Wikipedia

Talk:Nithyananda/Archive 5

< Talk:Nithyananda
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 24.46.110.41 in topic Pseudoscience claim is defamatory
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Birthday inconsistencies

Latest comment: 4 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Marking this resolved. The actually reliable sources have been used to indicate in the article that birthdate is uncertain, without veering into every possible variant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Change "Born 1 January 1978 (age 40)" to Unknown?

Change Category:1978 births to Category:Year of birth missing (living people)? and Category:Date_of_birth_missing_(living_people)?


Hi. This is in regard to the birth date on the Swami_Nithyananda wiki page. It says he was born on "1 January 1978 (age 40)". How has Wikipedia determined this as factually accurate? There is much controversy regarding his actual birth date and age. Only he and his devotees claim he is 40 (or recently 41) and was born on 1 January 1978 (or recently January 9th), but many reliable sources including judgements from the High Court of Karnataka in Banagalore claim different ages for this man...

1. The first ever Indian news report about him from 2002 claimed he was 27, making him 42 or 43 today. http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/12/30/stories/2002123001320200.htm

2. In 2010 his US B1/B2 VISA passports were "cancelled pursuant to with prejudice" which indicated his birth date as March 13 1977 on them. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/59977/nithyananda-may-have-forged-birth.html https://image.ibb.co/cbx1Um/img.jpg

3. On December 7th of 2017 a reliable news source indicated he was 44-years-old. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/no-more-delays-sc-asks-trial-court-frame-charges-against-nithyananda-72793

4. In Judgement documents from the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore it indicates his age was 34 in February of 2013, making him 38 or 39 today. http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/864720/1/CRLP3253-12-25-02-2013.pdf http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/864767/1/CRLP2973-12-25-02-2013.pdf

5. Even on his own website he has a .doc file linked of one of the court judgements: www.nithyananda.org/sites/default/files/news/PCR%20defamation%20suvarna.doc https://i.imgur.com/dZwgVbA.png which says he is formerly known as Tiru Rajashekaran (is this his birth name?) and was age 34 in Feb/2013.

6. Recently on Facebook (January 9th) he claimed to have celebrated his 41st Jayanthi(Birthday). "Come and be part of the grand celebration of Paramahamsa Nithyananda’s 41st birthday, the day when the Avatar landed." https://www.facebook.com/events/168428470595575/

Is he 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44? or?

Ryanmeadows (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus on what should be done here in regards to this issue? I'm new to Wikipedia so please excuse me if I haven't done anything correctly. Still learning. Ryanmeadows (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm not inclined to make the change you proposed right now, but I think your comments above, which I take to be in good faith, are enough to place a maintenance tag on the date of birth, which I have done. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Thanks. I'm still looking into finding out his actual birth date but keep finding more discrepancies...

7. On the bottom left of his old website (now archived) where it says "News Articles" he links to the article that says he was 27 in 2002: https://web.archive.org/web/20031012130752/http://www.swamisworld.com:80/ Why would he not correct the journalist if they are wrong about his age being 27 in 2002?

8. On another archived site of his it talks about him celebrating his 27th Jayanthi (birthday) on January 1st 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20031217094110/http://www.dhyanapeetam.org:80/jayanthi.asp How can he be 27 in 2002 & 2004!?

This is all very odd.

There seems to be a lot of deceptive things that don't make sense or add up when it comes to his age & birth date.

Ryanmeadows (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

When ostensibly reliable sources conflict, we "teach the controversy" and tell the readers that the sources conflict. We need not delve into details, and just provide a birth year range and an age range, with the various conflicting sources cited. This kind of discrepancy isn't uncommon for non-Western subjects, due to poor record-keeping and poor records access in various countries (not to mention poor standards of journalism fact-checking in the same countries – the Indian press in paticular is notorious for printing whatever they're paid to print).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This is why I also included links to his own past & present websites which birthday inconsistencies exist on too.
Ryanmeadows (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I'm just saying that nothing like "38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44" should appear in our article, nor any similar list of years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
One ("Nithyananda may have forged birth documents". Deccan Herald. 24 March 2010.) seems to indicate that multiple of the conflicting documents agree that he was born in Tiruvannamalai, in Tamil Nadu. So, I guess that's something. His parents' names, Arunachalam (father) and Lokanayaki (mother) might also be uncontroversial; it just seems to be the dates. However, the Deccan Herald piece actually appears to indicate that the date stuff amounts to another encyclopedically relevant controversy about this guy, which could actually subject him to prosecution, and that his US visa was cancelled "with prejudice" in 2007 as a result of these birthdate shenanigans. The US visa birth date was 13 March 1977. The Karnataka High Court documents gave a date of 1 January 1978, a date is repeated in a (non-neutral) biography. The DH article doesn't cover the other conflicting birthdate claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How was it concluded both father and mother are dead ? Akhilkodali (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Source cited has that info. That's why the source was cited.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The source is somewhat ambiguous since the 'late' in "(late) Sri Arunachalam and Smt Lokanayaki" may apply to both the parents, or just the father. Abecedare (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Yeah, I can see that. I'll just remove that part, and leave the names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it to your judgement since I can only give you the primary source Akhilkodali (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Which one? What does it indicate? Primary sources can sometimes be used for non-controversial background facts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Good BLP writing

Since I have railed against BLP violations above, I would also like to commend the opposite. See this newspaper article headlined, "Nithyananda may have forged birth documents". The article itself qualifies as a reliable source, but instead of aping its headline or presentation, its factual claims are rendered as Sources conflict as to his birth date – even in official documents provided by Nithyananda. His passport and a 2003 US visitor visa gave a date of 13 March 1977, while 2010 Karnataka High Court documents showed a date of 1 January 1978 on the wikipedia page. That is good sober writing and what I meant by being conservative on what/how to present information from a source. Good job, User:SMcCandlish! Abecedare (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

All the links , especially from nithyananda truth clearly show that everything that you are trying to show is wrong and not true Saranka04 (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Not RSes

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Ik.Kaluha, I removed citations from the page that were either

  • unreliable, like the blog and Nithyanandapedia (blogs and encyclopaedias are not normally reliable sources, except maybe Britannica), or
  • redundant, or
  • repeated

I removed content that was not cited too. For instance, I don't remember any source citing 'yogic powers', and even if they do, 'yogic powers' should be in apostrophes as such extrasensory stuff is pseuodoscience.

What else did I remove, and what do you think was unreasonable? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 15:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Too many changes made in the commit. All Kailasa content was deleted, 100s of new articles on it. Ik.Kaluha (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ik.Kaluha No, no Kailaasa content was deleted. I merely switched the positions of two sections. I clearly mentioned that in the edit summary. I also changed the positions of headings. No deletion. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's keep changes small. This article page is a mess. The history of changes is impossible to track. Too much vandalism. The subsection for announcement should remain as content and reporting says it's accouncement. Ik.Kaluha (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Child Abuse Allegation

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There are 3 aspects to the Child Allegations.

  1. Nithyananda
  2. Two of Nithyananda's devotees
  3. Against Police and CWC (Child Welfare Committee) in Gujarat, India

According to these

  1. https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/in-focus/article/rape-case-karnataka-high-court-cancels-bail-to-absconding-nithyananda/549810
  2. https://indianexpress.com/photos/india-news/nithyananda-swami-controversies-cases-6131718/
  3. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/interpol-blue-corner-notice-against-self-styled-godman-nithyananda-accused-of-rape-and-abduction-on-2167968

The case is against 2 of Nithyananda's devotees, not against Nithyananda himself. All news articles are consistent in about two of Nithyananda’s devotees being investigated, but none of them say that investigation (for child abuse) is against Nithyananda.

Infact,the case about the child abuse allegations is directed against the police and CWC by the court

  1. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/crime/100320/nithyananda-case-officials-showed-porn-to-ashram-kids-cops.html
  2. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/officials-probing-rape-accused-nithyananda-showed-porn-to-children-police-2192538
  3. https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/03/09/nithyananda-probe-cops-cwc-members-booked-for-showing-porn-to-children.html
  4. https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/crime/nithyananda-probe-cops-booked-for-showing-porn-to-children/articleshow/74555983.cms
  5. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/ahmadabad-nithyananda-case-fir-against-cops-cwc-officials-6305818/

The headlines of the news articles are very misleading. And all of them talk only about the rape charge and not about child abuse.

However, in this Wikipedia article, in the introduction section, it is being explicitly stated that the investigation is against him (for child abuse), this is inaccurate and prejudicial against a living person. In fact, Nithyananda is nowhere in the picture so far as the child abuse topic is concerned. Therefore

  1. I have made the following edit (996220704) Done by Insight2010 (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. The mention of child abuse has been removed from the introduction section at the top of this article’s page and the subsection in the article.

Ik.Kaluha (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI Please discuss about child abuse here first before making any changes.Ik.Kaluha (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Ik.Kaluha Well, from your second list of sources, I got these:
Deccan Chronicle: Police had booked the controversial godman and two of his women disciples on the charges of wrongful confinement and abduction of two girls and a boy living in his ashram.
NDTV: Police had earlier charged the controversial godman and two of his women disciples for wrongful confinement and abduction of two girls and a boy who were living in his ashram... Earlier this year, Interpol issued a Blue Corner Notice seeking information about Nithyananda who had fled the country amid allegations of wrongful confinement of children.
The other two sources repeat the claims verbatim, since it was presumably written out by the Press Trust of India. Do you want to include these in the article as better sources? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI All 3 aspects of it as stated above has to be covered as it will be prejudicial. Later coverage indicates it's against his ardents not himself. And you removed the UN section? Ik.Kaluha (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Kumbh Mela

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Nithyananda was the brand Ambassador for Kumbh mela.

