Talk:Nithyananda

Split proposal

Given the growing number of edits in this article that concern Kailaasa Nation rather than Nithyananda, which are also suggestive of an independent notability of the former, I'd like to propose splitting off the "Kailaasa island nation" section to a dedicated article (title to be discussed). This would allow editors to add content free from restrictions imposed by the biographical format required by the present BLP. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It will become just another venue for a Indians vs Kailasa edit-war and the page will have to additionally be protected from vandalism from people on either side. We seem to be reacting quickly to publish negative news but takes a long time to write something positive. That is the characteristic of a tabloid paper. We should avoid making this page into a tabloid. Correcting and balancing the section on the Controversies is what we should focus on. This proposal seems to step from the new burst last week about incidents that were months or years old. Let us stop making knee jerk reactions and make a sensible, neutral and balanced article. 189.176.22.128 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed the points I raised – (1) independent notability of the organisation/initiative, and (2) BLP policies.

Also, I see no problem with having the page protected if needs be. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then let's discuss the title.

Personally the notion of "Kailasa", which does not exist, illustrates the cultic-nature of the subject and the influence of those around him and should be contained in the subject-article. I think Kal Penn said this week on the Daily Show "There is no Kailasa!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36a0f0_-HE&start=289 (Geoblocked to US)

We should note that multiple features on U.S. TV news have cited the fact that Google has not really helped those in positions of authority to determine that Kailasa does not exist. I think this is a slight against the content of the subject-page in that it has not been obvious to anyone that Kailasa does not exist and is connected to the subject. [1][2]

We should remember that Indo-Asian News Service have stated that the recent courting of politicians is "part of a disinformation campaign claiming legitimacy for the 'nation' set up by" the subject. This page has failed! [3] Certainly the removal of content has not helped the reading-audience. Nofoolie (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) whether "Kailaasa" is established in a legal sense, but it certainly exists as a well-described and oft-reported initiative, probably with a sufficient depth of coverage for a separate article.

Re. duping of politicians, we do have articles about swindlers and fraudsters, I see no problem here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been regularly reported as not-existing and as being a part of a disinformation campaign.

Given you have reacted previously to criticisms about the editing of Nithyananda and you have lashed out I have concerns about your impartiality. Nofoolie (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support split { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support split. They have duped 30 US cities, the UN and others. It is worthy of a split. There was already a need for a redirect of Shrikailasa to the page section. If it continues along its path, it may need to be added to the Micronation list for people that research self-declared, non-recognized countries and the only way it can be, if deemed acceptable by that page's editors, is to have its own page. I'm not advocating for that, but seems a separate page is worthy, still the same.P37307 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It definitely should be listed at that page, since that list is specifically for subjects like Kailasa.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support split. It is a cult with a fake "nation" but there are plenty of fictional topics that have and deserve articles. I think the "nation" and the "man-god" are sufficiently distinct topics to merit separate articles. I know nothing much about this except this WP article, so I am voting on general principles rather than specifics. Also, I agree with P37307 about Micronations. Zaslav (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support split. As per nom. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)}17:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support split.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. There's more than enough non-trivial independent reliable source coverage for Kailasa to pass WP:GNG, and it would end the WP:COATRACK problem of more and more Kailasa material being added to (and fought over) in this article. The down-side is that it makes for two instead of one article for watchlisters to keep track of, but I think the drama level should actually decrease.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not a nation. It is just an island in the nation of Ecuador. Someone claiming it as a nation and issuing a fake passport wont make it a nation. Crashed greek (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Something like "is recognized internationally as a legitimate nation" has nothing to do with with whether a topic can have a stand-alone article. All that's required is meeting WP:GNG. The issue here is that a bio article is being WP:COATRACKed to hell with material that is not about the bio subject. If the material were simply WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia about a non-notable subject it could just be removed, but that isn't the case here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support split. Multiple national and international news articles have been published on this topic since 2019. No evidence (image or video) have been provided of existence since its announcement, neither its been able to gather any recognition from India or other countries. However, it has been able to gather both curiosity and controversy from India and abroad therefore it merits its own article, even if it's a scam or PR stunt to gather sympathy. Eevee01^(talk) 10:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus was to split, so I'm going to do that (though I can't promise it will be perfect). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Location of Kailaasa "island nation"

