Jump to content

Talk:Nithyananda/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Scientific publications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Absolutely off topic. This is the not the "Effects of meditation and worship" article. See WP:COATRACK and WP:NOT#FORUM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Various medical studies were conducted effect of the programs on the participants and published. Akhilkodali (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Consciousness states

The elevated "state" of consciousness of the person made him a subject of various studies. The workshops conducted by him were "interesting" from a scientific standpoint due to the altered state.

The studies cannot be viewed independently but cumulatively. Perhaps, a more interested or engaged reviewer should study them before it gets dismissed. I repeat again its the not effects on some workshop. But the effect of the "biology" of the subject himself.

  1. EEG BRAINWAVES AND HEART RATE VARIABILITY (HRV) ANALYSIS OF BIOENERGETIC HEALERS The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2004 — Journal Article <redacted copyvio>
  2. http://lifeblissfoundation.org/founder_science_spirituality.asp
  3. Antiaging Effects of an Intensive Mind and Body Therapeutic Program through Enhancement of Telomerase Activity and Adult Stem Cell Counts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27125139
  4. An Intensive Mind and Body Therapeutic Program Leads to Alteration in Gene Expression Critical to Aging Process in Peripheral Blood Stem Cells file.scirp.org/Html/2-2420156_56810.htm
  5. Mystic Phenomena Scientific Data https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5lUd4gvroY1UkpNOHZiMnZucTA/view
  6. The complete "picture" of the studies is captured in the book. But I am not sure if how it will be viewed reviewers since other sources don't seem to be available any longer. But none of the studies published have ever been contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti-aging effects

  1. An Intensive Mind and Body Therapeutic Program Leads to Alteration in Gene Expression Critical to Aging Process in Peripheral Blood Stem Cells [s 1]
  2. Antiaging Effects of an Intensive Mind and Body Therapeutic Program through Enhancement of Telomerase Activity and Adult Stem Cell Counts. [s 2]

Akhilkodali (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ file.scirp.org/Html/2-2420156_56810.htm
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27125139

All those claims would require WP:MEDRS (the above are considered primary sources, some unreliable and on topics that are considered pseudoscience for Wikipedia). We can add a mention of such claims if another encyclopedia or large paper discusses them (by summarizing those that discuss it in reliable sources). —PaleoNeonate – 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Priyabrata11's attempted changes

A WP:SPA associated with Nithyananda's organisation reverted some sourced information on the basis that the sources aren't good enough. The relevant part of the edit summary was "The rape charges and a woman's false claims were inserted into the page by certain news sources without citing a copy of court's verdict or a copy of first information report from police (FIR)." There may be a valid point in there somewhere. While the material has been restored, since there are some sources, the unreliability of Indian mass-media could be addressed by chasing down some primary sources from courts and agencies. This will likely require someone who knows the ins and outs of doing Indian legal research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Some primary sources from NithyanandaTruth.org (or whatever) were added then reverted [1]. Some of these might be usable for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes, as to what the Nithyananda's or his organisation's responses and statements are. I've not looked over them in detail; it's possible they provide some legal cite information that might be useful for tracking down actual case paperwork.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Priyabrata11: You have tried to make a remove reliably sourced information. You have been reverted by two different editors besides SMcCandlish, and yet your edit responses consist of personal attacks and failures to assume good faith from specifically SMcCandlish.

Before you make any further changes to the article, you need to explain why:

  • The sources cited for the rape trial section or suspicious death section are not reliable (which requires more than insinuations and attacks on other people, you need to present independent sources that show why those sources are wrong or else show how those sources fail our guidelines).
  • Why material you're trying to add is due weight, proving the independents of the sources you're citing. Court documents are WP:PRIMARY sources, which we do not use.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And I see that he's been blocked for 24 hours. @Priyabrata11: when you return, you need to address these issues before making any further edits or you will just be blocked again. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

We actually can use primary sources for various things, and having some for these cases would be of value, since the Indian press are full of nonsense too much of the time (i.e. are unreliable primary sources themselves), and there's virtually no secondary coverage outside India. Anyway, it's a routine practice to cite actual case documents on legal matters at WP, and we even have templates for it. We just can't do any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis based on them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The rape trial is ongoing. It's verdict has yet to be decided. Details about it can be found here: https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v5.1/ (may have to refresh several times) using the CRN: KARN010013312014

The next court date is June 28th. They're waiting for one of the accused to show up from the U.S. to start the trial.

Image Screenshots of what you'll see on the court site: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

I believe the primary source of the Indian media articles I linked to comes from the ecourts.gov.in website and the 75-page Interim Order (court document) about this case which can be found here: https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v5.1/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=/orders/2014/206100000862014_2.pdf&caseno=S.C./86/2014&cCode=1&appFlag=&normal_v=1 (it seems as if you have to first go to the ecourts.gov site above and put in the CRN to access the pdf file within the page, it can't be linked to independently)

The court document goes over what Nithyananda and others are alleged to have done in detail. It's in English so it's fairly easy to understand.

Here it is again if the link doesn't load: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nodpnl_iVwHLJfXqEXo1mHn_sqHHLLkY/view Ryanmeadows (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The services.ecourts.gov.in link above produces only "Orders is not uploaded for case number S.C./86/2014".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
While Priyabrata11 got indeffed on WP:CIR grounds, the ANI thread [10] seems (if I'm reading it correctly) to indicate some skepticism about whether everything presently appearing in the "Controversies" section is WP:DUE. Dlohcierekim may be able to elaborate. Honestly, I don't spend enough time working on WP:BLPs that involve legal claims (pro or con) to be certain. I've removed some crap like "his co-conspirators" and "suspicious death" and "rose to infamy", but that's basic WP:NPOV cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The death section

Moved to #A death at the ashram
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This thread is obsolete. Police primary sourcing about 2014 claims is irrelevant when secondary sources tell us the court has opened a 2018 inquest about police handling of the case and evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The death section is very misleading. Police and the medical examiner have ruled out any foul. "A death at the ashram The Karnataka High Court started questioning the Bidadi police in May of 2018 and asked them to file an affidavit regarding the investigation of the death of Sangeetha Arjunan (alias Ma Nithya Turiyateetananda), a 24-year-old Nithyananda disciple who died under mysterious circumstances in December of 2014 at Nithyananda's ashram. The victim's mother Jansi Rani believes foul play and torture resulted in the death of her daughter, not a heart attack as Nithyananda and his devotees claim.[22][23][24][25]"

The references cited from thenewsminute amount to mere allegation The allegation is not backed up by any court document According to police and medical examiners report there was no foul play. Since police closed the investigation ther was no court case. http://nithyanandatruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/sangeetha-case-closure-book.pdf There is no active investigation either. Keeping this section in the absence of any un-ambiguous primary sources (allegation or request for investigations don't meet the standard) would not meet the burden of proof. Akhilkodali (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Akhilkodali: New posts go at the bottom of the thread, not in the middle of someone else's post. I've fixed that. Next, I'm just going to quote Ian.thompson, above, though with some reformatting: Before you make any further changes to the article, you need to explain why:
  • The sources cited for the rape trial section or suspicious death section are not reliable (which requires more than insinuations and attacks on other people, you need to present independent sources that show why those sources are wrong or else show how those sources fail our guidelines).
  • Why material you're trying to add is due weight, proving the independence of the sources you're citing. Court documents are WP:PRIMARY sources

We can use court documents, cautiously, to fill in some missing details, but they are not particularly reliable. They're basically some lawyers' claims, or some judge's opinion about what lawyers have said, or whatever. Even when they're a final ruling after a jury trial, they often require expert interpretation to understand their exact meaning, and we get that from secondary reliable sources, only.