This information has been lost to improper edits or vandalism multiple times. The information not obvious from the title of the ref but present in the content. Ik.Kaluha (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ik.Kaluha could you explain whether you have any direct or indirect affiliation with the article subject? I also want to note that just because something is true doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Blablubbs|talk 20:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ik.Kaluha:: WP:RS/PS says of The Times of India: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Given that this is a BLP, it is prudent here to not include information from that site. This page is going to need a thorough review. Please do not add this information back in unless you can find it corroborated by a source considered to be reliable on WP:RS/PS. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers:: I have no particular interest in this page except to restore some kinda balance in a lost cause. I agree about the general reliability of Indian news everything seems to be tabloid journalism. But the balance on this article is too skewed for a living person. Digging through history to figure out some positive content. 90% of the page content is defamatory in tone. Many edits seem to have that tone apparent. Enforcing edits via talk should be the long term approach else it's circular changes. Ik.Kaluha (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ik.Kaluha: Our role as editors is not to 'figure out some positive content'. It’s to describe on what neutral, secondary sources say. The article is currently filled with blogs, primary sources, and puffery. The article is not defamatory in tone; it is descriptive. The lead is inappropriately phrased. This page needs protection so that a group of editors can put some work in to fix it. I don't think that is going to be through talk page discussions. This was a series of good changes to the article, which you reverted. Not only did it improve the quality of the citations in the article, it was a good MOS grammar clean-up. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers:: Understood. That was not my intent. I was concerned with too make changes in one edit.

Postal Stamp

this is also not a reliable source. I really encourage that you look at WP:RS. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Republic

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Acnaren, do you have any other source for the UN protection claims? Republic TV isn't the best, it is sensationalist and has more commentary than fact. Republic TV is considered 'generally unreliable' at perennial sources. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no Indian Media which is not sensationalist. But in this case Republic TV has shared links to the submission and also shown pages of the submission on their panel discussion on television. I found another reference from The Hindu Businessline. I will add that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren (talk • contribs) 02:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Acnaren Good. The Hindu is not sensationalist, it is a good source to add. TOI and TV channels' websites, though, often tend to be. Republic takes it to a whole new level, however, and often obscures fact - the other sources may have colourful-sounding language, but at least they don't actively lie. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: I'm not familiar with the mainstream Indian press, so at a glance I can't tell apart reliable news sources from unreliable ones. If you need any further help on the article, let me know, but I feel like I may have done all I really can. If the reversions continue (and I suspect they will), we should go to WP:COI. ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Recognitions versus controversies

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I moved the recognitions section before the controversies as it looks weird for a biography to start with controversies first.Krishkrpal (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Krishkrpal: Per WP:CONTROVERSY, both sections should be merged. I'll be doing this now. Note that, as this is a BLP, it should not provided any sources from unreliable sources. ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: ya ok Krishkrpal (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-Styled vs Appointed by an authority

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hinduism does not have the concept of a College of Cardinals to confer papal authority on a Hindu religius leader. So, does it even make sense to have the term: "Self Proclaimed" in this article.

Quoting from Wikipedia:Editing_Wikipedia_is_like_visiting_a_foreign_country: "... "Negro", as applied to people, is a historical term only, and "oriental" is "Eurocentric", with a "shifting, inaccurate definition", and "may be considered offensive"... Point being, for a person who is not a subject-matter-expert on Hinduism, this "self-styled" might be valid, but for SMEs of Hinduism, this seems weird at best and offensive at worst.

I can remove the "self-proclaimed" verbiage if no one has an opposition. Mechprince (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mechprince: I'm sorry, but I'm not even convinced the title should be there. Two reasons:
  1. The title appears nowhere else (cited) in the body of the article.
  2. If there's no formal mechanism which grants the title, then the title is self-styled. Anyone could claim to such a title; that doesn't mean it should be there.
Objection 1 takes presence: if there's no reliable source referring to the subject with this title, it should be struck from the page entirely. ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers:: My bad, I should have typed "self-styled godman" (which appears in the intro section) instead of "self-proclaimed" (which happens to appear in Infobox). My Edit was towards removing the former ("self-styled godman") and not the latter ("self-proclaimed) as Hinduism does not have the concept like a College of Cardinals which exists in Christianty. In Christianity, a College of Cardinals declares Pope to be a representative of God and hence he is not self-styled. But a similar setup does not exist in Hinduism, so every Hindu leader is self-styled as per this definition which is erroneous.
Does it make sense?
Mechprince (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mechprince: Makes total sense; I understand the confusion. Besides little things like that, this page has some very, very severe problems, and needs help. I think there's a lot of editors with a vested, unprofessional interest in this page. I'm going to look through the page's history tomorrow and see what needs to be brought up to WP:COI. Bear with! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: He has been appointed the Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam - one of India's oldest living monasteries and as a Mahamandaleshwar (Lead Pontiff) of the Mahanirvani akhada - another ancient order spanning milenia. These are sufficiently referenced in the "Recognition" section. Given this, referring to him using the derogatory term "self styled" is abusive and unwarranted in a BLP. Acnaren (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
We cannot make claims that he is the supreme pontiff of Hinduism, a claim in the infobox that I removed. We cannot make claims that he is, in fact, a "godman". That's a self-proclamation and has to be labelled as such (or just deleted). If we have actually reliable sources that he's been named to a particular title/position/role at a particular monastery or other organization (that is not his own creation) that can be included (though whether or not that is currently valid needs to be researched).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Avatar of paramashiva

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lede says he is considered an avatar of paramashiva. However it doesn't mention anywhere in the article what paramshiva is. Can it be explained? Or can 'paramashiva' be linked to a wikipedia article that explains it? This sentence is meaningless to someone not versed in Hinduism. Ashmoo (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot just claim that he "is considered" something at all (MOS:WEASELWORDS). We can say that he claims to be such an avatar, or that his followers believe that he is one, if we have reliable and independent sources that establish this. Otherwise this stuff should not be in the article at all. If it is retained and properly sourced in some form, then yes, link to Parashiva.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect use of titles

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Self styled

Use of self-styled is incorrect. As per oxford self-style https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/self-styled means "​using a name or title that you have given yourself, especially when you do not have the right to do it". But in this case he is appointed as Hindu Pontiff by Madhurai Aadhenam and Mahamandaleswar (recorded on the article page) Most media sources use the self-styled but there is no explanation given in any of the source. Insight2010 (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-Styled vs Appointed by an authority

Hinduism does not have the concept of a College of Cardinals to confer papal authority on a Hindu religius leader. So, does it even make sense to have the term: "Self Proclaimed" in this article.

Quoting from Wikipedia:Editing_Wikipedia_is_like_visiting_a_foreign_country: "... "Negro", as applied to people, is a historical term only, and "oriental" is "Eurocentric", with a "shifting, inaccurate definition", and "may be considered offensive"... Point being, for a person who is not a subject-matter-expert on Hinduism, this "self-styled" might be valid, but for SMEs of Hinduism, this seems weird at best and offensive at worst.

I have removed the "self-styled godman" verbiage as it is not applicable to Hinduism. Mechprince (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Pontiff of Kailaasa

After searching for "Supreme Pontiff of Kailaasa" and it's variant's except for a few social media posts not connected with Nithyananda or affiliates, there are no references. And this title doesn't seem to be used by Nithyananda himself. But on searching for "Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism" I am able to find

the following news portals (don't know about their credibility)

And Nithyananda's own/affiliated social media accounts/sites and seems to be popular among his ardent

Supreme Pontiff of Kailaasa (self-proclaimed) is not accurate as no one claims it

Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism (self-proclaimed) is accurate as he and his ardent claimed it

It doesn't matter if He is actually a Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism but he claims it hence self-proclaimed title.

Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI plz refer to this section before making changes

Ik.Kaluha (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ik.Kaluha Ok, what? The allegation of abduction is clearly mentioned in 3 RSes. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI They are against his 2 of his ardent. Not him. It's prejudicial to a living person Ik.Kaluha (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Ik.Kaluha I don't know where you got that from. These are the sources cited for the claim:
Source 55: On January 22, the Interpol issued a Blue Corner Notice against Nithyananda in connection with a case of rape and wrongful confinement of minor girls at his ashram in Gujarat's Ahmedabad. The notice was issued at the request of the Gujarat Police...
Source 56:On Monday, an FIR was lodged against Nithyananda and two of his followers at an Ahmedabad-based ashram for allegedly abducting, confining and torturing two minors and a 19-year-old woman. Following this, the Gujarat High Court had issued notices to Nithyananda and the state government on a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of the women.
Source 57: Nithyananda is wanted by Gujarat Police in a case of kidnapping and keeping children captive at his ashram in Ahmedabad... Nithyananda is wanted by the police in Gujarat and Karnataka in a case of kidnapping and keeping children captive at his ashram in Ahmedabad for the purpose of collecting donations. An FIR was also registered against him after two girls went missing from the ashram.
Well? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
WP can't include even "Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism (self-proclaimed)" in the infobox, because this is not a credible claim and no one but his own followers take it seriously, but its context-free appearance in an infobox gives it grossly WP:UNDUE credibility. We can certainly cover his controversial claims in the article body with sufficient context. As noted in other section, if Nithyananda has been given titles/roles/positions, that we can verify with reliable sources as legit and still valid, by monasteries and other organizations that are not his own house organs, then those would be appropriate in the infobox, as would be the fact that he's the head of his own organization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish Supreme Pontiff of Kailaasa is something no one claims neither media, not his followers. Wouldn't be a title that only WP confer on him ? 24.46.106.254 (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboards

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Given the shambles that has become of this article again, I have asked for additional watchlisting and input from experienced, neutral editors, at the India, Hinduism, Religion, and BLP noticeboards. I've not opened an examination thread at any of them. I see above several suggestions to do so, e.g. at WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, etc., but hopefully just having more hands on deck to stop both smear campaigning by the subject's enemies, and whitewashing and glorification by his devotees will be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Problem is not whitewashing but with many editors presenting a negative view of the subject using language such as "self styled" (just for instance) which is highly abusive when in fact the person is the head of the oldest monastic orders in India - perhaps the world. The problem is inherent bias and cultural differences broadly present across the board amongst people who are editing this page. We need to understand that this person is followed and respected by millions worldwide across 50 countries. To reduce his page to a huge list of controversies with a small section on his work - which too keeps getting pared down on a regular basis - seems to make this look more like a tabloid than a encyclopedia. The problem arises because all biographies published on his are ignored as "self serving" for whatever reason and newspapers are considered as the source of information. It is no doubt that this page is a mess. Acnaren (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
"Self-styled" is not negative; it's a factual statement that he has styled himself this way or has been so-styled by his followers (namely "supreme pontiff of Hinduism" which is an extravagant claim, and "supreme pontiff of Kailaasa", a place no one can point to on a map and which may not exist in any form, going by the sourcing presently available). Independent and reliable sources do not call him by such titles. I did see one claim in there to have been appointed head of a monatery, before his current troubles; if there's reliable sourcing for that, then it should not have a qualifier like "self-styled" on it. You're free to work on material that highlights his demonstrable accomplishments, as reported in reliable sources that are independent of him and his organizations. Be aware that various sources have challenged many such claims, so you can expect critical responses (this article is presently less critical about them than it once was – since it makes fewer such claims to criticize – and you may want to keep that in mind). You're also free to challenge extant critical claims and their sourcing, if you can present a cogent argument about one or another of them.

Having a degree in cultural anthropology, I'm more sensitive than average to matters of cultural bias and insensitivity, but I'm skeptical that is a factor here. The vast majority of all sourcing, pro and con, on this subject is from Hindu-dominated parts of India. This is not a case of blind or prejudiced Westerners being biased against a universally respected figure in India, or of partisan Indian Buddhist or Muslim publishers attacking a Hindu one. Nithyananda is controversial among the Hindu majority in India, and most of the rest of the world is not even aware of this controversy or this person. At any rate, I think your biggest difficulty here will be that (unless I'm mistaking your meaning) you believe you should be able to cite Nithyanada, his books, his organizations' statements, and material put online by his adherents, as reliable sources. They do not qualify, because they are not independent of Nithyananda as the subject. Even for WP:ABOUTSELF matters, they could not be relied upon, because Nithyananda has attested on record to having two radically different birth dates, so he is already proven to be not reliable as a source even for the most basic facts about himself.

All that said, I have previous spent a lot (too much) of my time removing accusations about him from this article that did not have proper or any sourcing, or which misrepresented what the source material said. If more of that is happening, point it out and someone will try to address it. If some source is not proper (e.g., it's some random guy's blog, not a reputable newspaper or similar source), that is worth mentioning. If a particular newspaper has repeatedly been embroiled in "coverage for pay" scandals, such that they are not actually a reliable source, that is also worth mentioning (and that did come up here once, a couple of years ago, about some local/regional newspaper).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

All Indian Newspapers in some way are paid. When working for my former company in Bangalore after returning from California I have been directly approached by many "reputed" papers saying they would write articles for a fee about my company. Also everyone knows they will write or telecast whatever is sensational and gets them views. Newspapers cannot be reliable sources precisely for that. They will never write anything good about a person. Hence any biography that relies on news will always be negative. This page being a case in point. The fact that it could be worse is no consolation. When people read a tabloid they automatically discount the information for "news-worthy" bias. But when such biases shows up in an encyclopedia, they tend to believe it rather than understand that this is just another transform of the same tabloid news. Sadly in the case of BLP there is much less in terms of biography or research work since the events are happening live. Compound with that the fact that typically Hindu Gurus get negative coverage in India because most media houses are run by English speaking, Christian leaning authors and editors. Swami Nithyananda has been honored and respected by many Hindu leaders. But these do not get covered by newspapers. And any photographic evidence provided is considered unreliable or "first party" evidence. I can show you videos of Swami Nithyananda's coronation in Kumbh Mela. In fact there is a photo of that ceremony attended by a few lakh people that was on this page and removed. However a single newspaper quoting a random guy on the street saying "it was a closed ceremony" is the one sentence that seems to be of value among what is a extremely significant achievement (sort of like winning the Nobel prize for people who are in those fields). The Akhada is the largest Hindu body in existence in a "religion" that is against central hierarchy. During the Kumbh mela - which is the largest gathering in the world - more than 200,000 people came to get his blessings on a daily basis for a 2 month period. Hindi newspapers have covered this and these have been included here. But not with the importance it deserves. I didn't quite imply that it is a east vs west problem when I mentioned cultural bias. There are many westerners who understand India better than many Indians. The bias exists amongst all editors.. but surely more among the people from west who don't directly understand the subject.. and surely more among the English speakers.. and among so-called atheists - incidentally some of the current aggressive editors are open about their affiliations to atheism and that they are against some of the Hindu beliefs. I am not giving any solution because I don't see any given the policies Wikipedia has put into place. But I am clear that this is a huge blind spot for Wikipedia.. and this page is just the tip of a very very large iceberg of discrimination. Acnaren (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
At the expense of making this comment too long, I will take this article as an example: https://www.firstpost.com/india/sex-and-the-godman-nityananda-haunted-by-his-past-298636.html. The article is negative based on the assumption that a 2 year old sex video of His Holiness is true - an issue that is sub-judice an in which a couple of courts have declared the video to be morphed. But it does mention that he has been appointed head of an ancient spiritual order - enough to throw out the self-styled attribute that all newspapers copy from each other without thinking what the term means. Secondly the article is in large part about the allegations made by one Solaikannan. The case filed by this person has been dismissed by the High Court even without trial as being baseless. But no newspaper has covered that ruling. All that remains for wikipedia is this article and the choice is how much or how little to use it. But that position itself is factually and legally wrong. Further the same court when addressing his appointment as the junior pontiff of this 1500 year old monastery in a related case says ".. this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner's appointment as the Junior Pontiff is irrevocable and hence he is the Junior Pontiff of the Mutt. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96776711/) Acnaren (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
your comment on 2-birthdays is again indicative of cultural differences. Many Indians - especially those from villages and who are traditional - do not maintain their birthdates as per the English calendar accurately. They only know the broad astrological aspect called "rasi" that can map to many different dates in the year and sometimes months apart. Only when they are forced to submit a form to the school or government - many years later - they reverse engineer some appropriate and most often convenient date. This is not because they want to cheat but because they don't consider the date important. Both my parents have different dates on their school certificates than what they celebrate. It is very common. I leave you with some of these links including one from casemine that shows the numerous instances where this issue comes to the court. In many others people happily coexist with multiple birthdays. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/congress-claims-pm-narendra-modi-has-two-dates-of-birth-asks-him-to-clear-air/articleshow/52067133.cms, https://medium.com/@gskan.sunil/the-annoying-investigation-of-why-i-have-2-birth-dates-9349436f33f, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af55e4b014971141616d Acnaren (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Acnaren, your statement about atheists is noted. There is no need to make oblique references, you can just name me. Know, however, that I am not 'against some of the Hindu beliefs'. I simply do not believe in them. Suggesting that I am antagonistic to religion is as preposterous as suggesting that adults are antagonistic to Santa Claus. And additionally, I am only as 'aggressive' inasmuch as that I am aggressively pro-Wikipedia-policy. Find RSes and the statements go in, stating only what the RSes say - no less, and certainly no more.
That Nithyananda is followed by millions doesn't change a damn thing. Asaram was followed by millions too. That statement is can be countered by the equally irrelevant statement that millions more think of him only as a rapist and swindler. Neither of those viewpoints matter - what matters is what he is better documented as being by RSes. Coming to your points about 'news sources', surely you know that newspapers aren't the only sources allowed? If you have sources like court documents of final judgements, you can add them. About your complaint about 'self-styled', that is only for the claims 'godman' and 'Supreme Pontiff', not for anything else. This is because of the fact that those titles simply don't exist in the same way that actual titles like President of India and the actual Pontifex maximus do.
Crying 'discrimination' isn't going to solve anything. Lack of understanding of Indian culture is not the reason Nithyananda's page has less of his works and more controversies - it is because he is simply a controversial man. I 'pared down' the part about his works because they cited the blog of another godman and, worst of all, Nithyanandapedia.
(As an aside, I agree about your point that SMcCandlish may not know about the two-birthday system, but usually, when a person has one 'real birthday' and one 'official birthday' (like my mum, for instance), they uniformly use only one date in all official documents - Nithyananda has used two.) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 11:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, it is entirely possible for someone to be a legitimate religious leader and also be guilty of crimes or controversial in other ways; it is not an either/or scenario.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI Thank you for the response. You have confirmed every point I made above though that might not been your intention. The only addition I need to make is the title ""Guru Mahasannidhanam" means Supreme Pontiff as per Hinduism and this is the title used by the head of all the "Shaivite Adheenams" including the Madurai Adheenam. Unlike other hierarchical, closed-source religions, the title "Supreme Pontiff" is not exclusive in Hinduism which believes in open-source and many paths.. and nor does someone using the title put everyone else without the title beneath him (or her). Another cultural lesson for those who want one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to break this out into several points, for ease of reading.

