Talk:Kalki Bhagawan

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

Birth name of 'Amma'[edit]

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

yes i doubt her real birth name is padmavati. this article states her name to be 'bujjamma'. my feeling is that padmavati is an adopted name in order to attract more followers. when the movement began, only VK was running the show along with sankar. later on he started adding myths to his avatar hood and included padmavati as an equal avatar. did you read freddy neilsen's report? - i found it to be quite revealing and in-line with my experience of vk, when i was in the movement from 2007-2010. Keepit real (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, as it seems changing names is a convenient thing to do when the story changes. I'll add something to the 'Names' section. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he has followed this strategy from the beginning. Btw, I was thinking of removing Amma's reference from the first lead paragraph to make it concise and brief.. to something like "A former insurance agent, he declared himself to be Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu."<end of para> What do you think? Keepit real (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds fine, a bit of simplification wouldn't hurt. A while back we also discussed the idea of a WP:SPLIT, whereby the article is split into three: VK, the Oneness org, and White Lotus. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn’t hurt what or who? Are you taking about the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because FYI there is an important prerogative in that document “ Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. “ I think “hurt” must incorporate that as well. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how are you privy to his strategies? What evidence do you have about his strategies? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might know some actions an individual did. You might have a theory about the strategy. But even if someone tells you “this is my strategy” you can’t know if you are being objective. Sorry, but this is for an encyclopedia- even if a public one. Why aren’t the facts being stuck to ? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again what is the evidence for your theory ? What story changed and when ? Objectively this is missing a lot of facts and I genuinely question how can you assume so much without basis. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freddy Nielsens “report” which you mention is http://deekshadanger.weebly.com/freddy-speaks-out.html - is a blog post. This is not an authoritative source and there is no burden of proof on him. It is not a listed source on the Wikipedia page simply because it is completely inadmissible as a source.
If you want to reason based on it, it should be first added as a source which it cannot be for the biography of a living person - being a blog post. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal experience is largely irrelevant here, please stick to reported facts. This is in line with Wikipedia’s Wikipedia:No original research policy. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence for your theory ?
“ my feeling is that padmavati is an adopted name in order to attract more followers.”
Why have you assumed guilt in this manner, without even knowing what was the birth name or the reason for the change? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Neutrality tag[edit]

As most of the information on this page has been consolidated after much discussions, I think it is time to remove the neutrality tag, if editors don't have objections. Keepit real (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can probably be removed, as there is good balance overall. I would imagine that User:Arvam would have a point of view about this, however there has been no activity on the account since 17 June. After I raised questions about WP:COI, User:Arvam made numerous account changes including changing user name and deleting user page history. But User:Arvam did not respond to questions about COI on the account talk page, and ignored the discussion on WP:COIN. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should remove the tag now. Furthermore, user:Arvam better not indulge in their past behavior of deleting well sourced and reasonable content, because I will not hesitate to escalate this mischief immediately.  WP is not a propaganda platform to advertise the cause of some narcissistic charlatan. There should be zero tolerance for such behavior. Keepit real (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually “narcissistic charlatan” sounds like plenty of propaganda in itself :) What’s your excuse for this behavior? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narcisssism is a diagnosis a clinical psychiatrist makes.
Charlatan needs to be proved in a place where both sides can make an argument, your opinion is of little to no use in an encyclopedia article Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tag as there are some obvious neutrality problems with the current article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:力, can you point out what specific neutrality problems did you find in this article? Keepit real (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two most obvious issues are the headings, and sentences like As of 2010, Christianity had an estimated 2.2 billion followers worldwide, while Islam had 1.6 billion. Hinduism had around 1 billion. These numbers are predicted to grow substantially in the coming decades. which seem to just be there to make him look even worse. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your only point of contention? Furthermore, I don't think that the inclusion of this information is invalid at all. I also believe merlinVtwelve may have additional perspective on this matter. Keepit real (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @ Keepit real and @力 as I recall, the statement was to provide context for his obviously ridiculous prediction about the end of organised religion. Overall, he is known for making predictions that simply don't come true, yet his followers lap it up. merlinVtwelve (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article is not neutral at all and have provided my arguments in the topic “Reasons why this is an attack page”, right below. Thanks. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a human life (which is what this article is about) it is common to make predictions and sometimes those are wrong. So what?
What’s ridiculous about the specific prediction and what’s obvious about it ? It seems like a reasonable argument - as Science advances the several religions have changed / died out example wasn’t Galileo Galilei placed on house arrest for endorsing the Copernican theory by religionists but now is accepted by most religions? Religion changed certainly since then, it could be argued that the old version of religion has died out .
Also there is law against predicting anything or believing any prediction at least in India. So what he predicts or his followers “lap up” has no relevance to an encyclopedia article.
On the followers, you actually have provided no stats on what or information on why they “lap up”. It again is a theory, unsubstantiated. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please consider these arguments for why this violates Neutrality also and consider adding the necessary tags back which you added in Nov 2021. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page, false propaganda[edit]

