Jump to content

Talk:Kalki Bhagawan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Before this article continues, a consensus is needed.

I've been reading some aspects of this conversations and I've noticed that if the refferences are going to work for now on, these topics must be observed:

1) users are insisting that there has to be NEWS-related refferences; 2) in journalism, you just need to provide information gathered by a archived Press_statement, of which here we will consider a statement archived in the web that would meet the criteria of Journalism_ethics_and_standards, and that mean, NOT NEWS CHANNEL/JOURNAL links ONLY. 3) i.e. the Arjuna Aardag book sometimes will not meet the criteria; but some blogs and pages will. 4) This Article has to be neutral; if some people are preaching like a lawyer around this one should immediatelly be warned. 177.135.5.171 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi user with IP 177.135.5.171
1. The other editor's contention is that independently published sources about the subject are not "really" independent. So, his argument to rely only on published NEWS. There are flaws in his argument, which I hopefully will be able to get a consensus agreement to move forward :)
2. Press Release - Under certain conditions, WP allows use of subject as as self published sources. Details are here. [[1]]. In this case, it would only allow press releases issued by the subject and not other persons.
3. Blogs do not meet WP requirement and can not be included. Please study WP:source
4.Sometimes it gets difficult to resolve issues and to ensure neutrality . May be the right course would be to get an admin involved.

Prodigyhk (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications, Prodigyhk. In a sense now, it is clear to move foward on consensus;

For instance, on this, there would add a section in "Controversies" about internal conflicts (or, say, "misorganisation"), which there could include the deaths of inmates and the break of famous guides that became famous, maybe focusing on a publicity strategy. So, the only reference of the break you can find here [2] or in other oneness-movement-related sites. In deed, there is a bit of a neutrality here, since what would be focused here is his official statement, but one that was broadcasted only through oneness-movement-related channels. How do I deal with it? Why would its official value be reduced only because of the fact it wasnt spread by news channel? 187.12.26.206 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to invoke deletion again? Moraldobial (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
References to internal conflicts or the breakaway group of guides needs to come from independent sources. e.g. The Hindu published at least one short article at [3]. Sources close to the Oneness movement cannot be trusted. M Stone (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi person with IP address out of Aracaju-Sergipe-Brazil. Have some query since there are a few people out of South America with your similar style writing here. It will be easier for me to process inputs if I can know which of you are same person and which are different :-)
177.135.5.171 and 187.12.26.206 -> these users are from same location. Are you same.
Moraldobial and Tatubola -> these users seem similar. Are you same ? And style seem similar to the above users. Are all 4 of you same ?
Note - If it is against WP rules to ask this type of questions, do let me know. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Prodigyhk; for sure that is a good concern to be asked in WP:Q. So, here 187.12.26.206 (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC) is where I work. The following 177.135.5.171, as you can see, has the log of '23:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)1' which is UTC-3 in Aracaju-Sergipe-Brazil so at 10:35PM I really wasn't at work!! :) The other users such as Tatubola or Moraldobial I really can't say; probablly just a coincidence; Aren't them the same user?... I mean they have the same user page! I will check if it someone from the same school I work since this computer here 187.12.26.206 (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC) is shared or intranet as well :)
In order not to make more confusions like that, I will sign my posts. Sorry for the inconvenience. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thanks user:187.12.26.206 for the clarifications. Now we can wait for inputs from User talk:177.135.5.171 who started this discussion "consensus" Prodigyhk (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Independent Sources

Following the discussion above, it is a consensus to gather independent sources, according to its discussion (above). Here will be gathered Independent Sources that (would) rather meet the criteria in case of broading the article for now on. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted my comments on the sources listed below. M Stone (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Hindu

The Hindu can definitely be used as a source. It is has been publishing for many years, and meets WP guidelines as a 'reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' M Stone (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Matthew check this The_Hindu#Controversy - it is known in India that they take a Communist line. Think you may be interested to know, as you have high opinion about them. Anyway, for this article, we can use The Hindu as a source taking suitable care on how we present it. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, besides it is very clear to see their neutral position, it is mentioned the action of a Communist Party of India there. So, no tabloids here. I agree that it meets the guidelines. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ExpressIndia

I cannot comment on Express India. It may not be a particularly reliable source, and perhaps should be used with caution. M Stone (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Matthew my friend, Indian Express is one of the best known newspapers in India. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Prodigyhk, in my opinion, indianexpress.com is not a very popular site in India; While it could be a better popular as circulating newspaper, it doesn't feed the web rank, so it looses points in terms of web-authority, thats all... 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It is a bit crazy :) Both of you clearly no experts on India and on this task to write an encyclopaedic article about an Indian Guru ! Prodigyhk (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The truth is that an encyclopaedia article won´t meet the standards of a Hagiography if that´s your point! 177.159.22.51 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The only point I was making is, this question about using Indian Express as a source would not be, among people with knowledge of India. And thanks for teaching me a new word Hagiography Prodigyhk (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

India Today

Not to be included. This article is from 2004, based on someone's allegations that are still not proven. Require follow WP:BLP - Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives:Prodigyhk (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
India Today can definitely be used as a source. Like The Hindu, it is has been publishing for many years, and meets WP guidelines as a 'reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' N.B. This is a discussion about the reliability of sources. Therefore, the article's year of publication; whether or not it is titillating; and whether or not the allegations are true, is irrelevant to the discussion. M Stone (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Matthew, my comments are relevant to development of this article. Advice on what basis, you want to include unfounded allegations from 2004 in this article Prodigyhk (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you are apologising. This is a discussion about reliability of sources, and India Today is most certainly a reliable source. If you will recall when the article was Nominated for Deletion [[4]], it was decided to 'Keep' largely on the basis of Vijay Kumar's notability through his coverage by the press. Like it or not, this is one example of such coverage. M Stone (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Mate, when I am rude, you ask me to be civil. Now, when I am trying to be civil in my disagreement by saying "sorry", you question me. Make up your mind ;)
* I agree India Today is an well known media house in India and can most of the time seen as reliable source.
* I do not agree that this specific article dated 2004 with unfounded allegations is a source to use in this WP article. Check WP:BLPGOSSIP
* Was not part of the deletion discussion in 2008, when they decided to delete, even though this article from India Today dated 2004 was then existing. In the recent 2013 discussion, that both of us participated, the few who participated had different ideas on why the person is notable and not just based on media coverage. The decision was made the subject is a notable person from India and so kept. And I remember you had requested for deletion :-) Prodigyhk (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
In case of WP:BLPGOSSIP the article remains without weasel words, so it meets our criteria here. Therefore, it can be used to highlight the media relevancy of KB´s. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User @ Prodigy HK, you have on previous occasions been civil to me in discussions, and then later engaged in personal attacks on me when you don't get your way. This is not good WP etiquette, and I have no time for engaging with editors who conduct themselves in such a manner. You have yet to properly address the many issues I have raised with you in previous discussions. As far as India Today goes, I don't recall the veracity of any particular sources being discussed in the Deletion discussions, which were quite general. Coverage by media was one of the critical reasons for the 'Keep' decision, as there is very little else about Kalki Bhagavan that is notable. M Stone (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thaindian News

Cannot comment about Thaindian. It can possibly be used as a source, but unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I would suggest not for anything controversial or likely to be contested. M Stone (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Matthew. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; TN´s page looks like a web link repository. Everything you search there they redirect you to search engine hot-word methods: It leads you nowhere. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Life Postive

  • ^ Varughese, Suma. "Sri Bhagawan Kalki - The School of Enlightenment". Life Positive. The class revolves around the concept of acceptance. Sounding like J.Krishnamurti or Eckhart Tolle, she tells us to practice 'sweekariyat', beginning with acceptance of the self. We are urged to look within and acknowledge all that is. She points out the suffering inherent in rejecting aspects of ourselves we do not approve of and of the false self we construct. She emphasizes the importance of 'experiencing' the moment, instead of resisting it. Bhagavan says, "Seeing is the key thing in the dharma. Supposing jealousy is there, you must learn to see jealousy. To see is to be free." http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Sri_Bhagwan_Kalki/The_School_for_Enlightenment92006.asp
  • ^ Varughese, Suma. "Sri Bhagawan Kalki - The School of Enlightenment". Life Positive. "Bhagavan says, 'The mind of man is like a wall which divides man from God. The deeksha is an electrical energy that makes a hole in this wall, which we call the mind. Once this happens, then God and man can come to relate to each other." .. A key concept is the importance of cultivating an intimate relationship with God, based not on fear or awe but friendship. "God is your supreme friend," Bhagavan is reported to have said, and we are urged to argue with God, fight with him and compel him to hear our prayer, as we would with a real friend. I find this concept of the friendly God very attractive, for too often we distance ourselves from divinity out of a sense of unworthiness. http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Sri_Bhagwan_Kalki/The_School_for_Enlightenment92006.asp