Resolved

It is stated that Kailaasa island nation is located outside the coast of Ecuador, near Trinidad and Tobago…has anyone seen a map of South America? Those two nations are on opposite sides of the continent! 82.209.140.197 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. The error was actually in one of the sources. I've rewritten the material to indicate that the sources conflict with each other and one of them has this error in it. Also cleaned up all the citations and dates and such.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that one of the sources mentioned Trinadad does not warrant a special mention. Numerous other sources have referred to Kailasa first being formed in the International waters off Ecuador. 47.145.215.131 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove pejorative terms in the BLP

The first sentence refers to the subject as "Godman" and "Cult leader". Both these are loaded terms meant to convey a negative meaning. There is no definitive guideline of what is a cult and what is a tradition. The usage of the word "cult leader" is denigratory and in violation of guidelines of Wikipedia:BLP which says that editors must show sensitvity and the article must written "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". I would think these two words must be removed from the introduction immediately, @SMcCandlish See: cult Cult is a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a relatively small group .. practicing set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society). Nithyananda's practices are authentic Hindu practices followed for thousands of years. Calling it deviant is clearly duplicitous and perhaps misguided at best. "Godman" similarly is a negative term used in the Indian context. 47.145.215.131 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To take these terms separately:

• "Godman" has actually been used by some of his supporters. Our own article on the subject (more importantly the sources it is based on) do not indicate universal pejorative use, but rather that it's a term broadly applied to charismatic religious leaders who build up large followings, and often claim to be able to perform paranormal feats. That is Nithyananda summarized in a word.
• It can't be a "tradition" if it's not traditional; someone starting his own slight branch of Hinduism within recent memory isn't a tradition. Come back in a century and we'll see whether it's turned into one.
• Whether and how to use the term "cult" is more open to dispute; it depends on whether the term is very frequently used in reliable sources independent of the subject. It is clear that various sources do use this term, and us including it as attributed to one or more of those sources is permissible. But Wikipedia "in its own voice" probably shouldn't claim he's a cult leader as if this is unquestionably established fact (we can, by contrast, certainly do so at Jim Jones). For that reason, I would support changing the lead sentence to stop saying "is ... a cult leader", but retain the word in attributed form somewhere, since we are not in a postion to whitewash the fact that various sources consider him to be a cult leader.
• Our article nowhere uses the word "deviant" or anything like it; cherry-picking a definiton of cult from some random site elsewhere that includes that term has no implications for our content and its meaning. If someone somewhere else has called him or his followers "deviant", you'll have to take that up with them.