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

If you can’t block, please let me know action how to block this false propaganda permanently Arunmohan79 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arun, I also strongly believe this is an attack page in its present form and I have raised a complaint , point by point with Wikipedia Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - as I believe it is also a violation of its policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons on living persons (scroll down to Kalki Bhagavan) and also not in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view .
One simple and obvious way to see this is an attack page is that even the pages on Hitler and Mussolini or Osama Bin Laden are factual - there is no name calling or pejoratives and the organizations they led are not called cults, even when what they have provably done in terms of loss to human life is far less severe as compared to the unproved claims made on this page. More detailed arguments are provided in the complaint.
I have faith that justice and truth will prevail. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this talk page has bias and I have called it out point by point in the page topics. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why this is an attack page[edit]

There are several reasons why I believe this article in its current form is an attack page. Point by point below:

  1. The first and most egregious is the summary itself which is biased and sourced in opinion pages "Kalki Bhagawan (born 7 March 1949 as Vijay Kumar Naidu), also known as Sri Bhagavan,[1] is a self-styled Indian godman, cult leader, businessman, and a real estate investor.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A former clerk in the LIC, he claims to be an incarnation of God (the Kalki Avatar). He is the founder of 'Oneness' / 'Ekam' cult and White Lotus Conglomerate.[9]" To describe somebody as a "godman", is a pejorative. To say something is a cult, is also not neutral. What might be a cult to one might be a spiritual retreat to another. Both of these I argue are "contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision" - because though a large number of articles are mentioned - but each of the sources mentioned 2 through 8 are opinion pieces in magazines (see below). These cannot be substituted for court verdicts or formal results of investigations.
  2. Next, the order of information itself is especially egregious. When a person's details are mentioned, even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler - their/ her /his personal details are mentioned and then the list of things they / she / he did and finally any controversies / critical opinion. Here, this is completely the opposite. Please help correct this. Wikipedia as mentioned is not a newspaper and certainly not an editorial piece or tabloid.
  3. I am happy to accept the view that all Wikipedia requires is a neutral point of view of all published sources, not neutrality per se and no original research. All right. Then it is not about whether the person is living or not (possibly higher standards should apply for living persons as there is an impact on their life). Let us not even talk about the factuality of sources (will take up next). Then take Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler- where there is wide spread agreement and reliable information by multiple modes of information of the loss of human life (regardless of political conviction) caused by them. Even then, the neutral point of view in Wikipedia as evidenced by the articles does not degenerate into name calling, as it should be.
  4. Hitler is not called the "self styled savior of Germany" nor the same for Bin Laden as the "self styled issuer of Fatwa to the United States" and the organizations they led when alive are not referred to as cults - at least not in the first paragraph which shows up in all Google searches on them. This is as it should be and is the essence of factuality, civility and respect which is what is needed in an encyclopedia. Neither of these courtesies are extended to the subject of this article Kalki Bhagavan, even when the allegations are far less severe as per most legal systems in the world and also categorically unproven in courts.
  5. point by point analysis of the sources provided. It looks as if this article is heavily sourced but it is not
    - there are 42 duplicate links, 20 opinion pieces, 1 blog post lol , approx 10 irrelevant links and several broken links/ which can’t be accessed
    - that being said, please note I have tried to be objective and several are proper news reports, and those are fine
    My request is
    - remove the duplicates - this is not as heavily cited as it seems
    - see link 92, Vishwanathan Swamis case was turned down - please allow mention of l such things especially when it is cited
    - don’t allow opinion pieces and blog posts as sources for a human life
    - please check for relevance , don’t allow irrelevant links
    - however any criticisms do mention them in a
    maintain civility and respect As much as that extended to Hitler or Osama Bin Laden as argued before