Prodigyhk (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why these lengthy quotes have been posted here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Is this meant to be part of the discussion about reliable sources? If so, LifePositive appears to be some kind of blog and would need to be used in a very limited way, and only to support assertions that are not likely to be contested. M Stone (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
had copied it from above and so lengthy quotes included with the copy and paste.
LifePositive is a printed magazine that you can buy in India. The link is to their web portal. The subject Kalki Bhagavan is a spiritual master. It is important to cover details about his teaching and spiritual work. The articles in Life Positive will form the reliable independent source for this Prodigyhk (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because a publication is printed, and it can be bought in a particular country, does not make it a reliable source. It is a matter of opinion how important it is to 'cover details about his teaching'. Please provide some evidence that Life Positive is a reliable source. M Stone (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
These reputed and well known Indians are running this magazine, which makes this magazine a reliable source.
* President of Life Positive - Mr D.R. Karthikeyan, former chief of the CBI.
* Panel of advisers - Mark Tully, Kiran Bedi, Devieka Bhojwani, M Madhvan Nambiar, K M S 'Titoo' Ahluwalia, G Venkatesh Rao , and Parveen Chopra. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that LifePositive isn´t quite neutral. Also, it looks like a segment of a publicity niche; so, there should be avoided those publicity contents. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
LifePositive is not claiming to be a news organisation like the others. It might be okay for limited use as a source, i.e. assertions that are not likely to be contested. M Stone (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
@User:187..., Just as to learn very detail information of a sportsman's performance, we read a sports magazine. Similarly to learn about a spiritual master, we do need to refer to a spiritual magazine, for information that is not usually in mainstream newspapers. Life Positive works in that niche as a source for spiritual news. Prodigyhk (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The comment was to AVOID PUBLICITY. 177.159.22.51 (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinions

  • So, in my opinion (as far as the quality of the sources discussed here), The Hindu covers the most of the criteria, in detriment of the other media sources. I wouldn't include ExpressIndia, Thaindian and Life Positive; they wouldn't add much relevance. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on discussion to date, I would suggest that The Hindu and India Today both definitely meet WP criteria as 'reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. The others may be OK as sources for anything not likely to be contested. M Stone (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My opinion, other than Thaindian, the rest of the listed new source are established Indian media companies. We need to ensure unfounded allegations are not presented in the WP article. The WP editor need to ensure the WP articles follow WP:BLP - Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives Prodigyhk (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines of WP:SOURCE for this article is - so far - widely discussed here via WP:CON. talk is concerned to the WP:BLP as the editor´s position; which fact does not represent the quality/reliability of the sources. [...] 177.159.22.51 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is
Resolved
as for 12:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 177.207.34.74 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposing a WP:BLP standard model

177.159.22.51 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:177.159.22.51, Are you the same person as User:187.12.26.206 who was here yesterday (or) User:177.135.5.171 who was here a few days earlier. One request - it will easier for us to keep a track and continue conversation if you could all use registered user id ? Prodigyhk (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey man, isnt today a holiday ?! So why do you want me to use that computer ??! School is closed today man!! :)) 177.159.22.51 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Life

Early life and proclamation

  • An epiphany lead KB to decide to become a guru ?

Later activites/stablishments/education/techniques...

  • What guided KB to the guru life? An specific event? A sum of sociologic events? Perhaps a trauma ?
  • Then, how KB developed his skills to acquire expertness at the guru area? Is there a official course like in Cambridge ? How is this process done in India ?
  • Is there a consecration ?

The foundation for his headquarters?

  • And why? Is that a normal process of guru´s? Discuss.

KB´s system: beliefs, spiritual practices, contributions(i.e for the 'spiritual academy')

  • Briefly, how KB´s system is structured; what is in (within) the system to be considered as dogma; are there innovations for the spiritual paradigmas? etc...

Institutions, ashrams, temples, etc...