So, most of these complaints are not actionable, but one appears to be partially actionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Subject is either a religious leader or a cult leader. Subject is a religious leader not a cult leader. The main article already has his appointment as Mahamandaleshwar of MahaNirvani Akhada of Hinduism. This should resolve the argument in favor of religious leader. "Cult" is derogatory and should be removed. "he is also unanimously appointed to the high title of Spiritual head of the most ancient apex body of Hinduism – Acharya Mahamandaleshwar, the Mahanirvani akhada of Mahanirvani Peeth. Such nominations are thoroughly scrutinized and investigated by a committee of highly evolved and dedicated monks who need to accept the spiritual, mystical, and conscious abilities of the person they elect to the post" Ik.Kaluha (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've put the "cult" claims in mouths of sources we rely on instead of Wikipedia's own mouth. Unfortunately for our subject, in the intervening last year or so these claims have multiplied across most of the source material, to also include "conman", "scam", etc., and this has to be reported here since it's overwhelmingly the consensus of the source material (though I cited only a tiny fraction of it, to keep the lead section uncluttered). See my warning below about pursuing any further changes to this article. All that's going to happen is that any editor looking into it is going to assess the source material again and update the article to reflect what the sources are now saying, which is more and more negative with every passing month. Your attempts to whitewash this article are already backfiring badly and will only get worse. There is no conflict between "religious leader" and "cult leader"; the latter is a subset of the former. As for Mahamandaleshwar: "In 2019, nine foreigners were given the title mahamandaleshwar for the first time at the Kumbh Mela." If there is any significance to this title, I have no idea what it might be. Editors with actual expertise in Hinduism and its branches and roles and other terminology will have to look into this. Mahanirvani Akhara is not the apex body of Hinduism, but one of seven shastradhari akhadas. It is quite old, but what in India isn't? I'm not likely to respond here again any time soon, and I have no idea whether anyone else will, but I will drop a notice at WikiProject Hinduism that the Mahamandaleshwar thing needs expert examination. If in the MahaNirvani Akhada context is it actually of great significance, then it does belong in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've read few article on this topic and this is what I've found: There are total of 13 Akharas, each having one Acharya Mahamandaleshwar. Acharya Mahamandaleshwar and Mahamandaleshwar are two different titles, the former is the highest position. Thier can be multiple Mahamandaleshwars within an Akhada but their is only one Acharya Mahamandaleshwar. Nithyananda is a Mahamandaleshwar not Acharya Mahamandaleshwar of Mahanirvani Akhada. Therefore, in my opinion it is not that significant enough to be in the lead section also it is not something he is notable for. Eevee01^(talk) 08:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Mahanirvani Akhada of Hinduism is significant. MahaNirvani Akhada is the largest group of monks in the word. It has more monks than Catholic Church. For the sake of argument even if we assume MahaMandaleshwar of MahaNirvani is not significant, what matters is they are part of the structure of mainstream traditions of Hinduism accepted. And the subject is part of that mainstream traditions of Hinduism. 47.145.224.148 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never said he's not part of mainstream Hinduism. I've only pointed out that he is not Acharya- Mahamandaleshwar. As far as the significance of Mahamandaleshwar is concerned, it's still open for debate as I'm not an expert in Hinduism. Eevee01^(talk) 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Allegedly kidnapped sisters appear before Ahmedabad court via video conferencing

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/we-are-safe-nithyanandas-devotees-tell-high-court/articleshow/106713240.cms - Two devotees of Nithyananda addressed the Gujarat High court and assured it that they were not kidnapped but safe and they love their life in Kailasa. Please update the article to reflect this. @SMcCandlish On a broader note, the page has slowly - edit by edit - removed all positive reports about the subject and only retained the allegations against him. Similarly the language used is not really nuetral quite derogatory for a man who is followed by millions of people worldwide and who heads some of the oldest monastic institutions in the world. 47.145.215.131 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSNP: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." This is not a good enough source, especially since they take payment for positive stories and Nithyananda and his organization are clearly in a position to make such payment. There may be other claims in the article sourced to the same "newspaper", that need to be removed. It may even be that the entire kidnapping-claim story is not really reliably sourced, regardless what resolution it is claimed to have; something to look into later. Determining what publications in India are reliable is challenging. With regard to "millions", I wouldn't know; it's a claim he and his organization have made, but I'm not aware of independent sources that prove this, and many are skeptical and suggest much lower numbers. His relationship to other establishments has been disputed, so whether any of them are so old is immaterial. I'm not "managing" this article, and have no control over who adds or removes what, other than the ability of any editor to remove unsourced or badly sourced material, and restore pertinent material that is properly sourced. If "positive reports" are in unreliable publications, they'll be removed; so would negative ones from the same kinds of sources. But various negative-leaning ones are in reliable sources, and few of those have positive ones. That tends to be the case with public figures who make themselves subjects of controversy, and it's not something I can do anything about. I'm not sure why I keep getting pinged back here, other than I happen to have worked on the article some, a while back.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Disciples of Nithyananda Paramashivam are a large family from more than 160 countries worldwide. With an emphasis on consciousness-based science, many women from all over the world with varying backgrounds were empowered to join the mission, many of them serving in leadership positions" Ik.Kaluha (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That's basically a string of buzzwords, which translates to "Some people in leadership positions in his organization are women." That would be expected, this being the 21st century. While that could be mentioned in the article somewhere, this does not appear to be a reliable source about anything other than Adi-Shaiva beliefs about humanity's connection to the environment, being a book on "traditional cosmic knowledge systems" and "the consciousness framework" of "humans' situatedness ... relationality and spirituality connected to climate change" [and a bunch more spirituality buzzwording here], and it is explicitly an Adi-Shaiva religious work. Some other sources do mention him sending an all-female delegation that was permitted to speak at the UN, but they do not appear to be reliable sources so far. The fact that women are involved could maybe be worked in somewhere, though I'm not sure where it is most pertinent, or what sources are available for this that are not self-published by his own organization or based on its own press releases. The only woman I can find in reliable sources who is mentioned by name as being important within his organization is an apparently Canadian-American "permanent ambassador of Kailaasa to the UN" going by the name Vijayapriya Nithyananda; added her to the article in the appropriate section (though without the Canadian-American claim, since the sourcing for that detail is also suspect).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Some updates, and some notes for the anonymous requester of changes above:

• I've removed most citations to The Times of India, since it is a questionably reliable source and the citations to it were redundant anyway. In one case, I left one in, tagged with "better source needed", since there wasn't another source cited yet for the claim in question. Someone else can decide what to do about that later.
• Looked into the "two sisters" story, and we have no need of the bad source provided above, because we already cover all this in the article as it stands, including their denial of the abduction and related claims. Unfortunately, this is also cited to the same bad source – it's The Times of India citation that I did not delete – so it probably needs to be removed along with the claim it is cited for, unless a better source can be found. I've left it alone for now, in case someone else whats to look into it.
• I spent some time going over news sites and "cult" terminology. I have changed the wording in the lead section from an inappropriate claim by Wikipedia itself that his organization is a cult, to a statement that various news and other sources claim it's a cult, and I have provided source citations to some of the more prominent ones. Not only do sources consistently refer to it as a cult, they also commonly describe Nithyananda as a "conman", and Kailaasa as a "con". I did add that the organization denies any wrongdoing (which is true; many of the sources mention that). Since that's an obivious Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies situation, some other editor might remove this denial as not actually needing to be stated, because pretty much everyone always denies every accusation.
• I looked into "godman": the vast majority of sources use this term in reference to him, so we are basically required to use it as well. It is usually put in quotation marks or preceded by "so-called", because it is not typically a negative term, but a claim made by gurus and their followers. Quite a number of sources say he is a self-styled godman (i.e. he called himself that). It's also sourceable that he claims to be an avatar of a specific Hindu figure of divinity, so that is clearly a claim to being a god-man. I am not an expert on Indian English, so it is quite possible that the term is shifting over time to a negative connotation, at least in some usage quarters, but that does not change the fact that sources independent of him and his organization almost uniformly use it in reference to him. Anyway, I explained this term a little where it first occurs in the article.
• Every time I come back and re-examine the Nithyananda coverage in the available source material (much of it newer since the last time), the view is more and more uniformly condemnatory. Some new material includes additional criminal charges filed in France, and being ignored by the UN, among other things, like very widespread reporting of Kailaasa as a "fake country", "fictional", "a scam", and "a con", and frequent labelling of him as "a conman" or "a scammer", as well as "a cult leader". I found precisely zero positive coverage that was not published by his organization or really obviously based on their own press releases. I have to strongly suggest that his followers stop coming here and agitating for changes to the article, as it is almost certainly going to become more not less negative, because the independent source material is leaning more and more in that direction with every passing year. If they/you just leave it alone, the inclination of editors here to add any more material to the article is very low. It's never going to be positive, because the independent sources are not positive; no one is positive other than people directly associated with Nithyananda. The more you try to whitewash it, the more negative it's bound to get, because editors will update the material in our articles based on what the sources are now saying. The only way this would turn more positive toward the subject is if in the off-Wikipedia real world something radically changes with regard to this public figure, and much of the reportage suddenly swings positive. There is no magic here that anyone can work to change how the world views him or his organization. See also Streisand effect: the more that one tries to whitewash a negative story, the more attention is drawn to the negativity.