list of arguments about what is wrong with the sources on this page


Hibiscus192255 (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. The tone of the article is generally extremely negative against Kalki Bhagavan but is favorable towards any of his critics
- Viswanath Swami is called a social activist, but no further analysis is done on the merit of his claims. in the first paragraph itself the word "alleged" is used. That is argued to be against "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." Please note also that his claim was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India - reference 92.
- "Another writer at the time, Shameem Akhtar, was also critical of what she called the 'Kalki craze" - just because somebody is critical, it is not worthy of putting on a Wikipedia page on a human life of 75 years. Please just stick to facts,.
- "Dakshina Kannada Rationalist association" is called well known but that is not relevant to the claim here. Whether they are well known or not it is the merit of the claim.
7. Political affiliation, is a matter of opinion and in the Republic of India, confidential to the individual expressed solely by their unanimous right to vote. Please therefore remove that section as speculative. Reference: "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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."
8. Finally all information here is frozen in time. "The investigation is in progress" is incorrect, it might have been true at 2019 which the source links, but no follow up has been done about whether the court found anyone guilty or not. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@力 please consider these arguments for why this violates Neutrality also and add the necessary tags back which you added in Nov 2021. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler @TechnoSquirrel69 I propose this stable version to address the
- issues above (not all of them but it's an improvement I believe)
- mitigating the BLP issues
- mitigating the NPOV issues
as raised already
as the stable version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&stableid=1174685152 for this page. I have tried to keep all information as is, but have removed pejoratives, accusations which assume intent and matched the biography format of most people on the internet or Wikipedia.
Please let me know what you folks think and tag in people as you see fit. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hibiscus192255: Thanks for your comments on this. As NatGertler also mentioned at the BLP noticeboard discussion, you bring up some legitimate concerns about this article that do need addressing. Those can be worked on with consensus being established on this page. However, some of your comments seem to me like a reflection of your opinion rather than a violation of Wikipedia policy. For example, many of the changes which I just reverted were of removal of the words "cult" and "godman", which you describe as "pejoratives". Per the MOS:LABEL guideline, words like these should only be used if the majority of reliable sources also use them — which they do. You also seem to be unduly dismissive of opinion pieces; they can be used, even in BLPs, if they are attributed to the author appropriately. Please make sure you're familiar with the policies and guidelines I've linked here moving forward with this discussion. As for your other concerns, I think it's fair to preliminarily tag the article pending improvements; I'll go ahead and do that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TechnoSquirrel69. Let me try to make my argument based on the policies once more based on the guidelines.
I went through the guideline and I would like to make an objective argument that the words “cult” and “Godman” are still contention because “may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject” (let me take up in text attribution in a bit)
My contention is entirely this - what is reliable and why aren’t these terms avoided ie why doesn’t this article err on the side of caution when the BLP is concerned. I am saying there are research papers and books linked - none of them refer to the organization as a cult. Works published by a Publisher like Arjuna Ardaghs book (including the afterword) or the https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/33618/gupea_2077_33618_1.pdf;jsessionid=4787A090E2C83C6C485C7134342A04BE?sequence=1 doesn’t mention it as so. There are news reports which don’t express the subject as a godman https://theprint.in/india/kalki-bhagavan-guru-started-as-lic-clerk-undisclosed-income-500-crore/309158/
But the opinion pieces do but the fact is they are not authoritative or peer reviewed and they are not reporting any specific event. Note I didn’t remove the opinion pieces, only quoted them as such in my comment on the talk page.
About in text attribution - My argument is that there are 40 duplicates, 10 irrelevant links and at least 5 broken links. this is about 50% of the sources and I argue this gives an illusion that of the majority position whereas I argue that post the removal it doesn’t look so.
finally my argument is neither is Al Qaeda nor the Nazi party referred to as a cult in the Wikipedia articles on Osama Bin Laden or Hitler respectively. I am assuming that each of these complies with all pertinent Wikipedia policies and am asking that the same respect be provided to the subject.
I don’t believe this is unduly dismissive of opinion pieces and in fact I am quoting them in my revision. I am however that they don’t represent the majority position and they are opinion pieces.
Please note the word cult is the first word listed on the guidelines “Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic” so it should be given due concern. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I am not asking for the pieces to be removed but I am saying first remove the duplicates and look at the remaining sources. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your concerns. I wasn't even regarding the duplicate sources when considering the agreement of the majority of sources; I was only looking at the lead, which doesn't contain any duplicates as far as I can see. I'm sure there are indeed sources out there that refer to Bhagawan without using the labels "godman" or "cult", but there seem to be a lot more of them that do. As a result, Wikipedia follows that majority and reflects that usage of terminology. And again, though you say you "don’t believe this is unduly dismissive of opinion pieces", you also seem to imply that opinion pieces carry less weight when you say "they don’t represent the majority position and they are opinion pieces". I'm still not convinced of your arguments for the removal of these terms. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TechnoSquirrel69. Please note each of the 3 sources I quoted are straight from the formal list of references on the page, not "out there". They are quoted as links numbered 63, 84, 43 straight from the list of references on the page.
I have 2 questions for you
  1. What do you call the "lead"? surely you don't mean the preamble text or the links posted there - because let us say I had written the article I could have provided a list of sources from the same list which supports my choice to not use the words "cult" and "godman" and then the lead would not have the same links but still it would look justified because the lead would have those as majority. I am assuming you aren't claiming this. Are you?
  2. You have admitted there are problems which I have pointed out, but these are fairly straightforward to spot. This is really only my 2nd week as a Wikipedia contributor. Why was this missed so many times for so many years ( this is not directed to anyone in specific) but these are obvious problems to spot. I am worried about the bias of the current editors of the page. Right above, the editors have called the subject a "narcissistic charlatan" and there are editors who assume mala fide intent for any reported news (see examples of my comments). How can I even expect a fair process here? Is that not indicative of bias? What are you going to do about that?