  • First off, I know enough about linguistics, and Hindi and other Indo-European languages in particular, to know that "Guru Mahasannidhanam" or "Guru Maha Sannidhanam" (transliterations vary) does not contain any element that corresponds to "Hindu[ism]", so the claim that this means "Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism" is clearly not tenable.
  • The title appears to be particular to the Madurai Adheenam monastery and associated temples, and is taken to mean "Pontiff of the [i.e. Madurai] Adheenam", though it does not literally mean this (sannidhanam is another term for garbhagriha, an inner shrine at such a monastery or temple; used by itself as a proper name, it usually refers to the one in Sabarimala, which is a major pilgrimage site, but that is not the meaning in this case).
  • More to the point here, our article at Madurai Adheenam says that it is (at least as of 2019) headed by the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, Paramacharya (in short-name form), who seems to have a clear successor, Swamigal, being groomed to take over soon. There is an HTML comment in that article that the official website link for Madurai Adheenam was removed because the website has been usurped by Nithyanda "who is in no way related to Madurai Adheenam any more".
  • When Googling around for these terms, I find a huge firehose of promotional material from Nithyananda, his organisations, his social-media operations, and his followers claiming he is already the 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, and that this corresponds to various things (being a specific avatar of a particular deity, etc., etc.). But I find a grand total of zero independent, reliable sources of any kind confirming any of this.
  • What this all tells me is that there is already an active dispute on Wikipedia, across multiple pages, about who is the current Guru Maha Sannidhanam, and whether Nithyananda even has any extant connection to Madurai Adheenam at all. This dispute has not appeared out of editors' minds, but is rooted in observable real-world disputation about Nithyananda, plus his sudden self-declaration and self-promotion as Guru Maha Sannidhanam (no reliable-source confirmation has been found yet that Madurai Adheenam has made such a declaration). These are significant hurdles to cross for this article to make any claims relating to Nithyananda, Madurai Adheenam, and the Guru Maha Sannidhanam title (which does not mean what some people here have been claiming it means, even if Nithyanada legitimately now holds this title). The claims you want to make could in fact all be correct, but no independent reliable sources are present to indicate this. That doesn't mean none exist, but the burden of proof is on you to find and provide them.
  • I will also warn that you are skirting dangerously close to WP:No legal threats. When you start bandying about claims that Wikipedia is "legally wrong", you need to be able to prove that – with reliable documentary evidence, not your opinion or your attempts at reasoning and explanation. And to do so without appearing to be making or even hinting at any legal threats or claims against Wikipedia or any of it editors. Otherwise, any administrator will simply permanently block you. If you or Nithyananda or one of his organizations have an actual legal claim to press with regard to Wikipedia or any other WMF project, then do so via attorney communications to Wikimedia Foundation's legal department. WP has a zero-tolerance policy with regard to legal-threat posturing as an attempt to intimidate editors or control content. (When it comes to legitimate legal concerns, it's not that WMF doesn't care; rather, they cannot be resolved except through proper legal channels, and venting on projects' talk pages is not a proper legal channel.)
  • Birth dates: "Only when they are forced to submit a form to the school or government", yes, and both birth dates provided by Nithyanada were in such an official capacity, so my point still stands. And the same point could be made a multitude of other ways; there are many other cases of this person producing self-contradictory claims. Regardless, in any case in which the sources are telling us that part of the controversy around a biography subject is their credibility, WP:ABOUTSELF would never be held to be applicable in the first place.
  • If you think you are going to out-argue me and everyone else here, think again. You cannot argue Wikipedia into capituation. And no one is obligated to satisfy you. There is no rhetorical means at your disposal to get around the core content policies. Your approach so far has been to try "wiki-lawyering" your way into "gaming the system", and this will not work. Provide actually reliable sources, that have no connection to Nithyananda, that support your claims, or they will not be integrated into this article.
  • If you have specific concerns about specific Indian (or other) news sources, you can raise them, with independent documentary evidence backing your concerns, at WP:RSN (reliable sources noticeboard). A generalized claim that all of the media in India are corrupt is not going to fly, since we routinely cite The Hindu (after previous determination that it is generally reliable) and other major news publishers in India, for all pertinent topics, and there is no consensus here that these sources are unreliable as a class, based on the available evidence. Sources we do conclude are unreliable get blacklisted at WP:RSP (and some are in India). If you are certain a particular Indian source belongs on that blacklist, follow the {{rfc|prop}} instructions at the top of WP:RSN.
  • Relatedly, you cannot simultaneously maintain that all Indian news media are corrupt and unreliable, but that one or another of them in particular is reliable after all in support of a claim you agree with (yet, in reverse, that the same source is unreliable for another point which you dispute). This is doubly self-contradictory.
  • Disclaimer: I have (several years ago) held an instant-messaging "call" with an official representative from one of Nithyananda's organisations, both to hear out their concerns about the content in this page, and to attempt to explain Wikipedia policy and process to them. I've gone to some lengths to remove unsourced or poorly sourced claims that seemed to be character assassination, while also removing claims of paranormal powers, etc. I am not hostile in any way to this page having precisely neutral coverage, within our policies like WP:DUE (though my attention toward editing this page has declined markedly since 2019). However, I don't see that anything was learned from this communication. It appears to me that Nithyananda or one of his spokespeople has directed followers to "invade" Wikipedia and try to spin this article in a certain direction, without regard to our sourcing and neutrality policies. The only result will be (already has been) that this page gets put under increasing protection levels so that it cannot be edited by "throw-away" accounts, and to attract additional watchlisting by skeptical editors, including some who have already identified some of the sources being used for Nithyananda's accomplishments as unreliable. The net effect is likely that this article will shift further toward the critical viewpoint, because this is where the bulk of the sources are pointing. Cf. Streisand effect.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I used the world "legally" in the sense of "in the opinion of the courts" and not as veiled threat against wikipedia or its editors as you have felt it to be. Acnaren (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture / Trivia

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Usage of the word 'Guru' and 'Godman'

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nithyananda was coronated as the pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam, who are addressed as Guru Maha sannidhanam. The word is not new, and being used since at-least a 1000 years. This newspaper article for example refers to the pontiff of Dharmapuram Aadheenam as Guru Maha sannidhanam. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Tiruchirapalli/gurumaha-sannidhanam-of-dharmapuram-adheenam-passes-away/article30166119.ece The address to the pontiff as "Guru Mahasannidhanam" is not limited to Dharmapuram but also as we see in this link, https://www.guruhospitals.com/news-events even the 292 Madurai Aadheenam Pontiff is addressed by "Guru Mahasannidhanam". Nithyananda was coronated as the 293rd pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam and there was a case which challenged that appointment, and then subsequently that order was overturned in courts. So long story made short, the position may in dispute, but he still has not been removed from the office of the pontiff. Unless we have some court documents (covered in media) to showcase this which I might not be aware of. On the contrary there are supreme court of India order which says once appointed a pontiff cannot be removed, which gives credibility to the rationale to contest the title, even if removed. To quote,

The Supreme Court of India in its judgement to Civil Appeal No. 1677 of 1969, Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal v. Sri La Sri His Holiness Kasivasi Arulnandithambiran Swamigal, dated 19 Oct 1973, observed that the nomination of a junior Gurumahasannidanam could not be freely revoked by the senior Gurumahasannidhanam when the Madras High Court stated, “The fact of a person being legally nominated as junior, having a peculiar relationship with the senior is status, and the capacity to succeed to the head is the incident of that status. The status, when created by a nomination, cannot be withdrawn or cancelled at the mere will of the parties. The law must determine the condition and circumstances under which it can be terminated. Merely because the status originated from the act of a senior head in making the nomination, it would not follow that the senior head can put an end to it by another act … Even if it is assumed that the position of a junior head is not a status as known to law, we think that the relationship created by the nomination is one which cannot be put an end to by the head at his sweet will and pleasure.