Controversies

Noteworthy followers

177.159.22.51 (talk) . 177.159.22.51 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Added a strike bracket to the propposed section according to what has been recently discussed (below) and recent updates to the main article. Dafurlol (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Removing strikes. Still under discussion Prodigyhk (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dafurlol are you same as our unregistered user(s) from Aracaju ? Prodigyhk (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is this a proposed structure? 177.159.22.51 Please sign. The above would depend on reliable sources, first identify some reliable third party sources, then worry about structure. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is a proposed structure, based on another category-related W:BP. I am working on finding reliable third party sources right now. 177.159.22.51 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read yourself WP:BIO instead of WP:BP above. 177.159.22.51 (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the comment from In ictu oculi, structure is a secondary issue. The first hurdle is ensuring reliable third party sources are used for any content on this page. M Stone (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
In ictu oculi Hi, welcome back. A list of media sources has been listed above [[5]] for review and comments Prodigyhk (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I do not object to some toned-down positive content here, just as toned down critical content may also be present. Newspapers are reliable 3rd party sources. Regarding the two visits of film stars I do not think "followers" can be used. Simply "The ashram has attracted visits from some celebrities including a visit from Shilpa Shetty and.. " One visit does not a follower make, and a separate section is not required. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added a sentence to that effect. Maybe this page needs to be done on a sentence-by-sentence basis. M Stone (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:In ictu oculi The news articles indicate they are followers of Bhagavan's teaching and not some visitors to the temple. Posting here for your study sections from the articles(italics/bold are mine) --> Shilpa Shetty --> Shetty visited her guru Kalki Bhagavan at Satyavedu {here [6]} ...... This place has helped me get in touch with myself. ...... seeks solace there in the company of her gurus — Amma and Bhagavan ..... it has made a huge difference in my life, work and relationships, she said. ........ I would prescribe this place for anyone who needs a break and a different and positive way to living life, she said... {here [7]} and {here [8]} ..... Manisha Koirala --> I am associated with Oneness Oneness University in Chennai and it’s learning has made me a seeker, Koirala admits {here [9]} {& here [10]}.... Hritik Roshan - Hrithik was so keen on the idea that he reworked his schedule to join them in Varadaiahpalem in Andhra Pradesh. ....{here..[11]} - Rakesh Roshan --> Rakesh came up with a suggestion. She says, "Dad decided to do away with the usual celebrations, and instead, opted to go to the Oneness University. And Duggu too was more than happy and he worked out his schedule accordingly. The family will celebrate his birthday, taking the blessings of Bhagwan {here [12] } Prodigyhk (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with User:In ictu oculi comment to have toned-down positive content here, just as toned down critical content may also be present. The problem is that the article as it stands now gives importance to critical content with just one section "controversy", which does not make the page neutral. Suggesting few options --> a) add new section to highlight positive aspects under "Positive Influence" Or "Noteworthy followers" ; (b) remove "controversy" as a separate section and have it re-written in tone-down manner, along with the toned-down positive comments; (c) Keep separate sections for both aspects. But, have it written in toned-down manner with no intent for undue publicity of either negative or positive aspects.. Prodigyhk (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the sections are not required in such a short article, however the controversies section is already quite toned down. Regarding the above extracts and quotes, an editor is not supposed to combine multiple sources to advance a particular position. Please refer to WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not enough to say someone can be 'considered' a follower. M Stone (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggestion for tone-down critical sections
Located within Bhagavan's campus, is the Oneness temple, claimed to be the largest pillar less hall in Asia. In 2008, on the inauguration day of this hall, unexpectedly more than half a million gathered congregated at the campus, leading to a stampede [3] resulting in the death of 5 people and injuring over 100 persons. The Oneness Temple is located near Varadaiahpalem, Andhra Pradesh, India. It is claimed to be the largest pillar-less meditation hall in Asia.[3] At its opening ceremony in 2008, several people died in a stampede.[4] In 2008, irate crowds led by members of the local Communist Party of India (Marxist) pulled down huge arches and cut-out images of Kalki and Amma Bhagavan outside the Oneness temple and made a bonfire of them. They were protesting against the alleged callous attitude of the Kalki Bhagavan Trust, which resulted in the stampede leading to the death of five devotees and injuries to over 100 persons during the temple's opening ceremonies.[7]
In 2002[8] the Madras High Court took up a public interest litigation alleging misuse of public funds by various Kalki trusts . The petition made allegations of unaccounted wealth of Kalki Bhagwan and his family members and their financial empire.[9] The Madras High Court then rejected this plea for a probe. Later, when the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Madras High Court and dismissed the petition at the admission level.[10]Prodigyhk (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Can't agree with any of these changes, which include removal of material about news events which took place, and their accompanying citations. In its current form, the section fairly accurately reflects the sources. Suggest it would be more productive to concentrate on proposed new material. M Stone (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
reason behind tone down critical sections
The 2008 section - article is about Bhagavan. Have rewritten to show relevance of inclusion of the meditation hall matter by starting the paragraph with Located within Bhagavan's campus. To maintain neutral position, have kept details of the stampede. Removed details of protests by minor local political parties since these are small local events and not important for this article.
The 2002 section - Have kept information of the allegation. And removed only redundant repetition of allegations, to maintain tone required per WP:BLP. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, these changes involve removal of sourced material and events which have been newsworthy enough to be covered by the Indian press, including the activities of a political party. This is all relevant to the notability of Kalki Bhagavan and his organisation. Also I can't see a problem with the tone of the writing, apart from the term 'financial empire', which I removed. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor material. Suggest reading WP:NOTCENSORED. M Stone (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
WP is very clear about the special attention and care required when writing BPL, especially when including allegations and negative critical comments. The requirements are far stringent that writing a normal article. Since, you have been an editor now for 6 years, I am sure you are aware of it.
Have now made edits to reduce repetitive negative critical comments. The article still contains negative critical comments. So, no "censorship" attempted :) Prodigyhk (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It is also your personal view when you emphasizes so much that these comments are negative. Please, explain why they are negative instead. Dafurlol (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Please study section BALANCE WP:BLPSTYLE Prodigyhk (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Dafurlol: The earlier consensus is to use "tone down positive comments and tone critical comments". My addition of the word "negative" to "critical comments" is just me getting excited :-D Now, when I read it, do see that the word "negative" is redundant, as "critical comment" would convey the same meaning. In any case, do read the section BALANCE as it is important for all WP articles. If you have any query, do revert. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the IP users, I think it was 187.12.26.206, put together a range of articles and links. Much of it was about the organisation, the temple etc., and not about Kalki Bhagavan himself. The organisation seems to be more notable than the individual. It's possible that a new page could be created about the Oneness Foundation. This would avoid the issues relating to a BLP. M Stone (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Since the pages had been deleted by previous consensus, you will need to start undelete process and get a new consensus to start a new page Prodigyhk (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement to start a new page about the subject's organization, which is notable only because of him. Using information from the media links we can complete this BLP page by including some details about his life/teaching/etc written in neutral tone. With that we complete a balanced article reflecting the positive and critical aspects of this subject. We can then all move on. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I am starting to think it is the other way around. The organisation is notable, but the individual isn't. He's well into his sixties, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable biographical information about him at all. Whereas the organisation has at least made appearances in the press for one reason or another. I'll put up a proposal for a new page. M Stone (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
MathewTimothy: please clarify what you mean by --> a new page could be created about the Oneness Foundation. This would avoid the issues relating to a BLP.?
Advice, what issues have we avoided in this BLP ? Over the last many months. I have been working with all of you to achieve consensus. And as the article stands, we still maintained critical comments.
Why this new plan of yours to start a page on the organization to avoid the BLP related rules ? Please do understand, even if you create a separate page for organization, you still are require to maintain neutral stance for a balanced articleProdigyhk (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if a movement is genuinely notable, it is quite common for WP to hold two separate articles, one for the movement and for its founder. I suggest you take a look at George Gurdjieff and his Fourth Way. Or another good example, and guru who was somewhat similar to Kalki Bhagavan, namely, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his Rajneesh movement. Outside India, the Oneness Movement is relatively well-known within the confinement of New Age circles. By contrast, the leader is relatively unknown. M Stone (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Strange argument ! And you have not answered my question on need to avoid issues related to BLP, by creating new page about organization. Do note, all WP article follow a fundamental principle - neutral point of view WP:NPOV based on reliable source WP:SOURCE that can be verified WP:VERIFY. Our colleague from Aracaju, Brazil had listed above available reliable news media articles about subject & organizations. All are from India. If you have news media articles from outside India about subject/organization, do add to the list. If not, let us move on. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
What I would like to hear is a counter-argument. Responding to other editors in a belligerent manner all the time is not helping at all. Dafurlol asked you a reasonable question and your response was 'Please study section BALANCE WP:BLPSTYLE' What does that mean? Why would an organisation with a claimed 14 million followers not have its own page? Please provide a rational response. You have been on WP long enough to be learning how things are done. You are not an arbiter of other editors' output or contributions. M Stone (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If Dafurlol found my response "belligerent" or required more clarification, I am sure he would let me know. And I would have explained more clearly. Do not see reason for you get stressed out with me ! Relax :) By the by, the founder of the organization that "claims" to have 14 million followers, is surely more notable than the organization. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Note to Mathew - The task we have on hand is to clean up this page on Bhagavan. It is clear to both of us and few others who follow this page, that we have different POV on this subject. But, we can together follow the WP guidelines to deliver a balance article to the community. As the page stands today, there is no reason to fork out a new page on the subject's organization. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Prodigyhk my intent was to simply ask you to explain to us why 'they are so negative', instead of giving directives to me, as user talk kindly noticed: It is all part of being helpful to the article. I agree to the proposition made by him as well, to separate the figure and the movement. That certainly could meet the criteria of a legitimate WP article, as it would follow other (well-known) related articles mentioned above ( such as George Gurdjieff and his Fourth Way. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his Rajneesh movement.) The arguments are also very ('wikily') rich as well (note: read them slightly above). I sugest listing KB´s 'doctrine/teachings/whatever you call it' at Wikiquote if that is your concern. Otherwise, at last but not at least. 177.207.33.105 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC) By the way this is me on a different computer, hence, a different IP because Ive lost access to the computer loging in as Dafurlol 177.207.33.105 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
hi User with Brazil IP, About concern on "negative", had responded to you on 30/5/2013 here. Please check.
* Pages on George Gurdjieff and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh are well developed with a lot of content and useful to have separate page on their organization. The article Kalki Bhagavan as it stands now is a very small article. We can fork out separate article on the organization, when this article on Bhagavan reach same state as Gurgjieff or Rajnessh. Also, for now it will be easy for editors and admins to manage just 1 page.
* the WP requirements remains the same for all pages - neutral point of view WP:NPOV based on reliable source WP:SOURCE that can be verified WP:VERIFY. Please state reason to add the new page on organization to avoid any WP rules.
* On adding section for 'doctrine/teachings/whatever you call it' you earlier suggested this here. It will be useful to have something in this page. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
So it seems KB is not really worried about his reputation/fame as there aren't so much articles on him or on his life. Then his movement, on the other hand, is what attracts more attention from media. This facts makes it more difficult to create a WP:BLP on him; instead, the whole article talks about his organizations issues. Should we redirect KB´s article to an (yet to be created)Oneness Movement article instead? Please comment. 177.207.33.105 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Please answer my question. What is that Mathew want to avoid by closing this BLP article and start an article about organization? It does not make sense. The WP rules remain same for all pages -- WP:NPOV WP:SOURCE WP:VERIFY. Also, WP is clear the BLP rules apply even in non-BLP pages and also in non-article space.
If you need to add more information on organization in this page, list items here. We can then review and decide. For this, we can refer to the list of agreed independent sources above Prodigyhk (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The BLP has probably gone as far as it can, unless new sources can be found. It is now starting to look a bit desperate, with trivia about famous tourists who have visited the ashram. I think there is information in the sourced material that has little to do with the guru, but is relevant to the organisation. Maybe some of it is negative, maybe some of it is positive. The Ardagh and Windrider books cannot be used for a BLP because they are too close to the source. Those books, and some other publications, could possibly also be used in regards to the organisation, in relation to beliefs/practices etc. M Stone (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Do not waste your time keeping this discussion, dear... Last edition was a very good indeed... If there aren't enough sources, why keeping trying to make this article so relevant, as if all found sources needed to be put together?... Can you follow this thought? User M Stone has pointed very good observations here as well, so why not copeing with them. all is needed now are new sources. A wiki article about KB won`t change anything. Any point of view. Please, revert the edits and leave the article clean as it was before, because now it looks like a defense-lawyer thesys!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.207.33.105 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
User at ProdigyHK, where is no neutrality issue with VK's declaring himself to be Kalki. Please see WP:cherry, i.e don't cherry pick sources. The sentence is written almost exactly the way it appears in the source material, so is therefore 'neutral' in relation to the source. M Stone (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The book "Fire from Heaven" by Kiara Windrider clarifies this name issue --> He had never claimed to be this Kalki himself, but some of his disciples had this vision of Kalki when they saw him, and somehow the name stuck. He is now actively disassociating himself from this title because he would rather not create controversy around this nor does he want to put himself into any kind of exclusive spiritual box. He emphasizes that if he is a Kalki, then so is everyone who also works for the service of humanity and the Earth. Consequently he has now legalized his name as simply, ‘Bhagavan’.Prodigyhk (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Windrider is one of his gullible disciples, of course he would say that. That's why Windrider is not acceptable as a source, because he believes every word that comes out of KB's mouth. On the other hand, the reference to Kalki is from a reliable source. M Stone (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Mathew, have removed --> It has been referred to in the Indian press as the 'Kalki Cult' . Require maintain neutral WP:NPOV tone and not push negative POV bias WP:COATRACK. Also, the one media source that mention this term 'cult' is from 2004 and not used since. And this term is not used by other members of India press.Prodigyhk (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Now you're pushing POV. M Stone (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The word cult is a term of abuse or derogatory term. Generalizing some media reports to stick this word to the subject's organization is not right. If you doubt my reasoning, we can approach admin for clarification. Prodigyhk (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you refer to WP:LABEL. The guidelines are quite clear "...Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult....are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution..." It has been used by two agreed reliable sources on more than one occasion. A particular editor not liking the term is not sufficient reason. M Stone (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Additional information needed 177.207.34.74 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Archiving all except recent conversations

In the interests of keeping this page manageable, I have archived a lot of what was on this page. The content still exists, and can be accessed from the Archive Box at the top of the page. If any Editor disagrees, and thinks that a particular conversation needs to continue, I would suggest you cut and paste it back in at the top of this page above the most recent conversations. M Stone (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems useful. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Mathew, Just notice that all the data prior to 4/May is now in "Archive 2" ? Did you manually archive it (or) is there some auto-archive setup for this page ? Prodigyhk (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It's manual. Page just getting unmanageable. If anything needs putting back, just cut and paste. M Stone (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder of the relevancy of this article

Please read the proposed wiki-templates on

talk page to reflect this reality and see if, for instance, it is really necessary to work so much on it: 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


Which is why most of it belongs in a separate article about the Oneness Movement. M Stone (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Has Kalki Bhagavan disappeared?