Finally, I was not talking about weight but reliability Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source - there is a hierarchy of reliability - this is a direct consequence of reliability. In an opinion piece, the facts need to be verifiable but the opinions stated are solely of the editor and there is a laxer process on fact checking. This is straight from the policy on opinion pieces in the same link above
"These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below."
Are we doing that in the article? The writers of the opinion pieces may call it a cult, but then we have a responsibility to word this so - but I believe we aren't doing that in the current version of the article. We should say "Indian express editor Mr. X calls this a cult in article Y" e.g. but never that it is a cult as a statement of fact. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely happy to be corrected if I am misunderstanding some policy. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I refer to the lead, I mean the prose from the beginning of the article until the first section break. You seem to be implying that previous editors have cherry-picked sources that reflect their opinion of the subject. I have no reason to believe this is the case, and I am assuming good faith on the part of other editors. You are correct in quoting policy that says that opinion pieces have to be attributed when used, but when a clear majority of them are saying that same thing (and not even stating that as an opinion, but simply using it as a descriptive label), I'm willing to say that Wikipedia can reflect that. Even if we were to disregard these sources, a quick Google search for news articles relating to the subject shows that multiple important Indian news outlets use this terminology, even in their main publications. As for the blogs, I agree with you; they are most likely unreliable, and should be removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TechnoSquirrel69. No I am not implying that. I am talking about 2 different things
1) I am saying that we should look at reference links as a whole to decide what is the majority. I am actually not questioning the faith of the article, I am pointing out that different people might choose different subsets of links in the lead. Instead of that we should look at the links as a whole set to decide what is the majority opinion.
2) separately I am questioning the talk page here and the comments of the editors which I have pointed out because of usage of words like “Narcissistic Charlatan” and cases of assuming guilt (see examples above) Hibiscus192255 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the majority of sources is essentially moot based on NatGertler's comment below; I believe the existing terminology can be kept if we incorporate the other news sources. As for the comments made by other editors, I can't speak on their behalf or know what they were thinking when they said that. I will say, though, that the thread you've been posting in is over three years old by this point. You're unlikely to get a response, as it seems most of them have either moved on to other topics or moved on from Wikipedia as a whole. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces do carry less weight when it comes to descriptors. WP:RSOPINION calls "opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers" a "prime example" of sources that "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." So if we're using such opinion pieces to say that the group is in fact a cult, that's a problem. If we're using it as a view that it's a cult, then it should be attributed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, NatGertler; I had kind of forgotten about WP:RSOPINION. You're right in saying that we should change the handling of the opinion pieces to attribute them to their authors, but I still believe the article should maintain its current use terminology with the inclusion of more reliable news articles — see my comment above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 so your opinion here
“I still believe the article should maintain its current use terminology with the inclusion of more reliable news articles” and “I'm willing to say that Wikipedia can reflect that”
My sincere question to you is - it sounds like we need more links now and even then is a matter now of interpreting the policies. the current links certainly don’t merit the current labelling.
I genuinely want to ask you - why aren’t you inclined to be cautious, when it is in fact a Biography of a Living Person and this is a label which is listed in the list of potentially libelous terms ie cult and godman? (Ref MOS : Label) Hibiscus192255 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would exercise more caution with regards to the BLP policy if I was uncertain whether my decision is in line with what the majority of sources report — I am not uncertain. MOS:LABEL simply advises editors to be on the lookout for undue usage of these terms which can be used to slander people or groups — this situation is not that. I think we both can agree that the way to move forward with this situation is to incorporate more reliable sources to support the article's content, whatever it may be, so let's work towards that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I really disagree here, I think more caution is in order - @NatGertlerwhat do you say? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically with regard to the combination of Opinion pieces and BLP Hibiscus192255 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add some more clarity on my position - to be more specific my argument is that this is in fact exactly “undue usage of these terms which can be used to slander people or groups” which is particularly relevant for BLPs because of the the parallel to Hitler or Osama Bin Laden’s page - their organizations are not called cults. The current article makes these statements asserted as fact, not as attributed views but as fact based on opinion pieces. What is the reason to make an exception here? My revision changes this to an attributed view. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when more reliable sources (as established above) like published papers and books do not do so (list mentioned above) Hibiscus192255 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said a couple of times already, the issue here is that this content is being supported by too many opinion pieces rather than, say, news publications. Many more reliable sources exist to back up this terminology, which would put its usage in compliance with the MOS:LABEL guideline and the WP:BLP policy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific: what is your objection to my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&stableid=1174685152 ? Is it basically establishing consensus ( I see an accepted version based on it, presumably reviewed by you @TechnoSquirrel69) I don’t know how this part of the process works actually. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted your edits because I believed they had certain issues which I've brought up here. It was also to ask you to establish consensus before making further changes. If you want to know more about how the review process works, this page has some information: Wikipedia:Pending changes. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler what do you think of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&stableid=1174685152 as opposed to the current live version? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion (3O), however while it was pointed out that one of the editors is currently only semi-active, there are still three editors who have commented in the discussion, meaning a third opinion is not needed as there are already three opinions from three different editors, and 3O is intended for discussions between only two editors. I would suggest that in lieu of Wikipedia:Third Opinion that the editors consider either Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoidh, thank you for your guidance and time, will look into these. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of biased colluded editing on this page violating BLPCOI and NPOVFACT[edit]