What can probably be done here is look over the court documents, if we have access to them directly, and see if they unmistakably and directly contradict the earlier news material. News is often also primary sourcing (too close to the events it is reporting on, and depending on a journalist's non-expert assumptions about what they've been told by various interviewees, or just making up their own mind what the truth is, plus often injecting bombastic exaggerations). And the Indian press are mostly notorious for printing nonsense, often nonsense they've been paid to print. So, for an article like this, we do have a responsibility to apply due diligence in assessing these claims.

However, just yelling that everything in the press is all lies and that some court documents we don't have will prove some unassailable truth is not doing Wikipedia article research, it's just non-neutral pushing of a particular point of view, without anything anyone here can verify. In a circumstance like that, if all we have is press coverage, we're probably going to use the press coverage.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: thanks for fixing my edit. I was trying to draw the anomaly on reporting on this death issue.
  1. http://nithyanandatruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/sangeetha-case-closure-book.pdf has both police closure report and medical examiner report
  2. The authenticity of the report can be easily verified by anyone using the provisions of Right to Information Act (similar to FoIA) for a nominal fee (should be less than $2 for the whole report)
  3. The closure report rules out any foul play.
  4. Since there is no case to be made, a case was never made. Hence no court case documents (which would have been available online)
  5. As you would have seen with other content only the scandalous content gets reported. Hence, the closure report never got reported.
  6. Wouldn't having this section where incomplete media report is the basis be tantamount to misleading at the least ?

Is there a reason this section can continue to remain ? Akhilkodali (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but someone below is already objecting that scans being hosted at NithyanadaTruth.org aren't reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Should the death section continue to remain given there is no interest is verifying the police and medical examiners report using RightToInformation Act (or anyother means) ? Incomplete data in this case is prejudicial to the living person. I suggest this subsection be moved to talk out of the main and put back once it's validated completely.

Akhilkodali (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest raising the question at WP:BLPN. We've already deleted an entire controversy section (and that action may have gone too far), so this is starting to look like whitewashing. The well-reported fact that someone died on-premises is an actual matter of public controversy about Nithyananda and his organization, regardless what the cause of death was. Stuff like "police and medical examiners report" are primary sourcing and not what Wikipedia would rely on anyway, so their absence from this article is completely meaningless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Posting this here as per User:SMcCandlish's suggestion. The death section is prejudicial to the living person. As a death occurred (it was reported by media) and police and medical examiner's ruled out any foul play (media didnot report or contest, complete silence on content). The closure report submitted by authorities have been share by the organization. That report can be easily verified by using RightToInformation. It's a case of primary source and no secondary source. The secondary source coverage is incomplete. And the way it is worded indicates a bias against the person. Looking at the history of reporting of media in various portions of this page is it fair to leave this section ? Akhilkodali (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Try making some specific wording-change suggestions. It may be true that the press coverage is incomplete right now; that's just a real-world fact we have to work within. It's not prejudicial to cover the fact that a controversy erupted, that a claim of wrongdoing was made, and that it was denied. The controversy remains unresolved, for Wikipedia purpose, until reliable sources secondary sources tell us otherwise (probably high-quality newspapers). I know this kind of thing can be frustrating, but it is how it is. If you think some of the wording is non-neutral, try to address that some "before and after" revision ideas.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images from nithyanandatruth.org

I'm not sure if linking to these as sources is appropriate. —PaleoNeonate – 21:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: addressed below, thanks. Moreover, nithyanandatruth.org is considered an unreliable and primary source for Wikipedia, we don't even know if those alleged documents were forged. India news outlets themselves are not examplary and should also be used with caution. —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP Violation

I just deleted an edit to the article that named an alleged rape victim and uploaded what was claimed to their medical records!!! Even worse, the medical records were hosted on an self-published website, run by activists with clear interest/POV in the matter. It shuldn't need to be said: but this is an obvious and gross violation of wikipedia's WP:BLP policy.

Please STOP posting scans of primary documents that we have no way to verify. Rely on the best available secondary sources. And even then be conservative on what to include in the article (one source nameing an alleged rape victim does not mean we have to). And yes, this applies to both charges against the subject and the counter-charges against the alleged victim. Abecedare (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just deleted two more of those NithanandaTruth.org scans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I had half a mind to revdel the last 30-40 edits to the talkpage, given the interspersed BLP violations, which are impossible to "undo". But for now I have just deleted some obvious links/comments (and, related responses) that caught my eye. By the way, if anyone objects to my admitted heavy hand, they are welcome to get a second opinion or take the matter to WP:ANI. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm should I report the domain for blacklisting? —PaleoNeonate – 22:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Domain reported, will see. —PaleoNeonate – 22:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Great idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Another example: I have deleted this section, which contained not one reliable independent source. I realize that such mass deletion (in place of tagging with [citation needed] etc; the practice I would use if BLP was not involved) likely breaks the continuity of the article. I apologize for that and request that if possible, editors more familiar with the subject and sources, rewrite it using secondary sources, if they are available. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Argh. I edit conflicted with you and on of those rare instances where WP (or Chrome, or something) gets confused and loses the data happened. I lost about 45 minutes of article cleanup. Don't have the heart or the patience to do it again. The birth date should be given as a 1977–1978 range, infobox should not use a specific one but give approximate age, give more specific birthplace, move birth name to early life section with parent's names (doesn't seem controversial), fix up the mangled citations and tag or remove the self-published ones, yadda yadda.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that, SMcCandlish. I know from experience how frustrating that is! Abecedare (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, no, you did nothing wrong! It's just verdammt software. I've re-instituted most of the cleanup now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Genuine question: haven't mainstream Indian newspapers (The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times etc) covered the controversies discussed in the article? Why are we relying on more iffy sources like Newsminute, DNA India etc (they are ok for quotidian happenings, but hardly high quality sources)? Abecedare (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not. We've been looking. India is chock-full of gurus. This one's notable because of his presence in the West (he really does have a lot of followers and ashrams/temples, owing to his use of social media), but in India he doesn't seem particularly to attract much attention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking for non-English sources

Moved to Talk:Swami Nithyananda § Non-English

Folks I am interested party in this matter. You are not looking at the content in other Indian languages especially Hindi and Tamil. English is not the most popular language for media in India. Non-english news-content is atleast 10 times bigger. If there is counter-claim in the scans with all the information that can be verified independently by FoIA should that be ignored ? And continue to rely on media as a primary source ? It may be best if this is blocked till more suitable standards are evolved. FYI any party that is editing this section will be "deeply" interested on either side. The political and religious issues have to be taken into account before one proceed. Akhilkodali (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well most parties that historically have edited this this page seem to have a point of view to push, but I and several others don't give a damn, other than that our coverage be neutral and we've asked the noticeboards for biographies of living people and India-related topics to weigh in here, as well as the wikiprojects on India and Hinduism, so there should be an influx of neutrally-minded editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, an Indian topics noticeboard was notified so more neutral editors may perhaps help. SMcCandlish and I who are neither pro nor against are a start, but we don't read Tamil. The other unfortunate reality is that we are much less likely to spend time working on an article we care little about. But knowing the problem, we can make an effort and try in the next few days or weeks. We should likely start with source searching and selection first... —PaleoNeonate – 00:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

