Talk:Nithyananda

Recent news items

I will be adding recent media links in this section for the perusal of anybody with some interest, time, and permission to edit

Recent news items

Date	Summary & Link
16 Jul 2021	There will be more casualties in the third wave of Corona ... Come to Kailash to protect yourself - Nithiyananda https://tamil.news18.com/news/tamil-nadu/death-will-be-high-in-the-corona-third-wave-says-nithyananda-skd-507321.html
16 Jul 2021	Death toll in Corona 3rd wave to be higher - Nithyananda warns https://www.maalaimalar.com/news/district/2021/07/16145455/2825667/Tamil-News-Nithyananda-warning-Covid-19-3rd-wave.vpf
16 Jul 2021	Multi Layer Quarantine Facility at Kailash https://www.toptamilnews.com/282818multi-layer-quarantine-facility-at-kailash/
03 Jun 2021	Nithyananda claimed conspiracy to commit terrorist attack on Kailasa https://www.maalaimalar.com/news/district/2021/06/03115924/2696981/Tamil-News-Nithyananda-accusation-conspiracy-to-carry.vpf
17 Feb 2021	From 'Kailasa', Nithyananda Seeks Ram Mandir Donation In Memory Of Rinku Sharma. Nithyananda has appealed to his 'devotees' to make donations for the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya in memory of Rinku Sharma https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/from-kailasa-absconding-nithyananda-seeks-ram-mandir-donation-in-memory-of-rinku-sharma.html
27 Jan 2021	Congratulates Biden and Harris https://www.ibtimes.co.in/fugitive-godman-congratulates-biden-harris-after-all-he-pm-kailaasa-832408
10 Jan 2012	Kailasa offers 3-day visa, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/absconding-godman-nithyananda-offers-3-day-visa-to-nation/story-lnZiV5PSL07tuvOtgsZeTL.html https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/nithyananda-wants-1-lakh-people-to-settle-in-kailasa

Persecution

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)

Teachings and Philosophy section

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

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)

293rd Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam

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)

Need non-English sources

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

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

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

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)

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)

Disinformation Campaign against SPH

SPH and Adi-Shaivite Minority Tradition have been victims of extended disinformation and smear campaign. There is a report reviewed and published by the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression which gives the details as part of the case study.

Investigative Journalists inquiring into SPH were shut down viciously by the government, this was reported.

One of the biggest instances of paid news in the history of India was when Kannada news channel Samaya TV and its reporter was held guilty by the U.S court for civil conspiracy and defamation. It was established before the court that had conspired with a child molester Vinay Bharadwaj to attack against Paramahamsa Nithyananda. This is from a peer-reviewed paper on disinformation and media.

Despite his whereabouts being unknown, and media reports that he is a fugitive, there is no clear indication that Nithyananda has absconded in an attempt to flee the jurisdiction of his rape case. There is no indication that I could find that any court revoked his passport. These are from an investigative journalist's publication in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish Can you please comment if the file hosted on the official website of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are reliable source or not? UN report Regards. Eevee01^(talk) 12:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source. If this were an official statement of the UN HCHR, it would be a high-quality primary source, which would be valid to cite for certain kinds of things (nothing that consisted of analysis, interpretation, evaluation, or synthesis). However, what this document is, is a form someone filled out. An anonymous author (clearly a Nithyanada follower, since they refer to him as "His Holiness" and other honorific epithets, and much of the material reads like recruitment propaganda) has filled in [most of] the blanks of an incident report form, and filled them in with a position/opinion/stance, including many unproven claims. This is basically the fallacy of circular reasoning; Nithyananda's supporters believe all these things, and are trying to use their own material as "proof" that their beliefs are correct, when all this material does is restate the beliefs. Worse, all the substance of relevance here is necessarily going to involve analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and/or synthesis (it's about legal and other social claims, not about mathematics, after all), so it will require secondary sourcing. Even a statement from the actual HCHR would not be sufficient sourcing. I'll address the rest of the material above in a separate post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To cover these points in the order they're presented above:

• Nothing called "SPH" is the subject of this article (unless that's yet another epithet for Nithyananda). The article is also not about the Adi Shaivite Minority Tradition; see WP:COATRACK.
• As noted above, the PDF from the UN website is not a UN statement; it's an incident report, gathered up with all other properly submitted such reports, and it was obviously written by an anonymous Nithyananda follower. It proves nothing, and is not a reliable source.
• That India has freedom-of-the-press problems is a long-known fact, and has no bearing on this article, which is not about journalist suppression in India; COATRACK again.
• Just because some law-review article (in India, but about a US case) made a claim doesn't make it true. The court case in question was a default judgment; the defendants didn't show up (probably because they're in India, the case was in California, and there's no way for a US court to force an Indian news organization to pay a fine – it's cheaper to ignore the case than to fly lawyers to the US to fight in court). The court case proves nothing whatsoever. The claim "One of the biggest instances of paid news in the history of India was when Kannada news channel Samaya TV and its reporter was held guilty by the U.S court for civil conspiracy and defamation" is patently false (it's not even using the correct legal terminology; there's no such thing as "guilty" verdict in a civil suit, just for starters). Anyone can sue anyone in the US for anything, and the case will virtually always be found in favor of the party that shows up when one side doesn't bother. But that never actually establishes that any particular claim made is true or false. The law journal article being cited here makes various other claims, but all of them are sourced to the same India-based news organizations the article is simultaneously attacking as unreliable and corrupt, so it's self-defeating as a potential source to cite.