I have bigger fish to fry, and do not want to be drawn into further detailed research into or editing of this article. If, against my strong advice, you insist on wanting further changes, use the {{Edit COI}} template, and provide a description of exactly what text you'd like to change or add or remove, a concise but precise explanation why, and actually reliable, actually independent sources that support making the change. Some editor at some point will address the request (probably in the negative because most edit requests by people with a conflict of interest are really bad ideas and are pushing a promotional viewpoint, as you are here, throughout).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The intro paragraph should not include the entire set of allegations by news media (starting from " A number of mainstream news outlets" to "for unrelated fraud charges in France"). I would request to move the points about what the news media says to the section titled "Controversy" which is intended for this purpose. Please understand that there has been ABSOLUTELY NO conviction against Nithyananda and all charges against him are disputed in appropriate courts of law. In most countries there is a legal system that presumes innocence till proven guilty precisely because of such a situation where noise without substance overshadows facts. The news media does not follow the restrictions on relying on fact and this is why their reports and their terms of caricature should not considered. The wikipedia editors calling these derogatory terms and unfounded charges prominently in the introduction section (even with attributing it to the media houses) I feel does not align with wikipedia's BLP guidelines. I cannot use the edit COI template as suggested since the page is blocked for editing for regular users. Hence this note. I would appreciate you looking into this comment. @SMcCandlish 47.145.215.131 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, the lead section should do all that, since the lead is a summary of the important parts in the article, and as far as external independent sources are concerned, all these legal and related issues are definitely what is most notable about this person. That may be unforutnate for Nithyananda and his followers, but it's a fact. Him being able to avoid trial for these charges neither proves him wrongly accused nor makes the coverage change to be about something else. See, e.g. Alec Baldwin, which covers right in the lead section that he has been indicted (not proven guilty of) several manslaughter charges, and that's despite the fact that nearly everyone believes the death involved was accidental. It's not Wikipedia's job to tell the source coverage that it is wrong or dwelling on something it shouldn't. The {{edit COI}} template goes here on the talk page, not in the article. If you really think there's a BLP issue, you can raise that at WP:BLPN. It would do this article a lot of good to have additional watchers and editors anyway. I'm tired of being dragged back into a subject about which I have little interest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Today the Gujarat high court dismissed the case against Swami Nithyananda of illegal confinement declaring what he has been saying for 5 years now that there was no kidnapping and that the girls had become monks of their own free will. The entire attack by the media over the past 5 years and the destruction of the Ahmedabad Women's University of Nithyananda all happened through fake news and lawfare.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/nithyananda-ashram-case-gujarat-hc-dismisses-father-plea-daughters-not-illegal-confinement-9142446/

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2024/02/03/gujarat-hc-rejects-plea-against-nithyananda-over-alleged-unlawful-confinement-of-2-girls.html

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/spiritual-roads-are-always-lengthy-gujarat-high-court-dismisses-plea-after-4-years-filed-by-a-man-against-self-styled-godman-swami-nithyananda-for-confining-daughters-248359#:~:text=The%20Gujarat%20High%20Court%20today,and%20Justice%20Rajendra%20M.%20Sareen.