News source quality

SMcCandlish How does one determine "high" quality newspaper ? For example DNAIndia and TimesOfIndia are comparable when newsminute is at the bottom of barrel. Yet newsminute has been used extensively as a source and DNAIndia ignored. This standard is "prejudicial" towards a living person for a casual "observer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Akhilkodali: The most recent sources I see on the topic are regarding the Karnataka High Court questioning the adequacy of the police investigation [11] [12]. If there are events subsequent to that that have been covered by reliable secondary sources, we can include them in the article too. Two side comments:
  • This is a fine example of why we don't base our content on primary sources such as police reports, medical/court documents etc; unlike the courts in this case, we have neither the expertise nor the remit to judge their content and adequacy.
  • I believe the section would read better if it described the events in chronological order as, "Someone died in 2014... ashram said cause was... parents said cause was...police investigated... court questioned investigation". Also could someone fill in the date field for the citations; makes it easier to check how up-to-date their information is likely to be.
Btw, I disagree with Akhilkodali's characterization of sources ("DNAIndia and TimesOfIndia are comparable when newsminute is at the bottom of barrel") but since that is not immediately relevant to any suggested edit, we need not debate that. Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
See thread below; I've totally overhauled this section. I did not go with a purely chronological order, to avoid burying the lead. I went with a small inverted pyramid instead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Abecedare I respectfully disagree, earlier a DNAIndia ref was rejected about herpes. The dna article was sourced from ANI (equivalent to reuters in India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
DNAIndia is a weak source. The ultimate publisher Zee Entertainment Enterprises (via subsidiary Diligent Media Corporation, a joint venture with Dainik Bhaskar Group) isn't trivial, but is an overall "infotainment" company who put out everything from daily newspapers to movie channels. This infotainement site in particular isn't a real news organization but a topical blog of click bait. And it's clearly written by just-hired-up amateurs, as it's full of ridiculous journalese that real reporters know to avoid. I wouldn't call it fake news but it's definitely tertiary pseudo-news, just regurgitations of other publishers' reportage, re-cast in a weird and bombastic style.

If we have the real-news story that the DNAIndia material is cribbing from, then we have no need of DNAIndia. The Times of India is one of India's better-regarded newspapers from what I can tell. Asian News International (ANI) is not "equivalent to Reuters", but one many newswires in India. It does seem reputable enough to use. NewsMinute is a smaller publication, but we have no indication they are "at the bottom of the barrel"; that's precisely what someone would say, without evidence, if they were trying to get us to avoid using a source that said something they didn't like. The material I've read in them so far is normal everyday journalism, and has nothing in common with the material cited in this article to crazy local papers earlier this year, veering between sensationalized scandal-mongering without any facts, and utterly credulous reporting of miracles as real and "verified". NewsMinute is just news, and its reports have generally been consistent with other real-not-fake-news sources cited so far. That said, if we removed NewsMinute from the article and anything sourced only to it, we would lose nearly no content because it has multiple sources now. Its value at this point is in retaining it as an additional source to confirm agreement between news sources. But I'm skeptical DNAIndia should be retained for any such purpose. It's not serious reportage and isn't really secondary.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Article protection?

Resolved
 – Article now has fairly long-term WP:Semi-protection which is likely sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

this article should be protected as there are potentially defaming comments here and there. Unless proved and punished by court, Indian law says, no one is guilty (171.49.208.206 (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

This isn't a article published on the wikipedia page. Only those who know about the Talk page can see it. What defaming comments are you talking about? Every different age mentioned I've cited with a link that corresponds to it. Ryanmeadows (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't a reply to you, just someone not introducing a new section heading (fixed). This article does fairly frequently see potentially defamatory edits (from both pro- and con-Nithyananda sides), as I've noted above, and it has been protected before.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

A related change was the addition of pseudoscientific. While I'm familiar with and support WP:PSCI, the way the sentence is formulated seems strange to me. The claims are of paranormal phenomena so paranormal may suit there. Another sentence could however still specify that various concepts are considered pseudoscience. Some sources also describe the shows as fraud... —PaleoNeonate – 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, adding "pseudo-scientific" to a sentence that already include "paranormal" is probably redundant. Would be better to save the word for another sentence or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are some sources related to "mid brain activation" which would be pseudoscientific, but I think none of these mention Nithyananda: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. —PaleoNeonate – 20:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hints of one, that went in the swami's favor, in May: [23]. It's a shite translation, but the gist appears to be that he claims to be the titular head of some religious body or site named the Madurai Adheenam or Adheenam of Madurai (of 2,500 years antiquity, apparently), against another claimant, Arunagirinadhar. Someone named Jegathalapradhapan from the adheenam filed suit to bar Nithyananda from the premises, while the latter filed for a police escort onto them. A lower court issued a restraining order against Nithyananda entering the adheenam (date unknown, presumably early 2018). A two-judge appellate court overruled this in May 2018, and Nithyananda may now enter the premises "as a devotee". This seems not to address or resolve the claim and counter-claim as to title/leadership. And the case was still ongoing, with further action expected by the Madurai Adheenam and/or the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in June 2018. I have not looked for additional details, just ran across this while building the source-searching results above. Various case particulars are probably trivial, but the underlying dispute likely is not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In my sources list I marked those which were about this topic with "pontiff". Some which appeared good on the subject: [24], [25], [26], [27]. —PaleoNeonate – 15:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nithyananda won this case recently 108.35.55.52 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Asserting that isn't useful. Need secondary sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No information of his achievements, goals, purposes, his biography

This article appears to me if not the most biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

This man have achieved so man good things, yet nothing of his history, biography, achievements, 3 Guinness world records, nothing of his teachings, have been mentioned on this page.

As the main point are court cases, which are just one by one defeated in courts, so please see documents as published here: http://nithyanandatruth.org/

And that section shall not be named "Controversies" as when something have been proven in court is not a controversy any more, call it "False accusations".

Rcdrun (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Then please provide independent, reliable sources about his achievements, history, records, teachings, etc. This is not a blog; we do not publish opinion pieces or original research. We only write about what we have sources for (and self-published material from his own websites doesn't count as independent, reliable sources). I'm not sure you're clear on the meaning of "controversy" in this context. It's something that happens in the public media. There is in fact plenty of it about this particular person. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is picking either side in the controversy, or declaring one side to be correct. It's our "job" to describe why this person is notable (i.e., in the public eye, in ways that encyclopedia readers will want to understand). That includes why newspapers and people at court have made civil and criminal accusations against him, and why he's filed counter claims against various individuals and organizations. That's pretty much the very definition of "controversy" in this sense. It may be unfortunate that most of the sourcing we can find so far about Nithyananda is about these legal back-and-forths, but that is what we're finding. Whether some of the accusations (on either side) are false is something that we're going to have to find out from independent reliable sources. Even then, we'd say that "According to [sources here]" the claim is false (or true). Wikipedia doesn't itself declare things to be true/false; Wikipedia is not omniscient. It's also not a not a means of promotion, nor is it a place to bash someone. The editors watching this page are trying hard to remove both unsourced criticism and unsourced aggrandizement, evenly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rcdrun: No condescension is intended; I didn't realize you've been editing since 2016, and am used to new faces on this page being very, very new editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have registered with http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com where I found following two records under the search "Nythiananda":

Largest rope yoga lesson

The largest rope yoga lesson is of 272 participants and was organised by H.H. Sri Nithyananda Swami (India) and Nithyananda University (USA) in Bengaluru, India, on 30 September 2017. Rope yoga involves completing postures on a rope suspended from the ceiling. It was performed by disciples of Swami Nithyananda at their ashram outside Bengaluru, India.

and the other one:

Largest mallkhamba (pole yoga) lesson

The largest mallakhamba lesson is of 263 participants and was achieved by H.H. Sri Nithyananda Swami (India) and Nithyananda University (USA) at Bengaluru, India, on 3 October 2017. Mallakhamba is a traditional Indian exercise form where yoga postures are done on a vertical wooden pole.