TV channels TV9 and NTV are reporting that Kalki Bhagavan has disappeared and was in hospital. [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] Are any other news sources reporting this? Can anyone provide a translation? M Stone (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tuning the terms

I have just edited the following: (...) where the Dasajis were shown presenting various altered (Altered_state_of_consciousness) consciousness levels while dancing in bliss (...)" when we used to find (Nirvikalpa_samadhi) consciousness levels for the reason of contextualization, where the tone of the discussion in the article, actually, highlights the following: (...)confirming that the Dasajis never consumed narcotics(...), figuring a more formal tone in the scope of the technical probes for a plea instead of anything related to a cultural/religious/spiritual toned discussion. 177.206.193.21 (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. M Stone (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Unregistered IP user... There is no mention of "altered" states of consciousness in the report Not required to "tune" the terms !! Prodigyhk (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
That is not the contextualization point of the redaction on line 32. Also, the key tag (found in header) in one of the references linked to the context is clearly mentioned: 'Kalki Bhagawan followers never consumed narcotics: affidavit'. So, it seems reasonable to make clear what the tones we're dealing with here, in that paragraph. Otherwise, you should change that redaction to fit your WP:POV. 177.158.234.171 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
User: Unregistered IP The legal affidavit does not mention anything about "altered states". Not require to add any "tone" to the matter, and removed the links.Prodigyhk (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not making the article useful. The reader should engage with the knowledge and the information, not to the facts and tabloids. At least three basic WP:Guidelines must align here. Otherwise, once again, the article wont fit. Should we proceed to improve it, please? 177.158.234.171 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
User: Unregistered IP The legal affidavit referred to in the article does not explain 'consciousness nor the states that it can be. It is not the job of the wiki editor to make assumptions and confuse the issues for reader. Your attempts as I see are wanting to a negative POV about the students of the subject, by creating this link to spirituality and drug use. If we are unable to agree, will need to request admin support. thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
have now corrected word to "various conscious level" , same as words in the referred article. Included link to WP article Level_of_consciousness_(esotericism), which gives more details to the reader. Prodigyhk (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
after 7 days without changing any new content or claims, we find the discussion above as:
Resolved

until a new issue is provoked/raised/instigated by authors of any means; meeting the purposes discussed above. (see new reference of date at the following sign: 187.12.26.206 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC) )

Recent edits from Brazilian IP addresses

Some of the recent edits to this page have been close to vandalism. Please stop making random edits that barely make any sense. If you have issues with the content, or the sources, then open up a discussion on the Talk page. The sources being used in the current version of the article were the result of extensive discussion by several editors, which is available above, and in the Archives, for all to see. M Stone (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask cordially. 189.81.11.17 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please follow Wikipedia editing guidelines. M Stone (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi IP 189.81, agree with M Stone your recent edits have been confusing. Appreciate if you could explain better for our understanding. Also, about this article, my opinion is that the present form of this article is fine, since it was arrived after very lengthy and detailed discussion in the talk page. There does not seem any need to further work on this article, unless we have new sources / information emerge that require to be included. best wishes Prodigyhk (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Also IP 189.81, I would recommend using the 'Edit Summary' on each and every edit that you make, instead of creating a long trail without any apparent reasoning. This enables other editors to see your reason for the edit. If the other editors agree, chances are they will leave it alone. The overall pattern of what you have been doing could be seen as 'Disruptive Editing'. It is also very easy for your edits to get mixed up with the vandalism that has been taking place on this page from other anonymous IP addresses. Also, BTW, removing sources/references is a no-no, on WP generally. If you have doubts about a source, start a discussion and request other points of view. Also, it is much easier to use Wikipedia if you register as an Editor. It takes about 5 minutes or less. M Stone (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have recently tried to improve one past suggested edition based on an ISO in the case a reference using ISO´s ISBN
Edited on main Article by/at 187.12.26.206 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Of which, also, in a nutshell, can be the following: Arjuna Ardagh's reference used in this edition is acceptable according to type of the work WP:V, according to ISO´s featured ISBN , of which book´s contents also fits on the WP:UCS Standards. 187.12.26.206 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Name

Have updated subject's name to Sri Bhagavan WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Names WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms.2C_stage_names_and_common_names Prodigyhk (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed section heading

Have changed section heading "Controversy" to "legal issues faced". The reason being, these issues are not controversial. These were legal issues that were raised, addressed and resolved. Do discuss here if you have a different opinion Prodigyhk (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Have merged the content from this section legal into the section movement, since it relates to that. Do discuss here if you have a different opinion Prodigyhk (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 15 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved with no objections. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Kalki Bhagavan → Sri Bhagavan – The present title of the article is not the common name used to address the subject The name Kalki was a title given earlier by subject's students and can confuse readers with Kalki from Hindu mythology. As seen from the article space, "Sri Bhagavan" is the name of the subject. Request to have the name changed. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism

There is significant criticism surrounding Sri Bhagavan, the Oneness University, and the Oneness Movement in general. It should be noted somewhere that the program which Sri Bhagavan leads charges exorbitant amounts of money for attendance which is pro-rated based on country of origin - it was originally free prior to 2000. There are armed guards patrolling the property, to protect the retreat center but also to keep retreatants from leaving - retreatants are not allowed to leave and must sign such a waiver upon registration. There is a history of retreatants having a mental breakdown during the retreat which was not properly treated - rather they were subsequently forced to leave the property and returned home in mental despair, some led to suicide. Sri Bhagavan is honored within the Oneness University as Kalki, the reincarnated Vishnu, an enormous title for one human to hold that should be met with full suspicion. The local Indian population refers to group as the Kalki cult. Some monks of the tradition have left due to differences of opinion and good-faith practices. Their practices and methods are not publicly available - not to be found in any library system or online resource. There is no space for questions or discussions on the topics taught during retreats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.221.226 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent IT raids and Bhagwan Kalki's location.

The self-styled godman, who claims to be the 10th 'avatar' of Vishnu, had hoarded as much as Rs 93 crore in cash at his ashram and at other premises as well as an estimated Rs 409 crore of unaccounted wealth, the Income Tax department said in a press release on Friday. 8nonym0us999 (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Godman

  • B1. According to wikipedia, Godman is a colloquial term used in India for a type of charismatic guru that is often raised to a demigod-like figure by their cult following. They usually have a high-profile presence, and are capable of attracting attention and support from large sections of the society.Godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds.
  • B2. Vijay Kumar has claimed to be a divine Avatar (incarnation). This itself is the reason enough to colloquially address him as a godman. He has also stated to having the capacity to grant or give what he calls the state of 'Spiritual Enlightenment' to seekers. He has also been complicit in promoting himself to have super natural spiritual powers and various miracles including materializing turmeric from his photograph, talking to people in their dreams, etc. He has a cult-like following around India and the world. As such, Vijay Kumar fits perfectly into the description of Godman from the wikipedia page.
  • B3. He is as much a godman (if not more) as much as he is a spiritual teacher.