Summary of claims[edit]

Previously presented arguments for why article presently an attack page [1] [2], present findings from investigation of what led to it:

Note: all attempts made to assume WP:GOODFAITH, evidence presented after for doubts/conclusions backed by specific diffs.

WP:SPA and fixated interest in the subject[edit]

85% authorship is attributable to only 2 editors, User:MerlinVtwelve ‘’45.2%’’ and User:Ronyrockford ‘’39.8%’ [3][4] both these editors fixated on subject, one WP:SPA other heavy bias of authorship

- User:Ronyrockford A1 [5] [6] shows strong evidence editor is a WP:SPA single purpose account. A2 The top article edit for this editor is the page Kalki Bhagawan with 386 edits, next topic is 8 edits and that too is the subject’s daughter-in-law Preetha Krishna - followed by the subject’s organization Oneness University, a temple related to the subject Ekam - The Oneness Temple and next company that is allegedly run by the subject White Lotus Conglomerate. A3 The ratio of the number of edits of the top article to the 2nd is 50:1, the ratio of the number of edits of the top article to all others combined is 10:1 .

- User:MerlinVtwelve [7] the article with the top number of edits for this editor too was Kalki Bhagawan i.e. this article with 345 edits, next edit was 146 and the third is 136 again a company allegedly started by the subject i.e. White Lotus Conglomerate, subject's daughter in law at 6th place with 53 edits, over an editing period of almost 14 years.

Bias[edit]

evidence of violations WP:NPOV, WP:BLPTALK, WP:NOR WP:EPSTYLE editors User:Ronyrockford and User:MerlinVtwelve towards BLP subject

- User:Ronyrockford B1 [8] calls the subject “slickest conman of them all” in [9], violates WP:BLP WP:BLPTALK. B2 [10] - says “he has been following this strategy from the beginning”. The editor without quoting references claims to know the strategy of BLP - logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause and bias with extreme language (“slickest conman”). The words "since the beginning" suggests WP:NOR. B3 [11] implies the subject is a “narcissistic charlatan”. Narcissism in WP:EPSTYLE qualifies should reference be for Narcissistic Personality Disorder - WP:NOR is irrelevant, reliable sources must be quoted WP:RELY. Therefore, label contrary to WP:BLPTALK, WP:EPSTYLE, [[WP:BLP] B4 [12] in this edit in which the editor makes a claim that “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.“ - makes unsubstantiated legal and economic claims of “hundreds of thousands of poor people” being “duped”, ditto arguments. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [13] states every human deserves to be treated innocent until proven guilty. As per WP:EPSTYLE WP:BLP such legal concerns should be discussed in an encyclopedia quoting cases/ legal decisions of a court where both sides can make a point. Editor assumes guilt. B5 Other instances pointed out in [14] violating WP:BLPTALK. The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages implying WP:BLPPUBLIC will also apply to talk pages. B6 In [15] clearly WP:ORIGINAL “in line with my experience when I was in the movement”’. B7 B1-B6 leads to conclusion that User:Ronyrockford indeed has a negative bias with what looks like a lot of long term WP:ORIGINAL research.