which is also reflected on this page: http://www.nithyananda.org/news/hh-paramahamsa-nithyananda-sets-guinness-world-records%C2%AE-record#gsc.tab=0

and screenshot from my computer you can see here: https://rcdrun.com/images/depository/nithyananda/2018-06-26-11:01:22.png Rcdrun (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not earth-shaking, but at least it's not scandal-related material. I think the other records were set by one or another of his organizations; not sure which.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rcdrun: can you please fill out a citation template for each of the Guinness pages? The format would be:
{{Cite web |title=Title on the web page at the site |work=[[GuinnessWorldRecords.com]] |publisher=[[Jim Pattison Group]] |date=2018 [or a more specific date if there's a posting date on the page] |access-date=27 June 2018 |url-access=registration |url=THE URL GOES HERE }}
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This may also help: Wikipedia:Advanced source searching#Indian newspapers searches.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I also added an advanced search box near the top of this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add this to the list of records: MOST PEOPLE DEMONSTRATE READING BLINDFOLDED USING POWERS OF THIRD EYE AWAKENING AT A SINGLE VENUE http://indiabookofrecords.in/most-people-reading-blindfolded-together-at-single-venue/ Akhilkodali (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems very strange. If they're blindfolded, it likely means that they're reciting rather than reading. I would have less trouble adding a mention about such claims, supported by a news article or such that does not claim that the powers are real... I remember seeing this indiabookofrecords site before, but interestingly we don't seem to have a Wikipedia article about it; possibly that it lacks enough notability to serve as a source? —PaleoNeonate – 20:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Paleo it is "reading" not "reciting" maybe this will help https://satyavijayi.com/supernatural-powers-demonstration-world-record-created-hindu-gurukulam-kids-studying-strict-veda-agama-system/ Akhilkodali (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Related article which describes the entire event https://satyavijayi.com/tamil-nadu-lost-mauritius-gained-swami-nithyananda-gurukul-university/ and it also mentions about an MOU being signed with Govt of Maurities and Nithyananda Gurukul and University. Akhilkodali (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That is all very strange too. I see claims of countries in the dark ages (kali yuga) etc, very politico-religious... Hmm I just searched the WP:RSN archives in case I could find previous discussions. I found only this with a short mention of India Book of Records, nothing so far in relation to Satya Vijayi. Some sources such as [28] from The Wire call it fake news. We can however mention claims that are popular enough to be reported by more common sources, surely. —PaleoNeonate – 23:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Satyavijayi.com, Newkaranataka.com are clearly non-RS (can seek confirmation at WP:RSN if anyone desires). As for "Blindfold reading": it is a WP:REDFLAG claim, that would need much, much more solid source and greater depth and bredth of coverage than any of the book of records, to merit discussion. Abecedare (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate You clearly missed the cultural reference of Kali Yuga (Kali Yuga is not about dark ages it a reference both good and bad being within us instead of outside and education and healthcare not being free where as in Satya Yuga reference to healthcare and education being free). Is is possible you are applying your cultural sensitivities here? Wire certainly does appear to a more western sensibility where as sathyavani to a more non-western sensibility. Please read the article again and context in which Satya Yuga and Kali Yuga were used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It was a bit confusing to follow the talk page history because of more revision-deletions. I'm not sure about western sensibilties, but where I live (I'm not American), healthcare is of quality, free (in a way, we pay taxes to cover it) and non-dogmatic (no need to join a particular group, no pseudoscientific medicine, etc). However this diverges into editor-opinions and situation and we shouldn't be discussing editors but the quality of sources and article content... Wikipedia is secular and does have academic bias WP:ABIAS. Since you are requesting my opinion, while I know there are shows taking place, these are also easy to produce without supernatural means, and easy to have vanity/mills report about. I understand that the context in India is very different to mine, especially in rural areas, and that similarly to how it was here long ago, pastoralists could be considered heros offering humanitarian services. Which brings the possibility that some sources may describe interesting things like the opening of hospitals, schools, etc. If we find this in reliable sources that is worthy of inclusion. We must go by reliable sources not editor beliefs. Reliable sources should not be the mouthpiece of a particular group, there are criteria like editorial oversight, errata when necessary, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Positive claims

If one wades through the "hagiography" as the reverter put it, at least a few things in this are probably verifiable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

By which I mean it would be nice to include some them, for balance and for actual focus on the article subject instead of scandal, if they were properly sourced. I'm not sure why the Nithyanada-connected people who edit this page will not listen to all the above advice and find and properly cite reliable sources about the subject (they don't even have to be in English), instead of continuing to edit-war to insert and remove outlandish promotional and attacking claims pertaining to various scandal stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Please add a new Section "Awards and recognitions"

INR 5 Postage stamp released on Swami Nithyananda by Indian Postal Department [w 1] Akhilkodali (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

88 in the list of 100 top spiritually influentially person by Watkins 2012 [w 2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.freepressjournal.in/simhastha-kumbh-2016/postage-stamp-released-on-swami-nityananda/837494
  2. ^ https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/watkins-spiritual-100-list-2012

Philosophy

There used to be a "Philosophy" section in various prior versions of the article, e.g. here. Something like that, reduced to facts and pruned of spiritual claims made in Wikipedia's own voice, will be important to include, being a typical feature of all such articles. Per WP:ABOUTSELF policy, much of that can actually legitimately be sourced from Nithyananda's own materials, in basic paraphrasing and summarizing terms and without dwelling on jargon-laden details, or veering into advocacy or promises, or other controversial material. (I.e., the most reliable source for what Nithyananda subjectively believes is Nithyananda.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2018

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

The result of the move request was: move the page at this time, per the discussion below and evidence presented in subsequent sections that shows widespread use of the shorter form. Dekimasuよ! 05:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda → Nithyananda – Here was a previous requested move: Talk:Swami Nithyananda/Archive 1#Requested move which resulted in the current title. Swami is a title, while Nithyananda is currently a redirect pointing to this article (and thus free, not needing disambiguation). If this article was renamed to Nithyananda, a redirection page Swami Nithyananda would be preserved and point at this article. Muktananda is another similar example. Please see WP:!VOTE on how to support/oppose (vote count does not matter, only policy/style based arguments). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 06:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Mainstream Indian newspaper sources in English

There seems to be quite a lot of material out there that we're not drawing on for this article. I think much of it could be used to replace weaker sources, and also to restore the subsection on the (apparently bogus, but frequently newsworthy in India) "sex tape" controversy. If it's clear that the tape was fake, then this would be good to have back in the article for balance, since the subject in general seems to attract a lot of negative press. The newer material in particular should be scoured for more recent updates, as some of the info discussed throughout this talk page is open-ended assertions about legal cases opened years ago then trailing off without information on their resolution, and sometimes false claims about their resolution.

We also seem to have lost one BBC source that was in there before: Beary, Habib (13 June 2012). "India police quiz guru Nithyananda over assault claims". BBC News. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Satyavani article also records an MOU, Please add the following:

"His Excellency the High Commissioner was there to sign a memorandum of understanding with Paramahamsa Sri Nithyananda Swami's Ashram's two major institutions Nithyananda Gurukul and Nithyananda University. The agreement will lead to the establishment of both these Veda-Agamic Institutions in Mauritius in partnership with the government of the Republic of Mauritius. The agreement was signed on the Guru Poornima on 9th of July 2017."[i 1]Akhilkodali (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

To a reader like me, this says nothing, unfortunately. It's like a marketting sermon. What does it mean exactly and what reliable (not Satya Vijayi) source describes it? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is "there was a ribbon-cutting ceremony" stuff. I.e., Nithyananda's organization has permission to operate in Mauritius. This is just trivial local news. The article already covers the fact that they have buildings in various countries; this is just one of them (or will be).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish The character of this event is different "Gurukul" is a traditional school which operates with a different set of guidelines and purpose than regular K-12s. It is significant that a Govt of a country (represented by its Ambassador) has signed and MOU to operate. Hence the reference of "KaliYuga" and "SatyaYuga". Implication: Accepting a new "form" of schooling. Dismissing as mere Ribbon cutting is mis-representation. Akhilkodali (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I think editors in general are apt to disagree. However, since Nithyananda's organization(s) are not likely to have their own articles (an attempt to create them would likely be merged right back to this article), it's reasonable for something like this to be used as a source in that section for where one of the gurukuls is (and, yes, I know what that is; I was working on the article Gurukula only a week or two ago). The source is useful for the fact of where the school is, not for permission from a country to build one (all such constructions require permission from someone or other; it's implicit in the fact that they exist).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://satyavijayi.com/tamil-nadu-lost-mauritius-gained-swami-nithyananda-gurukul-university/

Non-English

Daily Thanthi is the top Tamil newspapers. It and other national and regional papers in that language may be among the most relevant because of where Nithyananda lives.