My attempts to include the term 'godman' in the subject wikipedia page introduction are being repeatedly undone by Prodigyhk, without giving a sound argument. Prodigyhk, please discuss your reasons for un-doing my edits. Ronyrockford (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I also invite others on this talk page like 8nonym0us999 to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyrockford (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ronyrockford WP articles are to written in a neutral style and not for any direct attack on the subject. Here on WP, we have clear rules on this. Since you are a new editor, request study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Will now revert your last edit. We can discuss further here or get an admin involved if you still not clear. Happy weedkend Prodigyhk (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk,
B4. I believe WP articles should be neutral, regardless of whether they are BLP or not. So yes, I want the facts to be presented about the subject matter in an unbiased manner.
B6. Given this premise, I have already put forth my points as to why the subject to falls in the godman category and maintain that the subject is as much a godman as much as he is a spiritual teacher. I will state them below (again) for your reference:
1. Subject has claimed to be a divine incarnation (avatar) of God.
2. Subject has claimed to have performed miracles.
3. Subject has claimed to healed people (even fatal conditions).
4. Subject has claimed to have supernatural powers. He also claims to grant what he calls 'state of enlightenment to mankind'.
5. Subject has enjoyed a large cult-like following across the world.
B7. The above claims of the subject are corroborated by his devotees and followers.
Are you able to refute this?
B8. Speaking about neutrality and bias, you have mentioned about having 'respect' for the subject on your wiki page. It seems like you have a pro-bias towards the subject. Accusing me of trying to attack the subject cannot be argument, because I'm not trying to attack or denigrate the subject at all and I have not interest in doing so. I do have an interest in pointing out the facts which might me conveniently hidden.
I'll be more than happy to discuss this with admins. As such I'm reverting back my edit to include the terms godman. Ronyrockford (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Ronyrockford, rather than making a claim in the lead that isn't covered anywhere else in the article, it might be more appropriate to add information on his claim and whether/how that claim is acknowledged or refuted by other sources somewhere in the body. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd agree that a word in the lead needs to be sourced from contents within the article. In this case, it is not. But, developing a new section with miracles (claims/acknowledged/refuted) will create more issues for us editors Prodigyhk (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Ronyrockford In Indian media, this word is used in a derogatory manner and hence the objection Prodigyhk (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk,
B9. Firstly, it is debatable if there is any negative bias at all in Indian media about the subject.
B10. Secondly, I don't think any article on Wikipedia, being a neutral source of information, should succumb to the 'perceived' negative(?) bias of Indian Media and edit-out the information to suit their agenda.
B11. As such, Wikipedia serves a world-wide audience and not just people from India. I don't think this argument is valid. Ronyrockford (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
For many years Kalki Bhagavan has been a charlatan claiming to have magical powers, so he's not just a 'spiritual leader' comparable to, for example, the Dalai Lama. Quote: "The deeksha is an electrical energy that makes a hole in this wall, which we call the mind." Has anyone proven this claim with a voltmeter? Gimme a break. According to the WP page for godman, "godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds." KB certainly seems to have made these claims, so he fits the description of a godman. I think outside India, people such as this are called other terms such as 'cult leader'. However, the Indian press being used as citations for this article seem to use 'godman', so it seems quite appropriate to be using it in the article. On another note, why are the citations at the base of this article so long, with lengthy quotes that resemble advertising? merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
merlinVtwelve the article uses "teacher" and not leader" and does not make any claim that subject posses any paranormal power. Over the years, editors have worked together to keep this article balanced without pushing any such non-scientific claims. Some citations included quotes to give reference to what is being described in the article. Agree there is room for further edits there. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ronyrockford the word "godman" is used in a derogatory similar to "cult". This is the reason, not used in BLP articles for similar teachers Prodigyhk (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk,
B12. A case can be made that the term 'godman' is in-fact a complimentary / flattering / positive word since it seems to imply qualities of godliness in a man. Ronyrockford (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
the word "godman" by India media is not used in a positive manner or as a compliment. It is primarily used as derogatory and hence can not be used here on WPProdigyhk (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a repetitive claim which I have refuted above. Please refer point B10 and B11 above. Ronyrockford (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


Move this page to

Page name - "Sri Bhagavan"

Ronyrockford The name of this article subject is "Sri Bhagavan". This is the name the subject prefers to be addressed by. Also the the book by Ardgah refers to him by this name. To clarify your misunderstanding, it is not used here as a title "bhagavan" that are sometime applied to spiritual teachers in India.

Also, editors of this page have discussed [[17]] earlier and it was decided have this page name as "Sri Bhagavan". Details on the Move decision are given above [[18]] .

Please talk here before making major changes on WP articles Prodigyhk (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Prodigyhk,
A1. I believe a platform like Wikipedia should host knowledge sourced from unbiased sources of information. Arjuna Ardagh's book cannot be considered an un-biased source of information on the subject as the author was a devotee and a follower of the subject at the time of writing the said book which is was published about 15 years ago.
A2. The subject has intentionally promoted ambiguity around his name since the beginning of his movement, assuming at-least half a dozen names including 'Mukteeshwar', 'Paramacharya', 'Ishwaramurti', 'Sri Sri Bhagavan', 'Kalki', 'Kalki Bhagavan', 'Amma Bhagavan' among others. As such, changing name seems to be endemic to his style of functioning. This however has little effect on the masses and wider community who have trouble keeping up with constant name changes.
A3. Moreover, in his most recent video on his official youtube channel (I can provide a link if required) he has again resorted to describing what he calls 'The phenomenon of Kalki'.
A4. A simple google search for 'Kalki bhagavan' will show up news articles and other resources attributed exclusively to him, where a google search for just 'Bhagavan' will throw up results for gurus who have used this name in the past and present (Rajneesh, sathya sai baba etc). Ronyrockford (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ronyrockford "Sri Bhagavan" is the name of the subject The name "Kalki" is some kind of title given to subject by subject & his students. It has then become as a nickname for subject, made popular by Indian media. By following this nick name as the article name, we confuse readers with Kalki from Hindu mythology. In WP, we do not use nickname for article names. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk,
A5. I think you are confusing name with the title. The term 'Bhagavan' literally translates to 'blessed one', and can be used as a title by anyone (Bhagavan Rajneesh, Dada Bhagavan etc).
A6. Kalki is not a title. It is a proper noun. So I hope I have expounded the difference between title and proper noun and which applies to which in this case (Kalki = Proper noun, Bhagavan = Title).
A7. You also agree that it is popular to address the subject by the name 'Kalki Bhagavan'. Whether it was popularized by the media, or the subject himself, is debatable and irrelevant. The fact remains that it is the most common way to address the subject as of today, and to not acknowledge this fact on a WP article is like refusing to see things for what they are.
A8. To your argument of not confusing the readers with the mythological Kalki, or the bollywood actress Kalki Koechlin, a disambiguation page can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyrockford (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Ronyrockford The word " bhagavan" is not used here like "Bhagavan Sai Baba". Here "Sri Bhagavan" is "proper noun". It is the name of this subject. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk,
A9. the 'name' of the subject is Vijaykumar Naidu. Ronyrockford (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
yes, in this case we have 2 proper nouns. One the birthname. And the other the name used to address the subject, and books written by the subject mentions author name as "Sri Bhagavan". [1] [2]. This article naming need to be "Sri Bhagavan", for reasons similar to Lady Gaga not Stefani Germanotta. Hence, need to be changed back to "Sri Bhagavan" Prodigyhk (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
refer WP:NCBIO Prodigyhk (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36676283-love-begins-with-accepting-yourself
  2. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Activating-Your-Inner-Success-Codes/dp/9574368033/
Prodigyhk,
A10. There is no controversy / contention / ambiguity as to what the screen name of Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) is, where as the subject has assumed at-least 6 names (mentioned above) apart from the birth name, thereby creating ambiguity and scope for confusion. So I think the comparison may not be valid. A more appropiate comparison could be with another godman, Rajneesh (Osho), who also assumed multiple names and who has WP page by his birth-name;
A11. The Subject's followers / disciples / devotees call him 'Sri Bhagavan' and the wider / general community calls him 'Kalki Bhagavan'. The former group (followers) is a very small subset (in numbers) of the total latter group (general populace);
A12. I believe WP should serve the interest of wider / general community rather than a small subset / specific community of audience; and therefore oppose the page move to 'Sri Bhagavan'. Ronyrockford (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
in the other article you have referred, has used birth name of subject "Rajneesh",because this name he had used for much part of his spiritual career, identified by same during inteviews, has books/articles published in the same name. Here, in this article, subject has kept the name "Sri Bhagavan". People address him during interview as "Sri Bhagavan". Books written by the subject and by 3rd party have followed the same name "Sri Bhagavan" Prodigyhk (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a repetitive claim which I refuted above. Please refer points A11 and A12 above. Ronyrockford (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
before we address A11 & A12. Do we have consensus A5 is not the case? The word "Sri Bhagavan" is not used as a title here and is being used a "proper noun" Prodigyhk (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
A13. Whether it is used as title or name is really irrelevant to this argument - It is common to address spiritual teachers by honorifics like Gurudev, Guruji, Guru, Babaji, Bhagavan, Sathguru etc. Please understand the difference between colloquial / popular name and the honorific name/title. I have included a table for your reference -
Sr Colloquial / Popular Name Birth-name Addressed by followers as (Honorific name) WP page name
1 Osho Rajneesh Jain Bhagavan Rajneesh
2 Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev
3 Sri Sri Ravishankar Ravi Shankar Gurudev / Guruji Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)
4 Asaram Bapu Asumal Harpalani Bapu Asaram
5 Sathya Sai Baba Sathyanarayana Raju Sai / Bhagavan / Baba Sathya Sai Baba
6 Kalki Bhagavan Vijay Kumar Naidu Bhagavan Kalki Bhagwan
7 Ramana Maharshi Venkataraman Iyer Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi
A14. ALL of these figures have WP page name = Colloquial / Popular name OR WP page name = Birthname.
A15. NONE of them have a WP page by their honorific name / title.
Similarly, Sri bhagavan is not the correct name for this page. Ronyrockford (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Page Name - Kalki Bhagwan

