan. Do they have any financial interest? Either-ways, they should declare their intentions with this WP page before embarking on any further mischief, as it is undermining the hard-work of other editors who painstakingly research and update this page, only for User:Prodigyhk to come and delete it. This is not acceptable. Any information that is properly sourced cannot and should not be removed before discussing on talk page. Acting otherwise amounts to vandalism and it will not be tolerated in future on this page. Keepit real (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Prodigyhk's response to questions raised about WP:COI has been to delete their user page history, and to change usernames. User:Prodigyhk is now User:Arvam. I'm not sure what this change is aiming to achieve, as Prodigyhk has not been erased and is still "all over WP". merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 75833 thump-1853633638-1276714236.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

i have removed the image to comply with wp guidelines. Keepit real (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AB-srimurti.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

i removed the files to comply with wp guidelines Keepit real (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Why has the page name changed

I don't understand why the page name has changed from Kalki Bhagwan > Kalki Bhagawan by User:Reo kwon. The cited sources do not spell it that way i.e. http://www.sri-ammabhagavan.org/, https://theprint.in/india/kalki-bhagavan-guru-started-as-lic-clerk-undisclosed-income-500-crore/309158/, https://openthemagazine.com/features/the-cult-of-kalki-bhagavan/. This appears incorrect. Generally it is either "Kalki Bhagavan" or "Kalki Bhagwan", not "Kalki Bhagawan". merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

All of them are correct. Each sanskrit (-ic) word can be transliterated multiple ways. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kalki Bhagavan" is the standard and most used spelling. Bhagawan is an alternative. "Bhagwan" is never used. It is Hindi, not Sanskrit, Telugu, or Tamil which are the official/native languages of the people in question. It can be changed to "Bhagavan", but there is some technical error, so changed it to the next closest version i.e. Bhagawan. Reo kwon (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Reo kwon, the name is pronounced as Bhg-waan in hindi and bha-ga-waan in english. the word has sanskrit root - 'bhg' meaning 'bless'. hindi pronoi=unciation should be considered over english as the word has sanskritic root. Beyond this, isn't it the norm to discuss name changes on talk page before moving a page? What say merlinVtwelve ? Keepit real (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the name is pronounced as Bhg-waan in Hindi. But what has Hindi got to do with this movement? The founders are Telugu/Tamil, the place is situated in Andhra Pradesh near Tamil Nadu border. And Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism. Hindi has got nothing to do with it. And BTW, it's pronounced BhagAwaan in Sanskrit. That schwa deletion is a feature of Hindi, not Sanskrit or Dravidian languages. Please understand that there is not a single language in India. There are 22 official languages and the local name takes precedence and then comes English. Here the local language is Telugu/Tamil and the liturgical language is Sanskrit, Hindi is not even a part of the conversation. Hope you get it. And most importantly, the official name of the sect/movement is "Bhagavan" which is what the name should be. Since that isn't available I have moved it to the closest approximation. Reo kwon (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reo kwon I think that Keepit real has a good point in that a page move is a major decision that should be discussed before it takes place. I will confess I have no knowledge of Hindi, however, Kalki Bhagwan is well-known across India, and in other countries. If I refer to a major English-language publication, such as The Hindu, in a cursory search, I see that it spells the name in three different ways. In recent articles, it seems to use 'Kalki Bhagwan' or 'Kalki Bhagavan'; and I see that in an older article, it uses 'Kalki Bhagawan'. Other publications vary also in their usage. Admittedly it's been a brief internet search, but it seems to me that 'Kalki Bhagawan' is less common. But the point made by Keepit real remains, that discussion should take place, particularly as this article is about a highly controversial public figure. I'm also a bit puzzled that "Kalki Bhagavan" isn't available, as a WP search re-directs to this article. merlinVtwelve (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure it can be discussed. All the official sources and most of the media sources used "Kalki Bhagavan". Hence I thought it's a pretty straightforward move. However, realized at the last moment that Bhagavan isn't available, so moved it to the closest approximation. Agree that I could have put it up for discussion when Bhagavan isn't available. Having said that, as per the guidelines, Bhagavan should be the page title as it is the most commonly used spelling of the name in the official sources and in media as well. The next popular variant is Bhagawan and not Bhagvan or Bhagwan. And I completely agree that it should be up for discussion. Reo kwon (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please delete this page, false propaganda