Dainik Jagran is the leading or second-leading Hindi-language newspaper (in sales, which may not necessarily equate to reputability – see, e.g., USA Today which has a middling reputation at best, despite having the largest or second-largest circulation in English). Dainik Bhaskar is the second-leading or leading Hindi paper. Amar Ujala is third, Hindustan Dainik fourth, and Rajasthan Patrika fifth. The Patrika papers seem to share a website, so collectively they might all be higher up the totem pole.

Malayala Manorama is the leading Malayalam paper and Mathrubhumi second (published in India). Eenadu is the leading Telugu paper.

I don't actually know any of these languages, so I'm not 100% certain of constructing an accurate searches at these papers' sites (it likely is not enough to use transliteration software to render his name letter-by-letter in the other scripts, as the actual spelling of his name may shift between these languages; e.g. I've already encountered "Nityananda" several times as a transliteration from one or another of these languages into Latin script. Our own various-language Wikipedias provide some of them, but he (oddly) has no article at Hindi Wikipedia. Here's what they seem to be:

  • Tamil: supposedly நித்தியானந்தர், translit. Nithyananda. However, it's possible that w:ta:நித்தியானந்தர் is actually getting his Tamil name incorrect; another rendering is நித்யானந்தா (also translit. Nithyananda), and this produces way more search results.
  • Hindi (and Sanskrit, technically): नित्यानंद, transliterates as Nityanand
  • Malayalam: നിത്യാനന്ദ, translit. Nityananda
  • Indonesian: Nithyananda, as in English
  • Telugu: నిత్యానంద, translit. Nityānanda (which Google Translate somehow thinks means 'QR codes'!)

Search results for these terms (and Latin-script equivalents) are below; some of these include false positives because there are people named Nit[h]yananda and especially Nityanand as a given name:

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have the impression that considering the amount of available English articles in the Times of India, we may not need to rely on non-English sources. —PaleoNeonate – 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone above suggested that various things might not appear except in non-English ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Rather than editwar over it, I'm going to talk-dispute this deletion of multiple citations [33] by Winged Blades of Godric. India West is a reasonable source to use, being a US-based publication and not connected to the subject. Removal of its stories, and the Facebook evidence, makes "regularly hosts cultural events related to Hinduism across the United States" (or "in various US states", or whatever), no longer a properly supported claim, being reduced to a single source mentioning one event in Ohio. Even the Facebook post is sufficient evidence for the non-controversial claim that an event advertised on that platform existed. It's well within the range of basic stuff we can do with primary sources (WP:PSTS), as "there credibly was an event in state X" involves no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, nor any controversy. It's entirely routine to get event-related basic details from primary sources about the event, and only one of these was primary anyway.

In the second block, both India West and India Herald (another US-published, India-focused news site) were removed, leaving only a single source for all claims relating to belief in the supernatural powers that adherents of the subject attribute to Nithyananda and his teachings/philosophy, even though they cannot all be found in the remaining source. These may not be high-quality sources, but they're independent of the subject, and again even primary ones would be permissible, since they're only uncontroversially sourcing claims of belief on the part of the subject's followers (there is no more reliable source for what the followers believe than the followers' own statements, per WP:ABOUTSELF, and news material based on what the followers have said is a close second).

The wrong sourcing standards are being applied to the wrong content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Absent a clearer rationale for their removal, I'll add these back in.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm I have just read the two last restored ones and was surprised that they appear to believe no trick was involved. —PaleoNeonate – 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw that this was removed:

There are also issues of conflicts between his followers and local communities over allegations of lewd remarks and ashrams encroaching on public property.[L 1] At the same time, locals have attacked and vandalised his properties.[L 2]

References

  1. ^ "Discharge petitions filed by Lenin Karuppan and Arathi Rao, the main accused in the conspiracy against Paramahamsa Nithyananda Dismissed".
  2. ^ "Locals attack Chennai ashram of godman Nithyananda alleging encroachment, lewd remarks". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2017-06-25.

There's probably something harvestable from this; e.g. the existence of an alleged conspiracy against Nithyananda, vandalism against his organization's property, etc. This was removed per WP:AVOIDVICTIM but that doesn't actually appear to apply to much of this. The "lewd remarks" bit should go; lots of people say lewd things, and an allegation that someone said something lewd (even a religious person) isn't encyclopedic material. Organized opposition to Nithyananda's organisation certainly is encyclopedically noteworthy, however.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: I constructed a long Google query [34] that weeds out of most of Nithyananda's self-published websites, and it has "real" news in it. Most of it seems to dwell on a controversy from a few years ago, though one or another may cover exoneration from charges. Actual court documents would be useful as high-quality though primary sources. The organisation claims to have recently set two world records (not sure for what; I think it was attendance at a Hindu religious event, or something like that) and to already have Guinness Book of World Records certificates for both, but without publication in the Guinness Book paper or online edition yet, pending further documentation. I don't really know much more about the organization yet. One of their people expressed a wish that the article not exist at all because it's a vandalism and WP:BLP defamation magnet, but the topic actually does appear to be WP:Notable or I would have just taken it to WP:AFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

PPS: Nithyananda's organisation is actually suing some Indian media outlets for defamation; I don't think any of them subject to such suits should be treated as reliable sources in this article, pending case outcomes. I'm not sure which ones they are though, nor how to verify that they are (I don't know a thing about finding Indian court records). I get the impression that many of the papers listed at List of newspapers of India are not in fact reliable publications but basically print what they're paid to. I'm not sure how we're supposed to handle this situation. One of our WP:Systemic bias problems is treating "news" as equivalent across cultures when it isn't. We have a double-edged problem here: India's news appears unusually likely to print scandal while ignoring actual noteworthy stuff (e.g. multiple world records), while also being published in a country that is almost overwhelmingly of the same religion and apt to give unusual credence to claims of the paranormal if they fit the expectations of that faith. Of the news my Google search pulled up, the only one I'm immediately apt to trust is the single BBC News hit, but it's years old and just reporting on the beginning of the controversy that now appears to be resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: I'm told that at least one defamation case (filed by Nithyanada against someone else) has concluded in Nithyanada's favor in the United States, and one or more in India, though I don't presently have any details. This would probably have to be pulled from court records websites; I'm skeptical there's been any press coverage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What I've found of so far:

  • Life Bliss Foundation v. Samaya TV, RSM Broadcasters Private Limited, Ranganath Bharadwaj and AV Kalavathi Bharadwaj (case no. CIVRS 1410615, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. According to Nithyananda's Facebook page, this was a US$5mil judgement in favour of his Life Bliss Foundation against these media companies and journalists for defamatory "fake news". The Facebook stuff says something about "conspiracy", but that seems off; conspiracy is a criminal charge and this was a civil case. Judging from this court page the proper case number is actually RS1410615, RS being the jurisdiction code for Rancho Cucamonga, an "CIV" just indicating it's a civil case. They seem to want money for the case documents ($0.50 per page, $50 max per document), so these might have to be obtained via a FoIA demand to get the documents, and that's more work than I'm willing to put in for this article.
  • There seems to be some connection to Indian and American prosecutions of someone named Vinay K. Bharadwaj, and the use of him as a witness against Nithyananda in one proceeding or another (a case filed in 2010 by one Lenin Karuppan against Nithyanada; I think this may be, or relate to, the stuff the BBC news picked up back then). Bharadwaj was apparently deported from the US and is said to be in prison in India. Tthe vague reference for the Indian legal action is "the Hon'ble Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Mysuru on October 16, 2017". I have no idea how to look up such a thing in Indian legal resources. No details were provided on US case(s) involving Bharadwaj.
  • One case number is CIV RS1013793, presumably also San Bernardino, but I don't know if this is case against Bharadwaj, or one by Bharadwaj against Nithyananda. Someone from Nithyananda's organisation says this resulted in about a half-million-dollar fine or judgement against Bharadwaj for false claims of sexual misconduct. Nithyananda's FB post says Bharadwaj absconded, though also that he was deported, so it's unclear other than that he didn't pay (not like the average Indian emigré has $500K laying around anyway).
  • Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of Columbus against Arathi S. Rao and maybe other parties; case no. 2:13-CV-00526, court unknown, [city of] Delaware, Ohio. Someone from Nithyananda's organisation says this resulted in another approx. half-million-dollar fine or judgement, against Rao, for false claims of sexual assault.
  • A case (title and date unknown) by Nithyananda and/or one of his organisations in "the XI Metropolitan Court, Saidapet Chennai", is said to be still ongoing as of December 2017, and focused on what Nithyananda describes as a "case of extortion, blackmailing, cheating and conspiracy". I have no idea how that's actually described in the legal documents, i.e. what damages or charges are claimed, or whether it's a civil lawsuit brought by Nithyananda, or a criminal prosecution on his behalf; a comment toward the bottom of the 10 December Facebook post suggests the latter.
  • Nithyananda claims "On December 7, 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also gave a landmark judgment coming down heavily on the deliberate suppression of critical evidence against the conspirators Lenin Karuppan, the false rape victim [Arathi Rao] and false witness Vinay Bharadwaj and in favor of HH Paramahamsa Nithyananda." That would seem to be something one could look up. He says that the case also showed that the alleged sexual partner or victim had various STDs during the time of her alleged contact with him while Nithyanada does/did not, that this person recanted her own testimony in 2009, that the dates and locations of alleged incidents are inconsistent, and that Nithyananda isn't capable of sex.

I have no idea at this point what the court documents actually state, or how all of these things fit into a coherent timeline, but there appear to be connections between the cases and the parties in them.

I'm told that http://NithyanandaTruth.org has some of the case document scanned, but I have not gone looking for them. I'm disinclined to do so, since it's a lot of work about a topic I have no interest in other than than our page on it be neutral and not subject to editwarring bouts of vandalism/defamation by haters and shameless promotionalism by the subject's disciples.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Rape trial

Some details about Nithyananda's ongoing rape trial can be found here: https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v6/ using the CRN: KARN010013312014

It says the next court date is June 28th. They're waiting for one of the accused (Reddy) to show up from the United States to start the trial.

————Ryanmeadows (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)————

Here is a link to the 75 page court document about this case: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nodpnl_iVwHLJfXqEXo1mHn_sqHHLLkY/view

————Ryanmeadows (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)————

Next hearing date is July 16th.

From the court site: https://i.imgur.com/XDV8kXC.png

It basically says that Reddy's bailbonds are now forfeited and a separate criminal case is registered against him & his surety (the one responsible for bringing him to court) because he hasn't shown up to court yet. The trial will begin without him.

————Ryanmeadows (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)————

News source about the June 28th hearing: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/rape-case-against-nithyananda-cid-asked-prepare-two-chargesheets-83847

____Ryanmeadows (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)_____

Hearings are over and now the case has moved to the trial stage of "Evidence Criminal". Two of the court witnesses (CW1 & CW2) have been summoned by the court and their accusations/testimony will get to be heard. Next court date is scheduled for August 8th 2018. Summary from the court site: https://i.imgur.com/sGXhdBa.png

_____Ryanmeadows (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)_____

<redacted>

Can thenewsminute be considered a legitimate source? The "history" between nithyananda and DhanyaRajendaran(co-founder and managing editor) is well known locally and starts even before she founded the new portal. For eg: Reported: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/impotency-having-consensual-sex-nithyananda-changes-tune-rape-case-78116 Actual court case: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/handle/123456789/216479 http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/216479/1/CRLRP211-18-16-05-2018.pdf Please look at pages 30, 31, 32. The attorney was making an argument on a very specific aspect of "consent" to rebuke a claim on "fraud" but the media reported that the plea defacto was changed to "consensual". If the reviewers are interested I can report atleast a dozen such comparisons.

Many other papers carried this as-is (with minor edits). Those who are familiar with workings of media and journalists in India will recognize this problem. FYI, Trust in media by Indians is lower than trust in government(yes, I didn't mis-type). Its even lower on journalists. One of the reviewers can post the results of one of such study.

This level of distrust in India on media is not without reason. Hence, urging the reviewers to relook at the standards. And also I want to bring up why DNAIndia is not viable but TimesOfIndia is ? The article on DNAIndia which is in favor of Nithyananda is quoted to have been sourced from ANI and is in line with the arguments in the case documents. If one goes through the litigations in the cases it all boils down to when the evidence by defense be introduced.

https://satyavijayi.com/from-kathua-to-kanchi-how-the-secular-police-prosecution-media-nexus-twists-the-arms-of-the-courts/ This article also has information on "herpes".


Before dismissing the DNA article please compare with the case documents. Event the one posted by me above is enough to give you the understanding. Since, the content is now under discretionary review process, reviewers have no choice but to go through the cases else the result could be arbitrary and damaging to the living person. Akhilkodali (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Earlier I collected various sources from the papers Abecedare mentioned (this included Times of India). I've not sorted them out yet, but they mention no convinction (thus, we should make sure the information is presented with the uncertainty details that are widely reported). I've found a few about the impotency claim (and a few about refusal to undertake the test) and a recent one with the STD claim mention ([35]). I think that we can indeed use Times of India as a source. —PaleoNeonate – 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Another thing I want to point out is the credibility of reporting my Indian media on court proceedings. The problem has become so endemic many judges began to openly criticize media on this. And some have used humor ... for eg TimesOfIndia(TOI) is often called TOIlet paper.

In the recent past courts stopped media from reporting the daily proceedings and statements in court. Using Indian media for understanding ongoing cases is not the best idea due to inherent legal constraints imposed on them.

There have been a lot of instances where judges have in strong words critized court reporters for misrepresenting but never gave any official order as they always protect media freedom. This has been true in almost all court cases of Nithyananda. Hence, just relying on media reporting without reading judgements is a bad idea

  1. This judge is a media darling as he pushed the limits of media freedom, even he was ticked with poor court reporting https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/justice-markandey-katju-clarifies/article2629257.ece
  2. swarajyamag.com/ideas/time-to-take-stock-of-irresponsible-legal-reporting
  3. https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/legal-journalism-the-indian-context
  4. https://cpj.org/2017/05/indias-supreme-court-bans-reporting-judges-stateme.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

some reporting on STD and potency https://www.newskarnataka.com/bangalore/swami-nithyananda-not-just-a-potency-test Akhilkodali (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And old news source, Nithyananda was put in jail without a victim https://www.telegraphindia.com/1120708/jsp/7days/story_15703551.jsp --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilkodali (talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"convicted him" .. how did the reviewers come to that conclusion ? Akhilkodali (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn't happen (neither the conviction, nor anyone concluding that from a review of the sources). Some drive-by editor just inserted it without sources. I've removed it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Found another article backing DnaIndia which was ignored. https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/medical-tests-exonerate-nithyananda-of-rape-charge-114101500643_1.html and also found times article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/CID-submits-potency-test-report-to-court/articleshow/45289335.cms Akhilkodali (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Going by above 2 media reports, information about STDs should be back in the article. Times article backs up Business standard (sourced from ANI) independently.

From today's court hearing: https://i.imgur.com/AUMjvUS.png Next court date is August 16th 2018.