Leaving that aside, this Wikipage also lists some media links, both the Wikipedia page and the media links use the word "Guru Maha Sannidhanam" or "Sannidhanam" (which is just a shorter version). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmapuram_Adheenam

The word Guru Maha Sannidhanam is the common way of addressing in the court, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117955506/ Sri Sivagnana Balaiya Swamigal, **Guru Maha Sannidhanam**, 20th Madathipathi, Mailam Bommapura Aadhinam and also followed by some sections of media https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/dec/05/dharmapuram-aadheenam-passes-away-at-93-leaders-condole-demise-2071742.html


Comparatively, the word Godman is a creation of a section of Indian media which uses this word to negatively stereotype Hindu gurus with defamatory adjectives none of which seem to meet Wikipedia's WP:BLP or good faith values. The word Godman is not used in formal language such as the courts. It is used purely in colloquial and defamatory tone. This is a well understood fact and cited in the wikipedia article "Godman" also. There have been lawsuits challenging the usage of the word godman, etc. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112277185/

There are good number of edits which always want to remove factual descriptions like Guru or Guru Maha sannidhanam in favor of sensationalist media narratives such as Godman .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&type=revision&diff=1028837751&oldid=1028661322

I am not sure of the balance of freedom of speech versus WP:BLP argument here. The fact that a negative stereotype by media ("Godman") is not just used formally but as a matter of fact, is like calling somebody dark-skinned or black (or by other much more offensive words), but refusing to see the person as a human first. I find it quiet a racist remark. This would not be done to Pope for example. Despite several sexual allegations against the Christian clergy if not the Supreme Pontiff of Vatican (somewhat closer to the actual official title of the Pope) directly, the Pope will never be addressed by the Indian media as a Godman, because Christian community has well protected their rights unlike the Hindu community which is an international minority. Further more it is extremely disproportionate argument (biased). Let us see the facts. Nithyananda has been addressed as a mystic by Jackie Chan a famous figure, during the screening of his movie the Myth. https://californianewswire.com/media-invited-jackie-chan-movie-premiere-june-26-at-arclight-cinemas-in-la/ does this out weigh a few media channels in India choosing to address Nithyananda as Godman? Or the fact that Nithyananda has two honorary doctorates ( https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/law-and-order/nithyananda-awarded-doctorate-degree-from-university-in-belize.html ) to his name so for example the words Doctor can be prefixed to his name instead of the words Godman? The High Commission of Mauritius in personal capacity has addressed Nithyananda as his guru, https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/fact-check-is-amit-shah-touching-feet-swami-nithyananda-1626737-2019-12-09 does that out weigh a section of Indian media wanting to emphasize the usage of the word "Godman"? The fact that 100 year old Mind body soul Watkins magazine https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/watkins-spiritual-100-list-2012 has mentioned Nithyananda as one of the top 100 spiritual leaders is lesser than a section of Indian media choosing to emphasize the usage of the word "Godman"? Or some bollywood actor address him as cool-dude https://www.filmibeat.com/bollywood/features/2009/vivek-oberoi-guru-171209.html . The keenness on the usage of the word Godman, is equivalent if not worse than to spoil this article with captions like "cool-dude", "mystic", "doctor".


Therefore I would flag the above edit as a WP:BLP matter as that is how I see it, however I do request that edits made with contrary views are put with at-least one line summary here in the talk page or in the article before submitting the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:330C:1DCC:3D31:947A:F741:781B (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Teachings and Philosophy section

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone wants to improve the 'Teachings and philosophy' section could suggest me the changes and I'll add them to the article. Please don't add extraordinary claims and don't forget to cite the sources. We could use his own writings as suggested by one senior editor here P.S. While I was looking for new sources, I found some articles on https://www.newspapers.com/ we could use them to improve the article in the future.  Eevee01(talk) 16:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID paper in United Nations

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This wiki article mentions, the following -->

On 19 April 2021, in a Presidential Mandate, citing COVID-19 cases across the world banned travelers from India, Brazil, European Union and Malaysia to island nation Kailaasa The news articles quoted have content such as - "Twitter users were left in splits after reading the "executive order". Users retweeted the statement with laughing emojis.

etc.

That is misleading, it makes it appear that the subject did something irresponsible during the time of COVID.

If the above seems note worthy, so should the fact that the subject submitted a report to the united nations on ways to deal with COVID and it was accepted and published (as it must have been found of some credit).

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IntOrder/Multilateralism/AdiShaiviteMinorityTradition.pdf also refer - https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IntOrder/Pages/cfi-covid19-multilateralism.aspx and also optinally refer https://gov.shrikailasa.org/briefings-statements/kailasas-recommendations-on-covid-19-to-be-presented-at-united-nations/

Therefore I urge the above is also covered in this wikipedia article in interest of neutral coverage, and not inclined towards the negative media coverage.

106.206.70.153 (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

106.206.70.153 Is this news reported by any independent news outlet? I can't use the 3rd link(gov.shrikailasa) because it is Self-published. Therefore it is not a Reliable Source. Also the other websites says nothing about "Kailasa" as a nation it uses the term ASMT(Adi Shaivite Minority Tradition). Eevee01(talk) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Need non-English sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm looking for non-English sources on Nithyananda and his work. I am trying to expand the Early life section of this article. Eevee01(talk) 10:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Add the content removed illegally by Eevee01 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&diff=1038877851

He is Nithyananda supporter or devotee. Strong Gold (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Strong Gold Please message me on my talk page if you have any problem with my edits. Eevee01(talk) 14:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The content you are talking about was originally added by me. I later removed it because I was not sure if I translated it correctly or not. Eevee01(talk) 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong Gold (talk) is a worker from Dravidar Kazhagam or Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam who have been vandalizing the page since March 2010. The day when they released the morphed video there was a huge spike in the number of edits in this page. The edit history of this page can be checked. There is nobody else in the entire planet who have shown so much interest in the morphed word. There is court case pending against the blackmailers in Chennai, they have a pattern of vandalizing the page. Also note, the misinformation that is being actively promoted in wikipedia by these trollers, is not just merely prejudicing human rights and due process rights of Nithyananda, but also of the actress Ranjitha. This is precisely what was reported to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, CEDAW and UN SR Promotion and Protection of Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression .

(1) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/disinformation/2-Civil-society-organisations/Nithyanandeshwara-Hindu-Temple.pdf (2) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/SR/Femicide/2021-submissions/CSOs/india-kailash-union.pdf (3) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/DGD24June2021/51.docx

Infact wikimedia foundation also made a submission to SR Promotion and Protection of Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression - https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/disinformation/2-Civil-society-organisations/Wikimedia-Foundation.pdf
In all report/complaint they submitted, they repeated that the video is morphed, forensic evidences, court orders, etc. Reiterating how the video was used to blackmail Ranjitha, defame her and several other women and nun conspiring to force them to suicide. The disciples and nuns of Nithyananda have written several reports to several organization but in vain. Wikipedia is no different and all editorial processes and rules which are meant to protect biography of living person from cyber bullying is used for the single purpose to reiterate the popular hate narrative, stereotyping, marginalization, and of hate. The very tone with which name calling is done in the talk page shows that people are very much invested in the content. Atleast these vested actors should openly acknowledge and reveal their conflict of interest. I fail to see what ideology motivates these people to harass nuns, it is especially worrying for the fact the effect it has had on the children in terms of police harassing them and showing them morphed clips and the courts taking cognizance of the same but later dropping the case as it was against the state. All female monastic orders will disappear in few years like this. I feel quiet sad to even talk like this. Wikipedia editors are so cruel to pick upon disciples of Nithyananda, 4-5 together come and corner people suspected to be Hindus or disciples of Nithyananda, but any troller comes and does whatever they feel, every single senior editor keep quiet and allows those edits to happen with their active "passive support". I feel so ashamed to even say this. These people do not care about women rights, children rights, and rights of persecuted communities. I do not understand why they hate us so much. They do not understand the impact this misinformation has. Based on the morphed video a rape case was filed against Nithyananda and there was nobody mentioned as a victim of rape! How can there be a rape without a victim. Refer - "Medical examination of the accused in a case of rape is mandatory under Section 53 (a) of CrPC. When he (Nithyananda) was arrested, this examination could not be conducted as there was no victim then." https://www.deccanherald.com/content/429841/potency-test-legal-nonsense-expert.html ; based on a rape case where there is not any person affected (who got raped? Air) they said the character of Nithyananda is not good and he should be removed as the 293rd pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam (already all links and court evidences given). The judge who overtuned this illegal removal of Nithayananda, and upheld as per law that he indeed was 293rd pontiff was transferred to Manipur HC ( M. V. Muralidaran , https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Transfer%20order%20of%20Justice%20M%20V%20Muralidaran%20Judge%20%20of%20Madras%20HC%20%20as%20a%20Judge%20of%20Manipur%20HC%20(05.03.2019).pdf ). With the cover of all the hate propaganda, several women and nuns of Nithyananda organization were raped. They filed cases in police (all this is cited in the UN report), the police refused to act. There is video evidence of rape of nuns, with their clothes torn, and they crying. None of this is published in politically owned India media, that is why the organization is approaching international organization and pursuing refugee in other countries. Several of them have migrated out of Tamil Nadu and India, but you cannot move thousands of people. The rights of these people are responsibility of wikipedia editors also. I rest the matter. I think I should refrain from even the talk page. Let the karma (cosmic justice) fall upon all - remember life has no hypocrisy.