- User:MerlinVtwelve B8 [16] in this calls subject “fraudulent individual”. MOS:LABEL on [[WLP] no legal arguments provided/ cases cited, assumes guilt - ditto arguments as above. No quoted sources of article, mentions this so either unmentioned source or WP:NOR or bias. A cursory search on the internet reveals no convictions - must be either WP:NOR or it is bias. Violates WP:BLP, WP:BLPTALK. B9 [17] calls the subject a “charlatan” B10 [18] - says subject has a “god complex”, same arguments as the other editor for narcissism for pyschiatric/psychological diagnosis, unsourced MOS:LABEL to BLP subject. B11 B8-B10 make clear negative bias of editor

B12 Both editors also don’t confine bias, instead violate WP:BLPTALK with vast majority on the article's talk page itself, user talk pages (also in scope for WP:BLPTALK)

WP:BLPCOI[edit]

evidence of violation of WP:BLPCOI excerpt ‘’Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities …an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—.... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person.’’ , WP:EXTERNAL, no action by other key editor with knowledge

- User:Ronyrockford C1 In [19] [20] reveals that they were in the “movement” and "wholeheartedly believed that he was an incarnation of God. Like for real" from 2007-10 and now the editor has realized that the subject is “a charlatan of highest order this conman is”. Implies had an external religious relationship to the organization, a clear COI following guideline, taken from WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial —can trigger a COI." It is a clear consequence of this edits from C1 that the editor has a clear and long term negative opinion against the subject. C2 editor never good fit fit in from 2007 onwards to make direct edits to page because in 2007-10 - was strongly for and 2010 onwards - has been strongly against both bad characteristics of a WP:BLP editor and implies a clear WP:BLPCOI. C3 [21] states they have been “keeping tabs on” the subject’s organization “for 15+ years”, result of that investigation calling subject “the slickest conman of them all”. C4 C1-C3 directly imply that 39.2% of the edits have been made by an editor (RonyRockford) who has clear WP:BLPCOI, clearly evidently negative towards the subject based on the diffs from the previous “Bias” section.

- User:MerlinVtwelve C5 editor User:MerlinVtwelve did not object though from this edit [22] clear they understand that the other editor significantly involved with the subject’s organization for multiple years, has negative bias towards subject last decade C6 editor User:MerlinVtwelve has invoked WP:COI WP:EXTERNALREL for this page 2013 onwards [23][24][25][26] C7 non-invocation of obvious WP:BLPCOI by a decade+ Wikipedia editor User:MerlinVtwelve, demonstrated familiarity (examples above) with WP:COI, WP:EXTERNALREL towards User:Ronyrockford surprising. C8 [27] mentions association with subject again on Aug 8, 2020, the reply to User:Ronyrockford from User:MerlinVtwelve [28] did not contain a cautionary note about any WP:BLPCOI.

C9 Coupled with the specific edits indicating bias, the evidence from sections 2 and 3 implies negatively biased WP:BLPCOI editing on a WP:BLP violating WP:BLPCOI WP:NOR WP:EXTERNALREL WP:NPOV.

Collusion to push a biased narrative in violation of WP:BLP specifically WP:NPOVFACT[edit]

evidence that editors User:Ronyrockford and User:MerlinVtwelve created a new article to get around WP:BLP specifically WP:NPOVFACT violation to create White Lotus Conglomerate.

D1 On 8th May, 2020 on discussion on the User:Ronyrockford’s talk page, User:MerlinVtwelve mentions how he agrees with User:Ronyrockford’s earlier claim >> ‘’’ the Kalki Bhagavan page is severely restricted by being a BLP.’’’ [29]. In [30][31] a proposal is specified to create 2 other Wikpedia pages to get around BLP “restriction”. (This series of edits was deleted in [32] from the User:Ronyrockford’s talk page) D2 Within 3 days of this discussion, one of those pages White Lotus Conglomerate on 11th May, 2020 [33] [[34]] was created by User:MerlinVtwelve. D3 In the lead of the article [35] (existing right from the next day of creating the article i.e. on 12th May 2020 [36], 3+ years) has associates an unattributed MOS label to Kalki Bhagawan. This label is currently contested in the talk page of BLP subject, neutrality of BLP and reliability of sources is disputed [37]. Therefore, the action by User:MerlinVtwelve looks clearly disallowed in Point-of-view forks WP:NPOVFACT, which states a POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.. Article creation itself seems to fit WP:NPOVFACT as a premeditated colluded act of both editors User:Ronyrockford and User:MerlinVtwelve to go around WP:BLP restrictions and WP:NPOVFACT seems evident.

Conclusion[edit]

Multiple Wiki violations in biased collusion evident - WP:BLPCOI, WP:SPA and WP:NPOVFACT pages created. 85% of page from this collusion, impact of violation beyond current page spilling to at least White Lotus Conglomerate having premeditated, long term and both indirect/direct negative impact on BLP subject. Multiple WP:BLPTALK violations disparaging the subject opposed to WP:BLP.