The appropriate page name for this page should either be Kalki Bhagwan (popular name) OR Vijaykumar Naidu (birth name); reasons A1 to A15 given above. Ronyrockford (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Page Name - Vijay Kumar Naidu

The name of the page should be "Vijay Kumar Naidu" as the person is known and referenced in the media, such as this. An example Wikipedia page is of Jaggi Vasudev who is otherwise popularly known as Sadhguru. Csgir (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Csgir, I second this move - Ronyrockford (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Csgir moves this section here, so that it is easier for discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC).
Csgir oppose. reason in above section - move to "Sri Bhagavan" Prodigyhk (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk, I countered your reasons above, and second the move to birth-name. Ronyrockford (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
oppose. creating more confusion by using birth-name, which no one identifies the subject by.Prodigyhk (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Claims have been refuted. I support the page move to 'Vijaykumar Naidu'. Ronyrockford (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The subject has changed his name so many times, the only one that means anything at all is his birth name. Over the years, he has gone by (to name a few) "Mukteshwar", "Sri Kalki", "Kalki Bhagavan" "Amma Bhagavan" and "Sri Bhagavan". This article is too reverential as a whole to this fraudulent individual. The article has a number of other issues as well. Wikipedia can't be expected to keep changing its page name in response to the Kalki cult leader's latest whims. For this reason I support changing the page name to whichever is written on his birth certificate or other official documentation: "Vijaykumar Naidu" or "Vijay Kumar Naidu". 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

regarding this recent edit - removed this sentence. Checked for other sources to substantiate this "acquisition of agriculture land". Do not find any. Did find this judgement on an appeal, made against the capital gain tax on "sale of agriculture land" and judgement is that the tax was not required to be paid. Hence sentence removed Prodigyhk (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Subject Name in the Article

There is an on-going debate as to whether the page name should be Kalki Bhagwan or Sri Bhagavan. Currently there is a lack of consistency within this page as to how the subject is addressed throughout this article- in some sections referred to by Sri Bhagavan, in other sections by Vijaykumar, and as Kalki in other sections. I want to propose that the subject be referred to by his First-name (Vijaykumar) throughout this Wikipedia article to provide consistency and lack of confusion for WP audience, and also because this name is without any contention as it is his official birth-name. Ronyrockford (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rony: the article had followed "Sri Bhagavan" for a long time. There had some detailed discussions on this about 8~10 years ago and got settled with "Sri Bhagavan". We can open this again for discussion. Suggest is we get editors with experience working on BLP name policy to guide us.Prodigyhk (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
notice the recent usage of birthname started here]. Reason provided by other editor "Using birth name in family history as he had not adopted his avatar name at that stage", I found acceptable for using for early life period. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move buidhe 05:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


Sri Bhagavan → Kalki Bhagwan – Subject is popularly known in the contemporary society as 'Kalki Bhagwan'. A simple google search for 'Kalki Bhagwan' will yield results and articles by prominent news and media sources confirming the same. Additional reasons and rationale mentioned in points A1 to A15 in this talk page. Ronyrockford (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep "Sri Bhagavan" - 1) "Sri Bhagavan" is a proper noun name for the subject. 2) in one of your previous notes you had mentioned about Sathya Sai Baba. Sri Sathanaryana Raju as a young teenager, took up the spiritual name "Sai Baba" after a deep and profound mystical experience of being the reincarnation of the Sai Baba of Shirdi. Here, the subject took up the spiritual name Bhagavan, after experience of being one with God (sanskrit:Bhagavan). 3) The subject has referred to himself by this name. This is seen in books written by subject here and here. and in articles written by independent reporters who had visited the ashram and reported [19], [20] and [21]. Hence request Keep "Sri Bhagavan" Prodigyhk (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Move to 'Kalki Bhagwan' as that is what he is known as in the media and other sources. merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
as we try and work towards a consensus. Advice if we have consensus that both "Sri Bhagavan" and " Kalki Bhagwan" are proper noun names for the subject. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a legal precedent from 1997. In this judgement[22] from 'Casemine' "D. GOPALAN vs. THIRU PARAMACHARIAYA", Vijayakumar is referred to under the alias "Kalki Bhagavan". There is no mention of 'Sri Bhagavan' in this judgement. I would think that probably all three terms are acceptable within the article, depending on the context. However, as for the name of the article itself, it should either be the birth name or 'Kalki Bhagavan'. If this Casemine reference is accurate, it seems that as far as the Indian legal system is concerned, 'Sri Bhagavan' does not exist. merlinVtwelve (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an additional legal reference here [23] from 2007 which contains the following phrases: "(ii) The petitioner, who had been closely associated with a person popularly known as 'Kalki Bhagawan'" and also "self proclaimed "Kalki Bhagawan". Again, there is no mention of "Sri Bhagavan". merlinVtwelve (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

these court documents are in response to petition made by 3rd party, and just copy the "alias" mentioned in the original petitions. Should not be taken as legal name. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it's his legal name. Merely that as a matter of court records, this is the alias being used. Both sides of a legal case are required to state their positions clearly, for the understanding of the court, hence the use of a commonly used alias as well as VK birth name. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
For this is article tiles, since using birthname would not fit criteria of WP commonname criteria, request remove the birthname from discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the birth name as a title for the article, but it is relevant because it is the individual's real name. The point is that by far the most common usage for him is "Kalki Bhagwan". merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I note that a new source has been added, a video interview with VK by Mitchell Jay Rabin.[1] In the interview Rabin refers to VK as both 'Kalki' and 'Bhagavan', and the title at the beginning of the video says 'Guest: Sri Kalki, founder, Golden Age Foundation.' The video was recorded in 2005. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sri Bhagavan → Kalki Bhagwan – Reasons are outlined in the points A1 to A15 in the talk page. Moderators should note that requested move is put on hold repeatedly by users that seem to have vested interests. As such, I believe WP moderators should work diligently and carefully so as to not allow the neutrality of WP content be hijacked by biases. I am again re-listing this request to move the page to Kalki Bhagwan, reasons for which have been sufficiently outlined in points A1 to A15 in this talk page. No satisfactory counter arguments have been provided so as to dismiss this move request. I note that the previous move request was closed by User talk:Buidhe. As such, I request moderators to allow sufficient notice of closure and provide mechanisms to address any objection to this move request before closing this request in the future. Ronyrockford (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Support this move to Kalki Bhagwan based on points previously raised. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC) I would add this from WP guidelines [24] "* Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. merlinVtwelve (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability

Have revert this earlier edit [[25]] by Ronyrockford. The content is being included as it indicate the notability of the subject. This has been discussed and reviewed few years ago. If you have concerns, we can discuss again here in the talk page. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking for ways to improve this article

I think it's fair to say this article has a number of issues. And it's clear, from edits being made, that there are editors with differing views.

This has led to a messy, disorganised page with various tags about neutrality, etc. However, I think there is now some progress being made. Recently, the addition of some subheadings is beginning to create some structure.

Based on the sources currently being used in the article, there are some points I would like to make, regarding Vijay Kumar, and his family members, NVK Krishna, Preetha and their associates:

15 or 20 years ago, when VJK first came on the scene as Kalki Bhagwan, he was mainly notable for his religious/spiritual beliefs and claims. Over the years, this has changed. He is now mainly notable for his business interests. The page as a whole emphasises the religious aspect, and has only recently started to reflect his activities as a businessman.

VJK and his family businesses have a lot going on in Africa and in the USA. Some of it is controversial and if the sources are good there's no reason not to include them. As a way of getting guidance, perhaps editors can refer to articles about other wealthy businessmen, such as Richard Branson, where controversial content is included, provided it is well-sourced. Branson's article has a whole section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson#Controversies

I note also that some of the old references and links are dead. I am not suggesting culling them in a radical manner, however it would not hurt to do a review. If there's a dead link it can be flagged by editors and hopefully a replacement can be found. If there are doubts, content that isn't sourced should be removed. Please can we discuss before radically removing content.