It’s easy to create negative environment with this kind of article. Sri bhagavan works tirelessly to create positive environment to prepare people solve their own challenges and protect the earth. This statement is based on my personal experience and many other followers. Kindly block this article and the users to help humanity. They don’t even realize that he is working for their better life and future generation.

If you can’t block, please let me know action how to block this false propaganda permanently Arunmohan79 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Arun, I also strongly believe this is an attack page in its present form and I have raised a complaint , point by point with Wikipedia Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - as I believe it is also a violation of its policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons on living persons (scroll down to Kalki Bhagavan) and also not in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view .

One simple and obvious way to see this is an attack page is that even the pages on Hitler and Mussolini or Osama Bin Laden are factual - there is no name calling or pejoratives and the organizations they led are not called cults, even when what they have provably done in terms of loss to human life is far less severe as compared to the unproved claims made on this page. More detailed arguments are provided in the complaint.

I have faith that justice and truth will prevail. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe this talk page has bias and I have called it out point by point in the page topics. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Birth name of 'Amma'

I am a bit puzzled by what she claims was her previous name. Was her birth name really 'Padmavathi', or 'Padmavati', which, according to the prophesies, is the name of Vishnu's consort? Or was this yet another made up name, which she adopted, in an effort to gain followers, when VK was claiming to be Kalki? merlinVtwelve (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

yes i doubt her real birth name is padmavati. this article states her name to be 'bujjamma'. my feeling is that padmavati is an adopted name in order to attract more followers. when the movement began, only VK was running the show along with sankar. later on he started adding myths to his avatar hood and included padmavati as an equal avatar. did you read freddy neilsen's report? - i found it to be quite revealing and in-line with my experience of vk, when i was in the movement from 2007-2010. Keepit real (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That would make sense, as it seems changing names is a convenient thing to do when the story changes. I'll add something to the 'Names' section. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, he has followed this strategy from the beginning. Btw, I was thinking of removing Amma's reference from the first lead paragraph to make it concise and brief.. to something like "A former insurance agent, he declared himself to be Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu."<end of para> What do you think? Keepit real (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine, a bit of simplification wouldn't hurt. A while back we also discussed the idea of a WP:SPLIT, whereby the article is split into three: VK, the Oneness org, and White Lotus. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn’t hurt what or who? Are you taking about the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Because FYI there is an important prerogative in that document “ Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. “ I think “hurt” must incorporate that as well. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, how are you privy to his strategies? What evidence do you have about his strategies? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You might know some actions an individual did. You might have a theory about the strategy. But even if someone tells you “this is my strategy” you can’t know if you are being objective. Sorry, but this is for an encyclopedia- even if a public one. Why aren’t the facts being stuck to ? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Again what is the evidence for your theory ? What story changed and when ? Objectively this is missing a lot of facts and I genuinely question how can you assume so much without basis. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Freddy Nielsens “report” which you mention is http://deekshadanger.weebly.com/freddy-speaks-out.html - is a blog post. This is not an authoritative source and there is no burden of proof on him. It is not a listed source on the Wikipedia page simply because it is completely inadmissible as a source.

If you want to reason based on it, it should be first added as a source which it cannot be for the biography of a living person - being a blog post. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Your personal experience is largely irrelevant here, please stick to reported facts. This is in line with Wikipedia’s Wikipedia:No original research policy. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the evidence for your theory ?

“ my feeling is that padmavati is an adopted name in order to attract more followers.”

Why have you assumed guilt in this manner, without even knowing what was the birth name or the reason for the change? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)