103.105.227.34 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Kidnap of nuns and beating of nuns by mob

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following edit is being made from a Shaivite devotee of Nithyananda in this talk page for recording kidnap, and human rights violations of a age female nun, from the Nithyananda order of monks by DK/DMK elements. There is evidence to it, in media, the Sun TV (politically owned by the DMK, a channel owned by the cousin of the DMK family). The current government in State of Tamil Nadu is headed by the DMK. Sun TV and other affiliated channels have openly circulated hate inciting posts where they have cruelly mentioned how they have bet disciples, especially nun of the Nithyananda order. The gory details are being omitted. Here is the link of one such video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xtUvAmiXbc , the following is being circulated by DK/DMK media as we speak, "Village people bet and chased Nithyananda's female sannyasis. Next to Rasipuram, there is a place called Ayampalayam. Village people from Ayampalayam chased away two Nithyananda sannyasis (people)." Despite three reports to the UN, and 10 years of fighting in various courts in India, there is no justice for monks, nuns and children of schools of Nithyananda. The international media has so far repeated the news of state owned media of India, and politically owned media houses, which is why blatantly politically media channels are celebrating beating of female monks in open. Does this not speak of pathetic situation of law and order, and basic sense of humanity? I am afraid, this situation is no different from mob lynching of Hindu monks in Palghar, where an aged 80 year old Hindu monk was beaten to death. This note is left for the moderators and admins of the page to be vigilant of the topic and do what they feel is right. I have no intention or interest in Wikipedia, it's editors, it's policies, but I am definitely ashamed that probably a few of us need to die so that some humanity or empathy is invoked in some people who are openly supporting the hate speech and marginalization of the community by parroting the media hate narrative as an official biography. Without remorse, a matter of fact is Wikipedia, it's editors, volunteers, have as a matter of collective integrity created hostile environment for women and children in India by their discriminatory practises and personal biases. I hope I am proven wrong by some senior editor who imposes severe sanctions on this page, by voicing down the people whom they suspect of even supporting Nithyananda. But I am sure this same group of editors will silently support the people who wanted to kill Nithyananda, and now are trying to kill if not are actively beating and advertising in the media. If there is cosmic karma (justice), every single editor who has cherished enmity, hatred, prejudice, with Nithyananda and his monks, nuns, will have a share of that. If there is no cosmic karma (justice), nor there is a any country law, then let us not shed tears if something like this happens to one of us tomorrow, or our family, because we humans have only upheld such criminality in name of protecting some abstract principles which were always meant to do good, not marginalize vulnerable people. 103.105.227.34 (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

He is rape accused. 2409:4072:6E82:657C:6731:B624:2376:1BB2 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I want to ask if any of the admins who would usually ask practising Hindu and Nithyananda disciples of conflict of interest, would ask why suddenly as DK/DMK has kidnapped a nun, edits in the page are again actively being solicited from anonymous accounts? When the page already dehumanizes the subject based on false accusation of rape by mentioning it right in the first 2-3 sentences, what more do these anonymous accounts want? This is a false allegation, the documents such as medical potency reports have proven innocence of Nithyananda. He is an internationally protected refugee from persecution and has asylum because of terrorist elements in India. Because of these sustained false allegations of rape, a campaign of normalization has prevailed in India, under which the nuns of Nithyananda have been multiple times kidnapped and raped with impunity. This issue has been raised again and again. Whereas there is disproportionate emphasis on just labelling Nithyananda as a villian, because this allows the justification of the attacks against his nuns, monks and children of his monastic order. This is not an isolated incidence. Ananda Marg was similarly persecuted in 1970s, and a few monks and nuns of the order were burnt alive. They never received any justice from any court of law. The leader of Ananda Marg fled India and continued his spiritual mission till the end of his life. In no other country where any false allegations made against Ananda Marg, but in India, politically affiliated terrorists and militants made several false allegations on the order, which made it possible to kill them with impunity. The fate of the Nithyananda order is the same, because of this disinformation campaign. It is therefore not a matter of a simple slander on reputation by calling someone rapist, because of this simple 6 letter word, media has made persecution of thousands of Hindu monks possible with complete impunity. I hope this matter is understood with maturity and care for persecuted people, and individual editors become willing to drop their hatred for the monastic order of Nithyananda. I mention hate, because even in edit history the descriptions are worded thus - "Nithyananda group", what kind of marginalization is this? Just by a mere mention of the name of the subject, it is presumed that the entire group of his followers have something wrong with them, so it is ok to look at them negatively and presume them in a negative way. This attitude has to change. The disciples, monks, nuns, children of Nithyananda's order are a persecuted group, and every editor owes them basic empathy and recognizing their basic human rights of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise each person is an accomplice in this cultural genocide. 103.105.227.34 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  Not done: Per WP:BLPCRIME. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021 (2)

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Nithyananda's female disciples are chased from a village by village people. Recent news

https://zeenews.india.com/tamil/tamil-nadu/people-beat-and-chased-away-disciples-of-nithiyananda-near-rasipuram-369953 2409:4072:6E82:657C:CE12:1488:5DA:B586 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note the English URL - "people beat" and there are anonymous accounts who are persistently wanting to add such hateful news. The monk who was beaten has been raped earlier also. She had a case registered FIR 587/15, Tiruvarur Town PS, 27/Oct/2015, criminal case CC37/2015, in vain, she wrote to the UN in vain. Such glorified beating of nuns is not new in Tamil Nadu. Such beating of nun disciples of Nithyananda was also glorified by the DMK media in this video https://youtube.com/watch?v=eRIYu2xguG8 , further one of the militants who attacked also commented in the video with the profile man Parthasarathy J (The Rock) (comment id : UgzPVRI09bZwNd_IaUF4AaABAg ), "I have hit one nithyanandha people when they try to encourage near pallavaram. I request everyone to hit them nicely. Even don't show courtesy for women in nithyanandha ashram. They are the most dangerous" Because such attacks are not condemned by anyone they happen with impunity. Because of one-video and one false allegations so many Hindu nuns and monks have lost their human rights. Also note the temple from which this news (youtube video link given above), there is a high court order that the temple belongs to the ASMT community of Nithyananda, but the state government has refused to implement the state order, and militants have tried to kill the monks. With no other options they were forced to flee. Please note the organization has enough funds to make such temples, but they are trying their best to protect Hindu heritage and are attacked for these reasons. It is a ideological, cultural, and physical genocide which is happening unabated in Tamil Nadu especially against minority Hindu traditions. 103.105.227.34 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  Not done: WP:COATRACK/WP:NOTNEWS. Whether some of this person's disciples were chased from a village by people from said village is neither A) relevant to this person nor B) relevant to an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

293rd Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

As of 25 August 2021, the following has been added in this wikipedia page

On 17 August 2021, 4 days after the demise of the 292nd pontiff of Madhurai Aadeenam, Nithyananda declared that he had assumed charge as the 293rd pontiff, but his claim was denied by the Madurai Aadheenam

The media has wrongfully described it as a mere claim, and refused to cover the facts which make it not a mere claim but a valid assertion. This might not meet the standards of Wikipedia, however the legal basis for the claim as the 293rd pontiff it is being recorded in this Wikipedia talk page for record sake :


---point#1--- The media is making the wrong news based on a judgement dated May 2018 given by Justice Mahadevan, who is known for his bias against Nithyananda. The judge has even said that he will destroy all ashrams (monastery) of Nithyananda. Ref: “I will see that your ashram is vanished”, Justice Mahadevan, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/madras-hc-warns-of-issuing-arrest-warrant-against-self-styled-godman-nithyananda/articleshow/62692301.cms

---point#2--- However, the High court of Madras, on a later date, 10 July 2018 observed in point#44 - "Hence this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner’s appointment is irrevocable and hence he [ referring to Nithyananda ] is the Junior Pontiff of the Mutt.”, order to CRP.(PD)(MD) 818 of 2018 and CMP(MD) 3630 of 2018 Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The order should be available online if searched, here is a printed and scanned copy https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/Order_to_Crp.(PD)(MD)_818-of-2018_and_CMP(MD)_3630-of-2018_Madurai_Bench_Madras_High_Court_dated_10-July-2018-(CRP_OS_1000).pdf

---point#3--- As per the schedule recorded by the Tamil Nadu government numbered as R5822.60 dated 29 November 1960, “Right from the time of Thirugnanasambandar it is in practice that when the elder Pandara Sannadhi attains siddhi the junior Pandara Sannadhi assumes the responsibility of all the administration of the mutt.” Therefore after the 292nd Pontiff’s demise, the appointed Junior pontiff – Nithyananda – who had already received all the initiations such as Visheda Deeksha, Mantra Kaashayam, Nirvana Deeksha, and the Acharaya Abhishekam – assumed charge as the 293rd Pontiff.

---point#4--- The politically owned media, however, made sure that only Justice Mahadevan’s illegal orders are reported in the media, and it was made to appear that the 293rd Gurumahasannidhanam - Nithyananda's assertion as the 293rd pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam was made to appear as illegitimate.