Personally I'm not interested in getting into edit wars. Hopefully editors can work together to create a balanced article. Eventually some of the tags can be removed. Since the page title has finally been resolved perhaps we can remove that one? merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mathew: we have worked long enough now and should be able to progress without edit wars. Like before, if/when we get stuck, let us reach out for help from neutral 3rd party editors. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
on the business aspects, it is only in late 2019 after the tax raid the media has started reporting. Right now, many of the media reports are speculative and for sensational headlines. We need to weed out and post those that meet WP standards on well-sourced. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The activities, movement, organization, cult, followers, monks and devotees initiated by the subject fit perfectly into the WP definition of a  New Religious Movement. In the recent past, thousands of NRM's have sprung up especially in Asia and Africa. Notable examples can be ISKCON, Isha Foundation, Rajneesh Movement, Art of Living, Transcendental Meditation etc.

I think the Oneness Movement/Cult/Organization deserves a separate page similar to the above NRM's for two reasons - 1. BLP policies don't apply to NRM pages 2. A lot of useful and important information has to be left out on this subject page simply because it violates the BLP policies, this information however is very critical and deserves to be aggregated. Ronyrockford (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Especially as NVK and Preetha have taken over the assets of Oneness and are trying to get it off the ground with westerners. In this recent article in GQ magazine, NVK (or a 'guru' called 'Krishna ji' as he is now) claims to have 10 million followers. He claims he has inherited 'visions' from his father. merlinVtwelve (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ronyrockford BLP policy need to be followed in all WP articles. Since you are new to WP, request study WP:BLP. Take your time and work on other articles. Get a sense of WP and how it works. WP is a collaborative effort. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

also, notice you use bullet-points, to add emphasis. Prefer we write in neat sentences. Better style for an article. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

C1. I'm well aware of WP policies. My page edits, which are are well referenced and grammatically sound, are proof of that. I agree that BLP policies should be followed on all WP pages irrespective of Page type, and that WP is a collaborative effort. I would also request you to Honor WP policy of having a neutral POV.
C2. However, BLP policies apply only information related to living persons. In this case, there have been many controversial things related to Oneness Movement which may not be directly related to the subject. For example, refer this news article, where the dasas associated with Oneness movement allegedly committed financial fraud. This fraud may be happening under the name of Vijaykumar, however, he may not even necessarily be aware of it. So, this particular information is not about the subject himself, but rather, the organization he started. Similarly, organization members, other than the subject, can commit controversial activities within the organization and in the name of organization.
C3. Since an Organization or Movement consists of many people, the information related to it is not about an individual, and BLP policies cannot and should not apply to it, since it is not a living person. I hope you now understand the difference between a living individual and an organization and that BLP applies to the former, not latter.
C4. The main emphasis of any style of writing should be legibility. Bullet points are a great way to articulate comma saperated information, and facts, that could be over-looked and lost in a Paragraph. Emphasis should be given to hard facts where it is due. Para style is appropriate for telling a story. Both have their own advantages and dis-advantages. I don't use bullet points through out the article, otherwise the whole article would have been in bullet points. Ronyrockford (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional pages as suggested

Following up on the suggestion from User:Ronyrockford. I think perhaps a new page can be built for 'White Lotus Conglomerate'. And another one about the New Religious Movement e.g. 'Oneness Movement' or perhaps it could be the 'O&O Academy'. Is anyone keen to start these pages? We can all work on them together. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both the Oneness NRM and White Lotus Conglomerate deserve separate WP pages, given their vast scope. WL already consists of 40+ companies, and currently there is no reliable single point of information for it. Oneness NRM is also quite extensive and again does not have any single point of info. I also notice that a WP page already exists for 'Oneness University', however a redirect link is placed on that page. It is being redirected to this kalki bhagwan page. If we can request the moderators to remove the redirect, we can use an existing page that will not need new article creation approval. Ronyrockford (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Suggest we divide and conquer on this. I can start the White Lotus page in my user space, and you can start the Oneness page. Once the pages are developed to a satisfactory draft we can move them directly into mainspace ... I reckon there is no need for approval. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's a start... nothing on there yet, just some headers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MerlinVtwelve/White_Lotus_Conglomerate. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah sounds like a plan, let's start work on the drafts Ronyrockford (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Controversial

D1. The WP policy WP:BLPCOI explicitly states - 'Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved'.
D2. The subject of this page has been involved in may controversies over the years. As such, it is wholly justified as per WP policy above to include the word 'controversial' in the subject lead, to maintain integrity of this article. Ronyrockford (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems fine. I also note this from WP:BLP, in the section on Public Figures "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". Certainly there are many published sources referring to the 'Kalki Cult'. merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

As evidenced from the latest activity (today on 26th May 2020), this page has again become target of vandalism. Vandalism undermines the hard-work of us editors who painstakingly research and edit information on WP pages. From the vandal activity, it seems like vandals have historically had vested interests in showcasing the subject as a reverential figure, and at the same time, repressing and removing well sourced factual information that does not fit their agenda.

Now more than ever, it is important for editors to be vigilant about any new vandal activity. I request all editors and moderators to 'watch' this page for any edits and keep a keen eye on unscrupulous agents. - Keepit real (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, with many thanks to User:IdreamofJeanie, User:-andreas, User:ArnabSaha and User:Nkon21. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sri Bhagavan

Suggest renaming article to “Sri Bhagavan” since that is what he has been calling himself in recent years (after he got flack for calling himself “Kalki”). This is how devotees refer to him.

He also goes by “Sri AmmaBhagavan,” a portmanteau of self-declared honorifics for his wife & himself. http://www.sri-ammabhagavan.org Dharmadha2 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of 'Advertisement' tags

The article is now becoming a bit more balanced in most sections. Maybe the tag at the top of the page 'Reads like an advertisement', and also the one at the top of the Spiritual Programs section can be removed. Suggest keeping the 'Disputed Neutrality' tag for the time being. Any opinions on this? merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

the disputed neutrality in personal section needs to be removed, as we have no dispute there. Prodigyhk (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I have removed that one but had better wait to see what is the opinion of Ronyrockford on the others. merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the article is more balanced now and the advertisement tags can be removed Keepit real (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparent conflict of interest

In view of certain editing patterns on this page – both recently, and over the long term – questions have arisen in my mind about an apparent conflict of interest regarding this article. This is not an issue that I have had to deal with very much in the past, so I am following the guidelines outlined at WP:COI, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:EXTERNALREL and WP:COICOIN. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems a handful of editors including User:Prodigyhk may want to more clearly state association with this charlatan called VijayKumar. Vijaykumar has duped hundreds of thousands of poor people into believing; by making ridiculous and self aggrandizing claims. People like him are a shame to India. I'm from India and I feel ashamed that such people are not behind the bars yet. Keepit real (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Am not aware of other COI editors on this page, but have raised the issue on the talk page of User:Prodigyhk and am now awaiting a response. merlinVtwelve (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Cult presence on Meetup