The problem with highlighting in-progress cases so much is that they are not always genuine. Especially in this case when the media itself is an active participant in the character assassination. Case in point being this article by ANI - it is cleverly crafted so a casual reader (who skims headlines and hasn't followed the case deeply) would think that today's ruling was against Swami Nithyananda and not in his favor. I would sincerely again request a rethink on the position of the editors to place so much prominence on unadjudicated legal proceedings - even if they are covered extensively by the media. https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/swami-nithyananda-case-court-announced-judgement-in-favour-of-girls-says-gujarat-high-court-advocate20240202223125/#google_vignette @SMcCandlish 47.145.215.131 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Will look into it when I get a chance; need to go over several sources in detail and look for more. But it's after 3:30am my time. Hopefully someone else will get around to it before I do, since this isn't a topic I'm particularly interested in (I just seem to be who people ping to come here). "The problem with highlighting in-progress cases so much is that they are not always genuine" – I don't disagree, and while I do have a little more influence than average on policy around here, from understanding it very well for 18+ years, I don't get to just change how things are done because I wanna. I know people personally who have articles about them here who wish they did not, but there's nothing I can do about it, because they qualify as notable, which means WP will have an article about them whether they like it or not, and it will say what the available source material says whether they like it or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @SMcCandlish. The point I was making was not that the news must be suppressed. But that it should not be given prominent placement unless it is actually supported by the judgement of a qualified court of law. You are pinged because editors from India have made this an India vs Kailasa matter and on the other side Kailasa editors have been barred citing COI. So, we are really struggling to find someone who is "not interested" in the subject so they can write an truthful article. 47.145.215.131 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish , I've already updated the article about the recent developments. If you think the wording needs to be changed, you're free to do it. Eevee01^(talk) 14:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The current editors who are "interested" in the subject, have merely added the news item as if it is just a casual incident and not to the effect that it completely goes against ALL what the news media have reported for 5 years about the case in Gujarat and the subject of the biography. All the newsmedia caricatures of the subject as a conman or scam comes entirely from these false cases. There is no other basis for such denigrations. And yet the article continues to prominently promote these even in the face of a judicial ruling. Requesting for @SMcCandlish to consider the significance of the judgement - which is in reality the sole official ruling on the matter and adjust all the pejorative baseless attributes used in the article stemming from these allegations that have been shown to be baseless by the interviews done by the court and its final judgement. 47.145.215.131 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The editors should see that the judgement from today, read with the HUGE amount of negative news about the subject over the past 5 years and the destruction of the university campus vindicates his decision to leave India. The Geneva convention defines a well-founded fear for life and property as the sole requirement for justifying someone to seek asylum. The unambiguous judgement by the High Court shows clearly that he was targeted using lawfare by vested interests and clearly that his life was in danger. 47.145.215.131 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Persecution

Please add:

"Nithyananda and his community was persecuted since March 2, 2010 sarting with a deep fake video leading to multiple assassination attempts against him.

""

Pg 78: "We summarize this with one historical example of the infamous Goa Inquisition authorized by Francis Xavier, which ran for 292 years from 1516 to 1812, with troops sent from Portugal and the persecution faced by Nithyananda Paramashivam in modern times"

From page 81: "All this made Nithyananda Paramashivam and science a target of some camps with power and vested interests. What followed was an unprecedented but well-documented series of events that resulted in numerous assassination attempts. It escalated when on March 2, 2010, a fake and morphed video of His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda was released on a Tamil TV channel. The fabricated video was replayed thousands of times by many TV channels. In a well-orchestrated campaign, the persecution followed by law fare in which multiple legal cases were filed without basis, the press relentlessly churned out misinformation, and attacks on the monks of the Adi-Shaiva order continued unabated. Female monks were molested, and male monks were assaulted. Children studying in the traditional Gurukul were exposed to pornographic material. The relentless systemic assault and continuous assaults on property, people, and programs continued unabated until Nithyananda Paramashivam removed himself from bodily harm."

Pg 81: "Finally, his life itself was threatened where several hired assassins attempted in various ways to brutally kill, poison, or burn alive Nithyananda Paramashivam" Ik.Kaluha (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Not a chance. This is the same "spirituality connected to climate change" WP:FRINGE mumbo-jumbo source cited above, which is not reliable for anything but one offshoot of Hinduism's religious beliefs about the environment (if even that; it could well be something written by someone with no current connection to that group). The claims are vague ("some camps with power"? What camps where? What power? "Vested interests"? In what?) If something is "well-documented" then there will be documentation, and there is not. This is like saying "lots of scientific studies show that ...", but there being no scientific studies anywhere that anyone can find. Even one single assassination attempt would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sourcing. How can anything "escalate" from alleged assassination attempts? The possibly faked video is already covered in our article. The fact that this book refers to him as "His Divine Holiness" and "Paramashivam" (avatar of Paramashiva) clearly indicates it is promotional/worship material. There is no evidence findable anywhere of any persecution of him or anyone connected to him; only a claim he made to the UN, which they did not take seriously, and various claims in bad sources that are obviously written from his own organization's press releases. Same with the attacks on monks claims, etc. This narrative that Nithyananda fled India to escape "bodily harm" instead of prosecution is not supportable with any independent reliable source material of any kind, and all the sources say the opposite. If you keep posting nonsense from this book or anything like it, your comments will likely just be deleted as proselytization/promotion spam.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Francis books published, edited and reviewed by Taylor and Francis not credible source as per wiki policy? 47.145.224.148 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)