103.105.227.34 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In the Source cited it is reported that Nithyananda was formally announced as the junior pontiff by Arunagirinatha Swamigal on April 27, 2012, removed from the post on December 19, 2012. Also see this news article from 2016 which stated that Nithyandanda was anointed successor to the Madurai Adheenam in 2012. However, he was subsequently removed from the position. The other two links provided by you are not reliable sources.
P.S. please reply, this talk page is here to have a healthy discussion. And don't forget to declare your conflict of interest. Eevee01(talk) 19:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Conflict of interest: I am a Shaivite Hindu, a follower of Nithyananda. I am pained seeing the attacks on Hindu traditions, and persecuted Hindu gurus, that is surely a conflict of interest I have no interest in contesting. I sincerely apologize upfront as I am genuinely pained by the general projection done to Hindu gurus, and I apologize as the tone of my next statements and statements in general might be harsh, and I am not feeling I should moderate them as I feel even that is an important element of this communication. I hope people with a much cooler and un-invested/neutral mind, will not take it personally and be able to see the facts without the possibly harsh language. I hope that helps in terms of required transparency. I am not interesting in editing this article for the above cited reasons, and that is why I have made a point to limit to the talk page and I hope that this can be at-least recognized as a basic expression of UDHR-19. It is quiet painful the way the politically owned mainstream media has been manipulating since more than a decade, and I have nothing to say more than documenting what I know as facts. I am not interested in making an account either for the fear of getting banned by implementation of editing policies which I find as de facto discriminatory, biased, prejudiced, and vindictive. At the same time I respect the de-jure principles and in that spirit I am documenting facts with the hope that at-least editors with good faith will be cognizant of both sides views and probably judge better based on available references and public documentation. That said I feel this page itself should not be present in Wikipedia if the attacks on the character of the subject - Nithyananda - cannot be moderated. The page is in far better position true, but I am nobody to say that. I am just going to limit the further rant (apologies for the above rant) with facts:

The Supreme Court of India in its judgement to Civil Appeal No. 1677 of 1969, Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal v. Sri La Sri His Holiness Kasivasi Arulnandithambiran Swamigal, dated 19 Oct 1973, interpreted the Indian Succession Act, 1925 section 2(h) and observed that the nomination of the successor pontiff is irrevocable as, "A nomination need not partake of the character of a will in the matter of its revocability, merely because the power of nomination is exercised by a will. In other words, the nature or character of a nomination does not depend upon the type of document under which the power is exercised. If a nomination is otherwise irrevocable except for good cause, it does not become revocable without good cause, merely because the Power is exercised by a will.".

That being said, with the above Supreme Court of India citation it is clear the appointment as the 293rd cannot be revoked even by 292nd, secondly, the 292 was under immense pressure, there were 8 vexatious litigations were filed by third parties pressuring the courts to invalidate the appointment. Courts did not accept any of these. Then these vested interested started harassing the 292nd pontiff and made attempts to kill him when he was with Nithyananda - refer - ( youtu(dot)be/mhPVmOR7HTY ) . List of false cases and status as far as known:

(1) 18 June 2012 - Two vested interest groups headed by M. Manisavagam and Sami Thiagarajan, who were illegally occupying the Madurai Aadheenam property, filed a petition (OS 83/2012) requesting annulment of appointment of Nithyananda as the 293rd pontiff. Initially Nithyananda was restrained from entering the Madurai Aadheenam temple-monastery complex, but later this was seen as a violation of fundamental human right of Nithyananda. The case was dismissed but as late as 2016. This was the fifth false case on this subject. And this is what is referred to in the media article quoted in this wikipedia article as of now, which says Nithyananda can enter only as a devotee. Which is does not give the complete picture because this case was dismissed and the appointment of Nithyananda as the 293rd pontiff was upheld by the court.

(2) 1 August 2012 - Nellai Kannan, filed a petition requesting approval to file a suit removing Nithyananda as the 293rd Pontiff. The approval for the lawsuit was denied by the court and the vexatious suit was dismissed. This was the third false case on the same subject.

(3) 18 October 2012- Tamil Nadu government filed a case - OS 1000/2012, against the senior 292nd Pontiff of Madurai, and challenging the appointment of Nithyananda. Nithyananda was purposely not even made a respondent, in the suite filed by the government. How was he supposed to protect his basic rights to protect his monastery. This is how he was removed by deceit.

(4) 22 May 2012 - A case was filed by Krishnamurti, a lawyer, to make Madurai Adheenam a government property (takeover of Hindu religious property by a supposedly secular state). He claimed that not only Nithyananda but also the 292nd pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam should be expelled from the Aadheenam. This was the fourth false case on this subject.

(5) April 2013 - Temple land encroachers elements Muthu and Mariselvan filed a suit on Nithyananda claiming Nithyananda appointment as the 293rd Pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam is not valid, in the sub-court of Madurai District. High Court rejected their vexatious litigation saying, “The suit is not valid and meaningless and not maintainable as per law.” This was the sixth false case on the same subject.

In the light of the above, wikipedia editors should not take sides and report facts. It is wrong to say that Madurai Aadheenam said Nithyananda is not the 293rd, as 292 is dead, then this can be said only by 293 which is Nithyananda, because they are trustees. Other than this if this statement is comming it is from the government. It is a factual manipulation by media. And I am putting this on record.
103.105.227.34 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
You have to disclose it on the top of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DISCLOSE. I have removed the statement for now, until the discussion is over. Right now I'm busy will have the discussion later sorry for the inconvenience. Eevee01(talk) 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources for the statements you are making? The statement which I added to the article is supported by many reliable sources. I don't think we could reach any WP:CONSENSUS, if there are no reliable sources available for your claims.
If you want to paraphrase or suggest any changes to the statement which I added to the article, you are most welcome to do that. If not me then someone else will eventually add it to the article. Following is what I suggest the statement should contain, you could use any reliable source you could found online.
1- Fact that Nithyananda was appointed as the 293rd pontiff. Source: Times of India
2- He was later removed from the post. Source: The Hindu
3- After the demise of 292nd pontiff, Nithyananda declared that he had assumed charge as the 293rd pontiff but his claim was denied by the Madurai Aadheenam. Sources: The Hindu, Deccan Herald, News Indian Express
I think controversy and allegations section would be more appropriate to add this. Eevee01(talk) 09:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
He was later removed from the post.
Suggested phrasing of the above, "The 292 pontiff declared that he unilaterally removed Nithyananda from the office as the 293rd pontiff. Nithyananda contested this in the courts as a violation of his human rights and due process rights. The matter is still in courts."
Basically the entire thing rest on the human right - "innocent until unless proven guilty". This is upheld by Supreme Court of India as a human right. https://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/presumption-of-innocence-is-a-human-right-sc_749190.html . It is an international standard and article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights also says the same. However the argument made in courts against Nithyananda is that, there are many allegations (still unproven by the way, and not even related to Madurai in anyway) made against his character therefore he should be removed as the 293rd pontiff. This is a circular logic, and is used to crushes the basic human rights of Nithyananda - UN UDHR-11 - "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Since it is a matter of human right of the subject I can merely suggest it be considered by the editors. Based on this human rights angle and basic rights angle, and the supreme court of india citation - 1974 AIR 199, 1974 SCR (2) 74, the matter has been in the courts for around 9 years. I feel a careful reading of the media articles will make it clear that the matter is in court and has not been concluded.
Even if no newspaper/article cite the above clearly it should be self-evident. Because if the courts had concluded, there wouldn't be any grounds for so much fear that the monastery was locked and sealed immediate after the demise of 292 with so much fear that Nithyananda might access the monastery documents etc. Obviously no matter how much they claim that his assertion as the 293 is invalid, they see there is some merit to it, otherwise why are they so scared I don't understand. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2021/aug/13/madurai-aadheenam-rooms-sealed-after-fugitive-nithyananda-stakes-claim-as-successor-2344180.html
To define they, these are those people from other monasteries, particularly Dharamapuram Aadheenam, who have said, “we will not relent until Nithyananda is removed”, refer: (i) 14 May 2012, Dinamani, Dharmapuri edition, page 5, Meetpukulu (ii) 14 May 2012, Dinakaran, Vellore edition, page 12, Adhenathil Paraparappu (iii) 14 May 2012, Dina mathi, Chennai edition, Pathattam (iv) 14 May 2012, Dina malar, Vellore edition, page 6, Matra Adhenam (v) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/Mutt-heads-join-hands-against-Nithyananda/articleshow/13128312.cms ; In a similar way it might be cited in some local newspaper in Tamil language where it will be explained that the matter is in courts still. But then to find it is one big task, and then finding an online copy of it is literally impossible, and then just based on date and scanned copies of such a newspaper can anyone even support this statement in wikipedia? I don't know. I don't think so. But I am nevertheless recording it here, with the hope that someone else might find a public reference for what is being discussed. Mainly because several media outlets in Tamil Nadu are politically owned by parties which have been antagonist to Nithyananda, neutral coverage is extremely difficult to find, and I guess other states and countries are not experts in this domain to write anything about this, they just repeat the news whatever comes out of Tamil Nadu. I would request to wait atleast 6 months before adding this point as it was already there in this article if no good quality sources can be provided, if anybody else adds in the meantime, nothing can be done I guess. Why I mention 6 months, is because I am anticipating that it will take that much time for this to settle and things to move in the courts. 103.105.227.34 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
After the demise of 292nd pontiff, Nithyananda declared that he had assumed charge as the 293rd pontiff but his claim was denied by the Madurai Aadheenam.
This line is a piece of misinformation by the politically owned media - denied by the Madurai Aadheenam. At the max, they can say, the executive appointed by the state HR&CE department made this statement. For the HR&CE executive to be able to make this statement, that He as the trustee of Madurai Aadheenam, and therefore representative of the Madurai Aadheenam has said this, the government of Tamil Nadu has to accept that they have done a state take over of the Hindu temples and monasteries, something which the government cannot accepts - it is unconstitutional. In courts the government always says that they are merely managing secular affairs, not religious affair and that too on a temporary basis. A statement by an HR&CE government employee cannot be considered a word by Madurai Aadheenam, it is ridiculous and manipulative. I would say at the maximum it could be phrased as following - "After the demise of 292nd pontiff, Nithyananda declared that he had assumed charge as the 293rd pontiff but his claim was denied by the head of the Dharamapuram Aadheenam and the state authorities that were temporarily managing the Madurai Aadheenam." 103.105.227.34 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I think controversy and allegations section would be more appropriate to add this.
I have nothing to say regarding that. As I said, sometimes I feel this page itself should be removed. But yes definitely others can differ, I am merely recording my answer to the above to make it clear, in case User:Eevee01 was anticipating my opinion on this matter, to avoid taking decisions unilaterally and to avoid possible conflict in future. I feel I cannot comment on this matter. I feel controversies is an already over inflated section for a biography of a living person, an opinion shared by many others and recorded in the talk page. 103.105.227.34 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Let other experienced editors add this controversy I am not adding it. P.S. You could enable Discussion tools to communicate more easily on talk pages. Eevee01(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:Nithyananda/Archive_5#Noticeboards for previous dispute about this alleged title; it gets into other previous disputes, e.g. at Madurai Adheenam, about who the actual 293rd pontiff of it is, and statements by that organisation that Nithyananda is not associated with them but usurped one or more of their websites.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

In 2012, Nithyananda was coronated by 292nd pontiff himself so previously he must have some association with Madurai Adheenam. I've looked at the HTML comment but I couldn't find any official statement from Madurai Adheenam about Nithyananda usurping there website. Eevee01(talk) 12:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Persecution

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A UN https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/DGDRightsIndigenousWomenAndGirls.aspx report talks about the persecution of Nithyananda and his ardents. Link to report on that page at "Kailash Union" here and covers most of the controversial sections in the article. And list additional instances of State Terrorism.