I appreciate the group efforts on these WP pages on the Oneness Movement. This cult with Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) tendencies has a strong presence on Meetup, especially in the USA. Seems to me their “Diksha Blessings” are a multi-level marketing trap to get people to sign up for $3,000-7,000 USD retreats/festivals/trainings at their center in India. Dharmadha2 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dharmadha2 I agree there are many aspects of the person/organization which resemble activities of a cult. There has been some discussion on this page about perhaps starting a new page about the Oneness Movement as a separate article. In reply to your comment above, regarding the name, it has changed a couple of times that I'm aware of. I believe the page was created as 'Kalki Bhagwan', then it was changed and for many years was 'Sri Bhagwan', but recently, after a lot of discussion among editors, it was changed back to 'Kalki Bhagwan' which I supported. There are various reasons for this, and these are summarised in the move discussion (above.) merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi merlin, thanks for your response about Kalki. Also, if a Oneness Movement page is started, I’d be happy to work on a section. Dharmadha2 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Dharmadha2 1) the organization is not a cult. The organization allows free movement of people to join and leave the organizations. Some stay and some leave is documented clearly in the article space. 2) organization is not into any multi-level marketing. Some people decide to become trainers, who then independently run courses local in their own region. The trainers may decide to charge for these courses or do it for free. The courses are primarily based on Hindu Vedic tradition of discovering that the self and the higher self are one. Participants on their free will, may decide to go to India for the courses conducted at the academy. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
merlinVtwelve I will now be removing the word "cult" from the article space. The "cult" is an attack word. As explained above, organization run the subject is not. If you want to counter, post your points here for discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Prodigyhk, my general counter to this, and other issues in this article, is that I believe you have a significant conflict of interest as per WP:COI regarding Kalki Bhagwan, which you have not declared. I am following guidelines as per WP:PRIVACY, so I am not going to use your real name, but I think you should declare to other editors precisely what role you have played in setting up the Oneness organization in the region where you live. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Did not see your message here. Had replied in my talkpage. Will now copy and post the same reply here. We can continue our conversation here
Hi merlinVtwelve I have known Sri Bhagavan now for nearly 30 years. I first met Sri Bhagavan in the summer of 92. I like Sri Bhagavan's teachings and use it in my life. I also like share his teachings to other people. I am a lay person. I am married. Have children. Live outside India. Have my own source of income. Hope that answers your queries.Prodigyhk (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Please follow guidelines at WP:PRIVACY and refer to me by my WP username. I will reply at your talk page.merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
cut the crap about guidelines. That was your original WP username that you have used until recently. It is all over WP.Prodigyhk (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
For last 8 years, I have worked with you on good faith. But, now you have crossed the line, by doing outside research to find my personal details and threaten to out my details. This is unacceptable and wrong Prodigyhk (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Prodigyhk, if you have a COI with respect to this topic, you are expected to disclose it. MerlinVtwelve, if you have evidence that Prodigyhk has a COI, you should not post it here; evidence that is already on-wiki can be discussed at WP:COIN, but otherwise you should contact the functionaries, as discussed at WP:COI (I am a functionary, but am obviously not going to act in that capacity here, as I've had past conflicts with Prodigyhk). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    Vanamonde thanks for jumping in here. I had yesterday send my request direct to the oversight board and awaiting their advice on this matter. Meanwhile, request discussion about my identity be removed from WP to keep my identity protected. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    Prodigyhk, I haven't yet seen any personal information that you have not disclosed yourself; what would you like to remove here? Also, you didn't respond to the part of my comment directed at you; you are expected to disclose any conflicts of interest you have with respect to this article or any that you edit. If you have one that you can't or won't share publicly, then you ought to email ARBCOM about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde Have posted above my interest in the subject. Re-posting again. I have known Sri Bhagavan now for nearly 30 years. I first met Sri Bhagavan in the summer of 92. I like Sri Bhagavan's teachings and use it in my life. I also share his teachings to other people.. I am a lay person. Have my own source of income. And, I do not want this public discussion about my identity on WP, as it will affect my safety. Request the entire discussion be erased from here. We can continue discussion on a private space within WP. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Prodigyhk and Vanamonde, in my original comment/request, I specifically stated that I am not going to reveal a real name. This is the opposite of what you are alleging. Nor have I suggested that I have any intention of posting other evidence here, even though there is plenty of it online. However, Prodigyhk has been asked on previous occasions about WP:COI, but has never given a satisfactory answer. This has led to ongoing difficulties on this page with respect to well-sourced material being deleted. I am simply requesting a COI declaration, and have posted the request on Prodigyhk's Talk Page, as per guidelines at WP:COI. BTW, there are a guidelines regarding usernames, and once an editor changes his/hers, it is protocol to use the new name. Please respect those guidelines. merlinVtwelve (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@MerlinVtwelve: Please read what I wrote; I haven't accused you of anything. Just take any concerns you have that are based on private information to the functionaries. Also, the only name I have used to refer to you is "MerlinVtwelve"; why is this a problem? @Prodigyhk: I'm not permitted to deal with your email to OS, because I'm WP:INVOLVED. I don't see how this discussion meets the OS criteria, but you will have to take that up with whoever answers your email. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Vanamonde ....apologies, that particular part of the comment was addressed to Prodigyhk. merlinVtwelve (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Returning to the topic of this thread, I can't see why the term 'cult' cannot be used. It's in many of the sources already, along with 'Kalki Cult', which is used by reputable sources such as one of India's oldest English language newspapers, The Hindu, founded in 1878. Prodigyhk, Wikipedia is all about sources not editors' opinions. I have started re-instating the word wherever appropriate. merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mukteshwar as a name for VK

Keepit real, do you happen to know why VK would have named himself "Mukteshwar". I note that Ardagh and other sources say that VK called himself "Mukteshwar and several other names". I added it in under the "Names" section, with a source, but User:Prodigyhk removed it almost straight away with this edit, claiming it was "just a word expression". I reverted but then User:Prodigyhk later modified it again with this edit, claiming that it means "One who bestows Mukti". I am not a speaker of the language but this source says it means "Lord of Salvation", which would fit with VK's god complex. I couldn't find a source that explains it in VK's case, or any details of the "various other names" he has used before declaring himself as Kalki. merlinVtwelve (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Mukteshwar does mean 'the God of emancipation' / 'one who bestows salvation' / 'one who gives enlightenment'. I think he intentionally adopted it initially because his whole claim was being able to give enlightenment to 'mankind'. well, whatever happened to that claim. heck, he has even published a booklet of his commandments called 'mahavakyas of kalki' in which he declares to be the ultimate God who created universe. check this out - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ym2009batch/Cg_rahSQPM0 Keepit real (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Keepit real I was not previously aware of these writings, which are an eye-opener. "In this My one and only incarnation for this fresh cycle of ages" seems to be a direct reference to his declaration of being the Kalki avatar. This one is interesting also: "My disciples reveal the Dharma; My monks teach the Dharma; and you shall spread and protect the Dharma". Perhaps this includes editing WP. But it's hard to keep track when his story keeps changing. First he is Mukteshwar, then he isn't. Next he is Kalki, then he isn't. I have looked around and the writings seem to be available in other places, but not always in English. And not available through O&O or Oneness, who seem to be pretending he never declared himself as Kalki. His current website says "revered and worshipped across the world as friends, philosophers, world teachers and Avatars". I note the capital "A" on "Avatars" – but it doesn't say avatars of which deities, i.e. presumably this is a subtle reference to Kalki and his consort. Clever manipulation of language that many westerners or non-Hindus would not pick up. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Since I've been editing this page a for few months, I want to tell my story of how and why I came to know of VK. Back in 2007 when I first heard of VK, I was a naive and starry eyed teenager in hot pursuit of 'enlightenment' and spiritual experiences. I was quite influenced by his teachings. Heck, I wholeheartedly believed that he was an incarnation of God. Like for real. I was shit deep into the teachings of Oneness.
In my city in India, they used to have regular weekly 'satsangs' and yearly major events which would be attended by tens of thousands of people in big stadiums. People were promised this so called 'golden-age' in which there would be no problems and everyone would be living in an 'enlightened' state of bliss. VK sold this dream to millions like a snake-oil salesman. Not only in India, even the gullible westerners were charmed by Vk's flowery language and grand Utopian vision for the future. I myself have visited his ashram and golden temple like 5-6 times between 2007-2010.
But gradually, few of my personal experiences made me doubt and question the authenticity of VK's claims and also in general the whole oneness movement. First was in 2010, when a small program was arranged in my city where VK was to give a live skype 'darshan' to his coordinators. I was not a coordinator yet, but one of my friend who was a coordinator, allowed me to attend the event. it was promised that VK would transmit a state permanent state of enlightenment to all who attended this event.
I attended this event fervently hoping to get 'enlightened' (whatever that word means). Alas, nothing happened. Instead, VK himself issued a warning in his skype talk saying that each one of us present in the meeting were obligated to spread his word and make more people join oneness, and if we didn't follow his order, he would ask and reprimand us after our death when we visit afterlife!!
I was stunned to hear this!! he was essentially instilling a fear of death and afterlife (which is one of the most primal fears of man) into us. In-fact, i was so taken aback by this incident, that I completely stopped following VK and the oneness movement and began to do my own research on the back-ground of VK. AS I studied more, I began to realize what a charlatan of highest order this conman is. Nonetheless, I have desisted in writing in public about my experience. But in 2019 when I read the news that the income tax dept raided and found millions of dollars in his ashram, i truly realized the massive fraud he as undertaken and so decided to start editing his wikipedia page. Keepit real (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Keepit real I have never been involved but have known people who were, and they tried to convince me to take part in so-called 'blessings' etc. I was suspicious as soon as they started talking about VK in reverential language. Whenever a leader of a group is considered a 'deity', that's a cult for sure. But that was quite a few years back, when the temple was still being built – which to me, was extravagant and vulgar, with its 'golden ball', etc. As you say, many westerners have been sucked in, and are now falling for NVK and PK's 'sage and mystic' O&O sales pitch. Strange how there are two separate websites now, as if there has been a split. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Keepit real I managed to track down a published, sourced quote from VK's quote about being the Supreme Creator, and have added it the article. It was included in this article by Makarand Paranjape. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
merlinVtwelve Thank you for all your efforts in maintaining and updating this page. It was high time that the mahavakyas were referenced on this page. I'm surprised that in the last 15 years no other wp editor added them to this page. Keepit real (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Possibly I had seen just a few of the Mahavakyas at some stage, but not the whole lot together, and I didn't realise their significance. I wonder if there is a source that can be cited for the whole lot. This book might have them all, but there is no online preview. They also seem to be on YouTube, although not in English. This Oneness site in the USA has a few of them, but it looks like some have been censored to capture a New Age audience: e.g. number 9 "When I do judge it is final."; and number 12 "Your nature has become sinful as you no longer relate to me, etc,..." The censored list seems to end at number 34, and misses all the promises about the "Golden Age". merlinVtwelve (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sri Bhagavan Interview hosted by Mitchell Jay Rabin for A Better World TV early in 2005, retrieved 2020-04-08
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kalki_Bhagawan/Archive_3&oldid=1157375498"