Admin help section[edit]

Given these findings, what is the best way to proceed for me for each of the above 5 points below? How to handle this long term WP:BLPCOI editing (provided arguments make sense of course) ? What to do about the article created as part of WP:NPOVFACT (same provision about arguments)? What do admins recommend here? Specifically how to raise specific WP:NOSHARING / sockpuppetry checks? Hibiscus192255 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Working now to make it shorter/ easier to read. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bbb23 I have made an attempt to make the section more readable, with a short summary at the top. Split out each point into headings with a tldr heading for each point which makes it clear what are the violations. Also numbered arguments and facts for better reasoning. Made links to short form, wherever possible and cut out unnecessary words about repeated disclaimer with a disclaimer at the top.
I hope this makes a difference and the reading experience a little less painful Hibiscus192255 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus192255 (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will weigh in here. I see that I am being accused of 'colluding' with another editor on this page. However, I don't see much mention of another editor, namely @Arvam.
During the period in question, it was established that Arvam was in fact running Kalki Baghwan's organisation in a very large city (outside India).
I am not going to name the city, or the individual's real name, however Arvam was persistently editing the page in a way that showed a clear bias. Arvam even admitted knowing Kalki Bhagwan personally.
If @Ronyrockford and myself were 'colluding', then it was to offset the effects of an editor who had a very clear conflict of interest. The end result was a more balanced page overall.
In the end, Arvam retreated and ceased editing this page. I suggest you do more research into Arvam's background. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response User:MerlinVtwelve.
My point in this section is explicitly pertaining to evidenced conduct in violation of Wikipedia policies  WP:SPA, WP:BLPCOI, WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, WP:EXTERNALREL, WP:NPOVFACT, WP:BLPTALK which can't be impelled by any other editor's conduct. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve @Hibiscus192255.
You've gone to enormous lengths to highlight 'violation of WP policies' and 'biased collusive editing', yet you have completely failed to mention the activities of the editor 'Arvam' (who also edited under the name 'ProdigyHK').
User:Arvam/ProdigyHK was (Redacted)
Arvam was editing the page for many years, going back to at least 2012 I think, and adopting a 'reverential' tone towards the subject. The WP page was a thinly disguised advertisement for the Oneness cult.
At the time when User:Ronyrockford and myself were active on this page, Arvam would regularly delete negative content or viewpoints, without discussion. And he would do it in such a way that wasn't obvious e.g. buried in amongst formatting adjustments or other minor corrections. It was very hard to keep track of his changes, except by carefully examining each and every edit.
So it would be fair to say that other editors, such as myself, would seek out more negative viewpoints to compensate for the activities of User:Arvam, who was effectively Kalki Bhagwan's self-appointed Wikipedia editor.
So I don't think terms like 'collusion' or 'attack page' are accurate in this situation. In practice, other editors had to assume that Arvam/Prodigy was acting in good faith. We were not aware of his serious WP:COI.
When they were eventually discovered, the issues with User:Arvam formed part of the discussion. Surely, you would have uncovered this as part of your research? Why have you not mentioned them?
Why are the serious violations by User:Arvam/Progigy not part of your allegations? Is this because you have a personal bias towards the subject? Perhaps even a personal involvement?
Undoubtedly, the page in its current form has some issues, as it is the end result of a very fraught editing process, which took place over a long period. Decisions such as splitting off White Lotus were for valid reasons. What do you suggest? Add White Lotus back into this page? Why? Give a good reason and get agreement in the talk page.
If you want to improve coverage of the subject, I'd suggest you would be better off applying your efforts to editing the page yourself and addressing any perceived issues. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 BLP edits[edit]