Ryanmeadows (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As of today Accused #1 (Nithyananda) & Accused #3 were issued "non-bailable warrants" for not appearing in court.

You can find details about Nithyananda's ongoing rape trial here: https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v5.1/ using the CRN: KARN010013312014 (scroll down to the latest court date and click the link for details).

Ryanmeadows (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sex tape

In November 2017 a Delhi forensic lab confirmed that it was Nithyananda in the "sex video". Sources:[36][37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

In May of 2010 a Hyderbad forensic lab confirmed that it was Nithyananda in the "sex video." Sources: [43]

In 2010 a Delhi forensic lab confirmed that Ranjitha & Nithyananda were both in the "sex video". Sources: [44]

It seems as if the only ones who're adamant that the video is morphed/doctored is Nithyananda and his devotees.

_____Ryanmeadows (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)_____

@Ryanmeadows the news sources cannot be considered as primary source. Since it CB CID never issued any statement to that effect. The burden of proof has to be backed up by court order. If the forensic lab issued such a statement why would the court order an inquiry on the "tape". If the new sources are taken to be valid then the counter news sources source should be taken to be valid as well.

In a situation where there are sources on both sides, then only the court order becomes a valid primary source.Akhilkodali (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the DNAIndia source (which doesn't look particularly reliable) mentioned in the section above says – without indicating where they got this from – that some company has already taken credit for faking the video. If we had more reliable info on that (e.g. their actual statement that they did so, for starters), that might be something to go on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish In DNAIndia, the company didnot take responsibility but the COO was the whistle blower on its operation which resulted in another series of ligations between the company and him. He spoke about using blackmail as a business procedure for raising revenue. You will find most of the content in Tamil, there are very few english versions. I advise you get a neutral Tamil expert.

  1. http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2013/sep/03/Channel-ordered-to-apologise-to-Ranjitha-512987.html
  2. http://www.nithyananda.org/news/aaj-tak-tenders-public-apology-paramahamsa-nithyananda-airing-defamatory-news-item
  3. http://hinduismnow.org/blog/2016/02/17/nithyananda-video-is-a-fake-sun-tv-coo-hansraj-saxena-confesses/

Akhilkodali (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted in a thread below, someone removed the entire section about the sex-tape controversy, because it cited nothing but primary sources (primary being a class of sources, those written by people too close to the subject and without editorial oversight by independent parties like professional editors at newspapers or at book or journal publishers; some other commenters on this talk page have used the phrase "primary sources" to mean "main sources" or "substantial sources" and that is not what this term means on Wikipedia). The section needs to be restored with reliable secondary sources. There are a number of news sources that turn up quickly [45], but may of these pre-date the claim that someone confessed to having faked the video. Regardless what the veracity of the video is, the controversy in the Indian press is real, so it should be neutrally documented in the article, without any suppositions, viewpoint-pushing, citing of primary sources (other than perhaps to quote a denial from Nithyananda), or other shenanigans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is the section as it stood when deleted due to poor sources. There are better sources now. At least one of the source cited for the "A death in the Ashram" mentions the controversy in general terms, and says that it was all over the news, so we know there are news sources. Scattered below are at least a few that mention it, and New Indian Express above is a reliable source. I'm skeptical about Hinduism Now except as a backup source; it's more of a topical blog. Nithyananda.org is obviously an impermissible primary source. We figured out below that DNAIndia.com is a tertiary click-bait publisher, not real news. But there is other real news. So, this section can be reconstructed in better wording and with better sources. More to the point, it should be because the controversy and its possible resolution already are a significant part of the public background of our article subject, even if he and his people wish it weren't so. It's better to cover the kerfuffle, and the dubiousness of the allegations behind it, than pretended it doesn't exist, or anyone aware of the matter will think the article is bogus and hiding things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A significant aspect of this story was multi-party attacks on his main ashram in India. That used to be in the article, too, but go whitewashed out in one editwar or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Death at the Ashram

Moved to #A death at the ashram

Absurd Speeches

Someone added a section on absurd speeches here. Although we all might agree on what is written, I am not sure if it falls within wikipedia guidelines. It seems like original research to me. Please cite reliable sources which say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagasam (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed it pending someone supplying a WP:RS cite. DMacks (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this sounds like opinion-mongering. All religious speechs are nonsense to an atheist (and a speech by an atheist like Richard Dawkins is absurd to any religious person).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A death at the ashram

I've completely overhauled this section to closely follow the four sources we have so far, which was definitely not being done – in even a single sentence – in the material that was there before. I skipped various details but included those that are salient (to my mind), though a few more might be trimmable. In particular, I left out the claim only found in one source that the deceased's mother accused Nithyanada himself of assaulting her daughter, since it is not corroborated by any of the others and could easily be a mis-interpretation (news writers often cannibalize from each other's work and do it imprecisely, introducing errors). Its absence from the others would be very strange if it were actually among the allegations the mother has made. I linked the applicable legal terms; avoided loaded words like "tortured", etc.

The idea that this is just old news and trivial is patently false; a state court has recommended a national CBI investigation, and this within 2018 (though it's not breaking news either; we should always be suspicious of that kind of material, and at least one of these sources was revised the month after its original publication; I've annotated that in the citation). Claims above (e.g. in #Priyabrata11's attempted changes) that this is just noise, because 2014 police or coroner documents prove there was no cause for investigation, is just a handwave. The entire point of the ongoing inquest is that the police and medical examiner may not have done their job properly. Wikipedia cannot declare that they have when the press is telling us that court it seriously considering that they did not.

I've included the counter-claims of both sides for balance, and sourced stuff mostly on a sentence-by-sentence basis, sometimes down to the clause level. It could turn out that the claims are nonsense, but the Indian court is clearly taking it seriously. The (frankly, rather odd) claims made by the Nithyananda press release are covered in two of these sources independently, so they don't seem to be in doubt, and I don't think we need to go dib up the original from Nityhananda.org, assuming it is still available or was archived.

No primary sources are used directly, nor any known fake-news publishers (of which India has many). The accounts in multiple publications are consistent, except for: the assault-by-the-guru accusation which is too questionable under WP:BLP to include; and only one source mentions the pre-death hospitalization (which doesn't seem controversial information, just elided in other reports), and suggests that the death actually occurred the night before it became known (so I gave the apparent death date as a range, to reflect source disagreement).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Her mother, Jansi Rani, denied that Arjunan suffered from any cardiac ailment and has alleged foul play on parts of the ashram authority (torture et al) and subsequent shoddy investigation by the police". On what basis the word "torture" is added. This "standard" is disappointing. Reviewers seem to have fallen for standard Indian media "game". Please re-read the sources you have presented. 108.35.55.52 (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed "torture" again; that's the newspaper's word, their bombastic headline. I don't see anywhere that the mother actually made this claims. We have no encyclopedic interest in the journalist's or editor's opinion, just the underlying story they're reporting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed we should rely on content not headline, thanks for fixing. —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. How did the reviewers conclude "Physical abuse". Folks ??? Akhilkodali (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. The court recommended referring the death investigation to the national" How was that conclusion made ? Akhilkodali (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. subsequent shoddy investigation by the police". There is no mention of "shoddy" investigation. This inference can be contested. Akhilkodali (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. "unnamed "Hospital sources"", using "unnamed" is mis-representation or ambiguous. No media report or press release says unnamed. It could also mean "official". In reality Hospital released an official "certificate" stating the same. Akhilkodali (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've numbered them for easier reference, if you don't mind. 1. I would have to re-check, and don't recall right off-hand. 2. I have no idea how the court came to that decision, but it's in the sources cited. 3. The fact that the court reprimanded the police for failing to do their job properly, and sent the case to a higher agency. It's not an inference (you're confusing infer and imply). But it's not even an implications, it's a summary. Some other term could be used, but it really doesn't matter. 4. You're misunderstanding. The sources were not named in the reports. Whether they were official or not is unknown, and not relevant. We could use some other term like "unspecified", but it doesn't matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Quoting a Judge's oral statements is without proof and amounts to Contempt of Court in India. No other sources have reported that the Judge had asked for a CBI investigation. The entire premise of this section is based on this alleged statement. Otherwise all the facts indicate that the Police have investigated the matter and closed it. NewsMinute is just a blog and can hardly be considered a reputable source. Highlighting the allegation of murder on a celebrity is an issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE and borders on tabloid journalism. I further feels that this section is a disrespect to the memory of a deceased young monk who was a follower of Swami Nithyananda. Parents who were upset with her taking monkhood have filed a case - and that is their right. But nothing in this matter makes it newsworthy leave alone worthy of featuring in an encylopedia and in violation of WP:DUE Acnaren (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"Acnaren" is a devotee of Nithyananda and goes by the name Sri Nithya Mokshapriyan. [1] As we all know by now many of Rajashekaran's followers have tried to edit & hide certain things from public view on Wikipedia about their guru that paints him in a negative light. The death of Sangeetha and the cover-up surrounding it isn't even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this pseudo-guru's crimes. Ryanmeadows (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nithyanandatruth.org/ac-narendran-attacked-because-hes-a-devotee-of-paramahamsa-nithyananda/