The report states the following: 1. Nithyananda and his community is called Adi Shaivite Minority Tradition (ASMT) 2. "Image morphing deep fake technology to publicly shame women and girls". 3. In November 2019 - ("Alleged abduction" in the article) is an incident of state terrorism. 4. "the Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism (SPH), Jagatguru Mahasannidhanam (JGM), His Divine Holiness (HDH) Bhagavan Sri Nithyananda Paramashivam"

Nithyananda and his people are persecuted according to the UN report. To editor SMcCandlish: Requesting your help with UN report. Ik.Kaluha (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

UN report implicates media and Indian state as persecutors. Validates the earlier claims by pro-nithyananda group about persecution. With the UN report the current article on wiki seems defamatory. This makes the earlier media document and report on UN petition a credible source.
As far as I can tell, this isn't a "UN report". It seems to be a document produced by the Nithyananda group itself, and presented at a UN conference. I don't see any indication of what the response to the document was by the wider community. CodeTalker (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the coverage by chinatimes (one of the largest dailies in Taiwan) https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20210710000024-260408
It is published by committee post review. And additionally there is past coverage of their engagement with UN for persecution. This is the only public document yet. There are 2 views here - persecution and criminal. the current article has taken a view that he is a criminal and ignored the persecution. This is unfair to the living person. 24.46.110.41 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
On 18 July 2021, another such report was published by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, as part of inputs received for the UN report on femicide. Can this be added and where it will be better placed on the page? Does anybody have objection in posting it? Ref https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/SRWomen/Pages/CFI-taking-stock-femicide.aspx | Report: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/SR/Femicide/2021-submissions/CSOs/india-kailash-union.pdf 103.197.112.62 (talk)

It is well understood by Human Rights experts in the matter of persecution of religious communities that the media in the country of persecution is mostly silent if not complicit in the persecution against the persecuted community. For eg, there is no reporting of persecution of religions in Chinese media, no reporting of persecution of Scientology in Russia by Russian media etc. If you go by Chinese media, then all Tibetan Buddhists are criminals. How could one expect Indian media to report persecution of SPH or ASMT community by India? It is common knowledge that Indian media is compromised, the presence of the ASMT community outside of India is minimal and they don't have any political voice. WP:BLP policy to use only Indian media as a reliable source is victimizing the victim and gaslighting the ASMT community. This stance of the wiki community is no different than using only Chinese media to build an article on Tibetan Buddhists before the global community took interest. Even in the case of the ASMT community and SPH, Indian media reported them approaching the UN. Why would ASMT and SPH approach the UN for protection if they have a global community and press giving them a voice? Wiki community cannot continue its approach of "just following orders" in spite of publicly available court documents and reviewed UN publications which amply beyond any reasonable doubt show persecution of the SPH and ASMT community. How long will the wiki community continue to deny persecution of SPH and genocide of the ASMT community on a mere technicality? WP:BLP is neither written in stone nor is it immutable sacred commandments, it is written by the wiki community based on their best understanding that that time. Did the policy factor in unreported persecution of indigenous and native traditions? If the policy is preventing from getting to the truth then is the policy work defending. Just following orders is not good enough. If the community is unable or unwilling to look at the truth on a mere arbitrary technicality then it should not propagate falsehood further at least. 104.173.150.107 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Media beaten into silence: Investigative journalists probing into persecution of SPH were harassed by the government. https://www.ndtv.com/cities/sex-swami-probe-on-cctv-journalist-alleges-harassment-417885. "Home Minister Dr VS Acharya, on the other hand, admitted that the department is planning to book some journalists, including Raghavendra. 'As a few of them have grown so impish, we have to put brakes on them,' he said. The state Home Minister fired salvos against Raghavendra for his attacks on the system as a journalist." This has scared any journalist from covering SPH objectively. This is typical of religious persecution (like Russia and China - media control by state and non-state actors).

Document prepared by the ASMT community about their persecution here. I like to plead with neutral editors and admins to go through it and understand it. It has lots of references as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience claim is defamatory

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Only the scientific community trained in the relevant areas are allowed to declare something as pseudo-scientific? Claims and counterclaims within the scientific community is the method. Journalists have no authority to declare something as unscientific or pseudo-scientific. Hence the use of the word pseudo-science is defamatory against the living person and violates WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

SPH has made an assertion that he could disprove the validity of E=MC2. It is up to the scientific community to weigh in. Journalists with no background in scientific training cannot come to a conclusion without any primary source. In all the citations there is no such reference to it, but ad hominem statements.

Narendra Nayak is not a scientist but an atheist activist hand has no relevance to the subject, he has not studied the subject but made a statement. He is not a neutral party in this matter due to his visible bias. This is not applicable according to WP:BLP hence has to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @24.46.110.41: Mr. Nayak challenged Nithyananda's claim of "third eye" reading not his claim of disproving Einstein's Mass–energy Equivalence. In the source cited it is clearly mentioned. As far as I know his organization is known for debunking pseudoscientific claims and increase awareness about such scams among the common masses.
Please read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE to know more about Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience. Eevee01(talk) 13:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
In the current sentence structure, both third eye and E=MC2 claims are mixed up. Since the subject is a religious figure and his job is to teach the content of the religious texts of his tradition. Religious scriptural assertions have to separate out from scientific claims. It would be a false representation of what SPH has said in a religious context vs a scientific context. Since politically owned Indian media is a party to disinformation campaigns against the SPH relationship, extra care has to be taken in figuring out the context - religious vs scientific. How Sathya Sai Baba, Jesus, or Sadhguru's views have been represented i.e. religious context is probably a good standard. Bundling his claims into the "scientific" bucket is the wrong representation when he has clarified on numerous occasions that his domain is the scriptures of his traditions.
A third eye is a scientific claim. If that guy didn't want scientists to debunk him, he should not have invaded their territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Nayak is an activist (not a scientist) and has not critiqued the data or study self-published by Nithyananda either (EEG, VEP, or FMRI data). Bringing in Nayak merely on his "challenge" is improper unless he has provided how the studies published by SPH are incorrect. As per the WP policy, the scientific community has to reject SPH's claim (directly or indirectly) since he has published the study. Nayak is non entity in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes, he is a scientist (a biochemist), but it does not matter if he is one. We have a reliable source mentioning him, he is known for debunking exactly this type of bullshit, and that is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
You are a biased person. It is better if you state your bias upfront. Nayak did not debunk him, only challenged him. Nayak is a militant aethist and has made similar claims against gainst all religious leaders including Satya Sai Baba, Sadguru, Sri Sri Ravishankar etc. He is not a credible authority on this matter due to his apparent bias. If there is a proper study by Nayak it can be included, not mere statements and challenges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Aw, cute ad-hominems. Non-scientists who turn out to be scientists (you did not even say oops), "biased" people and "militant" atheists. (Other than militant Christians, Muslims and Hindus, "militant" atheists are not armed and do not kill people who disagree with them.) How dare they meddle in the affairs of all those quick-to-anger wizards!
Maybe you should stop trying to attack the people you disagree with and start using real reasoning. Additionally to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE, please read WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB.
Nobody said he had debunked Nithyananda, and a reliable source is a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
By your own admission, Nayak has not debunked SPH. Hence has no relevance in this article. See definition of Militant Aethist it refers to "New Atheists" popularized by Richard Dawkins among others who advocate attacking religion by non-violent means.
It's not an "admission". Relevance is not a function of debunking. You have nothing but weak sauce, and you should drop the stick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The term "pseudoscientific" is not defamatory. If you feel otherwise, there's a specific address to which to report defamation; see WP:LIBEL. I predict with 100% certainty you will be told this does not qualify as defamation. (I'm not a lawyer but I worked with a legal team for a decade, who specialized in applicability of expression-related law to digital media, so I do know what I'm talking about.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
At minimum, the religious claim needs to be separated out. For eg Jesus walking on water is a long-established religious claim. Media sources have not made any distinction between religious and scientific claims. But in the primary material, such distinctions are clear where he cites or comments on religious literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nithyananda/Archive_5&oldid=1064024884"