I have requested help again on the BLP noticeboard to fix this page here. I will be making changes to fix/improve the article. Request editors to put your comments in this section and join the discussion. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my interest to improve articles on India BLPs, Hinduism, I would like to contribute to improvement of quality of this article as per Wiki rules and consensus like I have done for many others in Wiki so far. Rainbowpassion (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your help on starting to fix this BLP. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this BLP subject is a spiritual teacher, I would like to add another main heading / section covering the Teachings, Philosophy of the subject as a logical step in coverage of information. Ofcourse, maintaining the WP encyclopedic style, brevity and factual content with relevant citations as necessary. Rainbowpassion (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Objectively, I think this makes sense as that has been the BLP subject's WP:SUSTAINED notability over 30+ years e.g. from as early as 1997 there are published articles in strong magazines which cover/mention the subject's teachings. Therefore, to me it is reasonable as long as the content passes usual checks of WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPRS and WP:EPSTYLE.
Also, a thought - such topics could be a separate subsection under this "BLP edits" top level section (as opposed to a response to me) to help other uers also to easily navigate the key topics in the discussion.
Thanks Hibiscus192255 (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Critisizms and Issues section currently appears redundant on this BLP page. Recommend one of it can be retained and the contents of the sections can be merged to reflect a cohesive WP style. Editors please provide your views on this. Rainbowpassion (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Issues section content can also go into Business activities as it has content related to White lotus. Rainbowpassion (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, both options seem ok in general. However:
1> for option 1, a criticism is different from a court case or any other official proceeding. And vice versa. Therefore, the combined section should be aptly named if chosen.
2> for option 2, I believe there is also a dismissed court case which needs to be then appropriately organized which AFAICT from the sources is not related to White Lotus. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source "Ardagh, Arjuna. (2010). Ontwaken in eenheid: de kracht van de oneness blessing in de evolutie van ons bewustzijn. Wel, Anna van der. Houten: Zwerk. ISBN 978-90-77478-32-5. OCLC 662568093." appears to be unavailable online. Hence, reliability of information sourced from this reference, particularly in the 'Criticisms' and 'Claims and Prediction' sections is questioned. To improve verifiability, a 'Unreliable source' tag has been added to prompt further verification. Editors are encouraged to help with verifying the information from this source. Moonlight2006 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, unable to access this source cited, can we agree to remove this content?. Moreover, had a look at the Claims and Prediction section overall, it has a lot of opportunity for improvement to align to a WP page style. The text appears in hearsay, tabloid journalism format, can be better aligned to WP:NPOV, WP:CONCISE - factual simpler statements. Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure[edit]

I believe the current article structure has vestiges from past editing cycles which were in my considered opinion “attack page-like” in nature - please see [38] and [39] for reasons and brief background.

Other editors who have reviewed this page in the past independently have also agreed that there was no good WP:NPOV reason for having at the very least some of the past details in a separate “claims and predictions” section e.g. [40]. I have also mentioned my arguments for why this is atypical for a WP:BLP in Sep 2023 [41].

Hence, I am thinking of few edits to the overall article structure while maintaining if not improving WP:NPOV. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this page content earlier on similar lines. Typical to a WP BLP page, sections such as early career, work performed, contributions of the subject should also be captured. Keeping that in mind, the Work section was created in line to capture factual information and in line with WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE.
Referring specifically to the Claims and Predictions section, the observation is that it also includes single source citations which only critically analyzes the subject. Also the Claims are highly subjective, what is claimed, undergoes significant changes in due course of time, this article has content as old as 1990s, 2002, 2004 etc. Recommend merging outdated content in larger relevant sections as fit and/ or removal of tabloid journalism format of opinion pieces quoted. Rainbowpassion (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speakingtree.in[edit]

Hi! It looks like the speaking tree was used as a source in this article [source link]. According to WP:RS an WP:BLPSPS, this source does not seem reliable. Unless others can prove this as untrue or find a better source, I plan to remove the content using this source. Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to check in one last time before I remove the content. Thanks!
Whitestar12 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your bringing up this discussion.
While I edited the article myself as per your suggestion with other reliable sources (research paper) in a couple of occasions, I would also like to let you know that the Speaking Tree is an Indian weekly newspaper which is published by Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. It is one of the highest circulation weekly, well established newspapers in India (you will find an article on it in WP as well). If you agree, we can continue to retain it (I can simply re-add as a supplemental reference to the existing one)
Besides this, there was another instance of a previous edit by you on 5th April, where source was removed by quoting as unreliable (source link) Lifepositive is a reputed spiritual magazine in India, so is from a well known publisher as well. Since the subject of this article is a Spiritual Teacher, it seems reasonable and in context to use content from both these sources. Dropping this note so that it is useful to other editors in the future if someone happens to reuse, re-insert these sources in the article. Rainbowpassion (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rainbowpassion,
Thanks for your comments. Taking a closer look at the speakingtree article that was used [source link], it does not seem reliable. While it may be a Times of India publication, the article that was referenced appears to be a blog [WP:BLPSPS] which is not acceptable for biographies of living persons. If you check the link, underneath the article title it says "blog by Seetharam Basani." Additionally, this source appears promotional in nature.
The same goes for LifePositive as well. The article linked is authored by Makarand Deshpande; however, is Deshpande an editor? This specific article is written as a journal entry, and the website overall also appears promotional.
However, I can post on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to solicit input on the reliability of these 2 sources.
Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, good to further validate the reliability of the 2 sources in question via the Noticeboard. Makarand Deshpande is a known writer (Makarand Deshpande). Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makarand Deshpande may be a 'known writer;' however, that does not necessarily mean this specific source or this article is reliable [WP:RS]. As I mentioned, the Life Positive article is written as a diary/ journal entry and based on WP:BLPSPS would not be considered reliable. I am happy to post on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see what others say.
Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kalki_Bhagawan&oldid=1223204052"