Unused sources

The "self-styled godman" claim in the lead had a big WP:OVERCITE pile up; we only need a single citation for that, so I left the most explicit one and removed the rest. However, these sources are probably usable for additional material in the article, especially all those legal conflicts:

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

Please change "Nithyananda (also called Paramahamsa Nithyananda, born c. 1977–1978 in Tiruvannamalai, India) is an Advaita Vedanta Hindu self-styled godman."

To " Nithyananda (also called Bhagwaan Sri Nithyananda Paramashivam, born c. 1977-1978 in Tiruvannamalai, India) is an Advaita Vedanta Hindu Spiritual Teacher of his own global religious organization known as Nithyananda Dhyanapeetham. He is also elected as Pointiff of four Ancient Traditional Shaivite monastaries in South India."

Because: 1) He is known and addressed publicly now as Bhagwaan Sri Nithyananda Paramashivam rather than Paramahamsa Nithyananda source: http://prntscr.com/n1rb66

2) "Godman"is nothing but a derogatory term that serves no interest in giving reliable data accurately representing who this individual is to the public with neutral respect. The change gives better clarity as to who he is as an individual to the public with factual reference rather than a loose derogatory term.

3) This individual has been legally elected as leader of four traditional religious monasteries the title traditionally known as Madadhipati.

Source:

https://nithyanandatruth.org/2013/11/22/paramahamsa-nithyananda-is-madadhipati-of-four-ancient-mutts-in-south-india/

http://www.nithyananda.org/news/swami-nithyanandas-appointment-junior-pontiff-madurai-aadheenam-irrevocable-rules-high-court-ma VedicPsychologyNow (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the article, he is a "self-styled godman". Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, which these are not. A person's specific position, elected or not, generally doesn't define them in this way, per MOS:CREDENTIALS. Please gain consensus for these changes before re-opening this request. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


OS 5239/2017 and 2:13-CV-00526 judgement

  • In Ohio Civil court, in case No.2:13 CV 526 Aarthi Rao was penalized $463,211 USD + lawyer fees for making making false accusation of rape on Nithyananda.* There is no public reference for this other than other letigations making reference to this

- https://casetext.com/case/nithyananda-dhanapeetam-columbus-v-rao - https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e91cadd7b04934925e6d other than that this order can be found on the website of Nithyananda - http://www.nithyananda.org/news/us-federal-court-issues-nearly-half-million-dollar-judgement-against-false-victim-aarthi-s-rao#gsc.tab=0

However on May 27, 2019 an order came in case number OS 5239/2017 from an Indian court which repeated the same order of 2:13 CV-00526 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99234743/ . this can be found on the Indian district court website - https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v6/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=/orders/2017/205200052392017_5.pdf&caseno=O.S./5239/2017&cCode=3&appFlag=web&normal_v=1

OS 5239 is the only available public record which proves beyond that an order - 2:13-CV-00526 exists. This order should be presented in Wiki stating the simple fact that Nithyananda had a court order saying that Aarthi Rao made false allegations of rape against him. Suppressing of this order will give a one-sided picture. 49.207.135.179 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Updates!

@Winged Blades of Godric: can you update article with latest details of Hindu Rashtra namely Kailaasa and rape accusation in Ahmedabad? — Harshil want to talk? 02:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do ..... ∯WBGconverse 15:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, does kailaasa deserve separate article?-- Harshil want to talk? 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Nah; WP:NOPAGE. ∯WBGconverse 06:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, someone has made and someone put it under deletion. Harshil want to talk? 06:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nithyananda University, Mission, Puri, Nagar; Life Bliss Foundation

We're not mentioning "Nithyananda University" or what it is in the article. It's the colophon under which most of his more recent self-published material is released, but that doesn't really tell us anything. We have no idea what sort of body this is.

It's clear that they're employing at least one biology academic. There's a cite elsewhere on this page to a journal article abstract [file.scirp.org/Html/2-2420156_56810.htm], in which one Krishna S. Rao identifies as affiliated with Nithyananda University, in Advances in Aging Research (basic journal info here). This same party also appears on another abstract [46] on a similar subject (biomedical claims being made about meditation and such) in Journal of Stem Cells (basic journal info here). I have no info what kind of reputation the journals have, though I can guess; there are people who do "predatory journal" checks, and they tend to hang out in WT:MEDRS.

The former of these abstracts' author information also mentions something called Nithyananda Nagar in Bangalore, Karnakata. No idea what that is.

One of Nithyananada's self-published books includes an address which mentions "Nithyananda Mission, Bidadi Ashram" and "Nithyanandapuri, Kallugopahalli" in Bidadi, Bangalore.

Life Bliss Foundation (lifeblissfoundation.org) is another of his organisations. I'm not sure how to tease apart what all these things are supposed to be and how they interrelate. He also operates more than one website.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

An older version of the article [47] had some stuff on LBF, and also some kind of connection to Hindu University of America, but the material was generally unsourced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish,
Advances in Aging Research doesn't feature in Beall's list but the publisher does.And, the lesser it is said about the publishing house, the better it is.And, the journal is absent from DOAJ's directory.
Predatorial by a mile or so.
Journal of Stem Cells by Nova Publishers.Somewhat better than the previous and has a medium reputation despite having been criticized for a lack of rigor in peer-review and solicitation-publishing and designated as a bottom-tier but non-predatorial publisher by Beall, himself. My personal opinion of the paper is quasi-BS but that hardly matters.
As to Nithyananda University, some business-venture with a formal-flavored name for spreading his pseudo-religious bullshit.Nothing more, nothing less.I see a very attractive course-list and another equally attractive one.I did not manage to locate any official record in UGC database that asserts it to be a formally recognized university. ∯WBGconverse 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I'm glad someone has a better handle than I do on evaluating journal reputability. As for Nithyananda U., of course it would be a religion-centered thing. But there are lots of such entities (see Category:Universities and colleges by religious affiliation), which range from respected institutions to fronts for TV-preacher money laundering. Whatever NU is, it's part of the story of the subject of the article, so we need to cover it at least in brief, at some point. It would be nice to have more "just the facts" material in there, given the constant see-sawing between claims of the miraculous and of criminal activity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done you’re not specific about edit. — Harshil want to talk? 06:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Owner of Land Kailash Niv0015 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done You are not soecific about your edits.-- Harshil want to talk? 06:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Any reliable sources for the fact that he used to charge 10,000 for third eye opening

Seems very notable to me.... I am looking for sources, is any aware of one. Sethie (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nithyananda/Archive_4&oldid=1023297283"