  The most interesting thing in it is the claim that someone actually confessed to faking the video that is alleged to be fake [and if you read way back in the talk archives, you'll find me suspecting it was a fake; I'm not suprised that it seems to have turned out to be one]. That actually might be important for this article, but it should come from the sources this law-journal article cites (and other sources we find), not from the law-journal article (which clearly isn't even reliable for law claims, much less claims about audio-visual effects). Our article is presently saying it was faked, but without any details. There appear to be at least 6 sources to use to provide those details. And they should be used for that purpose; simply stacking up a bunch of redundant citations for the same simple claim is WP:OVERCITE, and anyone can remove the redundant citations at any time. It would be better that they were retained and used to source additional statements. Who faked it? Why? Our readers will care about that.

• Moving on, it's up to sources to tell us why Nithyananda left India during prosecution, but it is well-sourced that he did so, and him doing so makes him a fugitive regardless of whatever reasons he may have had in mind. He also did make statements that he was leaving over concerns about assassins and mobs. Our article covers this, and does not anywhere impute to him the motivation "I am fleeing India to escape prosecution", so bringing it up above is a waste of time.
• Finally, courts don't revoke passports (in most jurisdictions, anyway). The department/ministry of state (or rough equivalent) does that. Courts may issue no-travel orders, but that's not the same thing. And it's all irrelevant. If Nithyananda had not been considered a flight risk, then prosecutors would likely not have asked for a no-travel order, or a large bail amount, or other surety against flight, nor sought outside the court to have his passport revoked. We have no evidence any such steps were taken, we have no sources telling us why, so there is nothing for us to say about it. Their failure to predict his flight ahead of time tells us nothing about why he absconded, and does nothing about the fact that he is a fugitive, having left the country during prosecution and never returned. There is no magical way around that, and WP is not going to lie about it to help Nithyananda's reputation.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

In India, passport is a fundamental right, it is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this is upheld by Supreme Court and High Courts on multiple occasions since 1960s. Government can only temporarily impound a passport. But only courts can revoke them as it involves curtaining of fundamental Rights. Government cannot revoke passports for even exiled/fugutive. Cancellation of passport in Indian context leads to defacto statelessness as stated by Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

When he left India, there were no restrictions on his travel, on the contrary courts ordered that he is free to travel outside of India as well without any restrictions, which he has done on numerous occasions. He has been exempted from personal appearance in the court case which is pending since 2010. Leaving India in this situation doesn't make him a fugitive (whether there are ongoing cases or not) as he has court permission. He needs to be declared a fugitive by a competent authority. In case of India it is courts only that have the authority to do so. So far his fugitive declaration is by the media alone, there is no court declaration to back it up. Bottomline: He left India with court order granting him the permission to do so. When he was outside of India his passport was illegally cancelled. This is identical to the situation of the Naga Couple. Given the slow nature of the Indian legal system, it will probably be a few decades when his passport and citizenship get restored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The defendants were US citizens living in US as confirmed by court summons, hence it was filed in US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.110.41 (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This is all entirely beside the point. We KNOW ALREADY that he was able to leave India, since he did so. We have no information why his passport was not impounded or revoked, or him saddled with a large bail (or no bail and held until trial), or given a stay-put order. There is nothing for us to say about it. And it has no effect whatsoever upon his status as a fugitive. Indian police said he's a fugitive, and the media reported that; they didn't make it up. It's irrelevant anwyay; the definition of a fugitive (who is not an escaped convict) is someone who has absconded during a criminal proceeding, and Nithyananda meets this definition. There is nothing anyone can do about that (other than Nithyananda, returning to India). There is no source evidence whatsoever that Nithyananda had special permission from the courts to leave India during a criminal trial against him, and that's an absurd claim. There is nothing to argue about here. What citizenship was held by persons involved in the default-judgment case is irrelevant to the matter; it was still a default judgment, which produced no findings of fact, so making claims based on it that the plaintiffs' accusations are necessarily correct/true is an abuse of sources. Court documents are primary sources anyway, and we don't use them this way, even in cases that are not default judgments; they're good as primary sources for, e.g., what a judge specifically wrote, but we use secondary reliable sources for the import/meaning of the case. (And that article, in a foreign law journal with no reputation, that can't even get basic legal terms correct is clearly not such a source.)

I will remind you all of the WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM policies. Our talk pages do not exist for endless "I disagree with someone on the Internet" debates about trivia – like a distinction between passport revocation and impounding when passports have nothing to do with anthing in this article, or what country a case participant was from when it has no effect on whether it was a default judgment or not. Our talk pages are only for improving the articles to which they pertain, and nothing in this discussion is going to result in article improvement. PS: You can stop e-mailing me directly about this article. I am not a magical gatekeeper, and I do have the power to delete it or radically change it. This is very simple: either you have good sources to make changes or you don't.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience claim is defamatory

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)

User:Acnaren

User:Acnaren is a fanboy of this godman. Please block him.Strong Gold (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need of adding sub-headings, all the allegations are divided by the paragraph. Also no one will ban Acnaren because you don't like them. Eevee01^(talk) 16:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the subheadings are against the principles of WP:CRIME and WP:BALANCE. When a matter is sub-judice it is all the more important to not use wikipedia as a tabloid Acnaren (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Republic TV sources

Yesterday, User:Tayi Arajakate removed WP:REPUBLICTV sources([1]) because they are deprecated source. Later this edit was undid by User:Acnaren, [2]. I found this discussion in the talk page archive about the use of Republic as a source for the UN petition. But I'm not sure if we can use Republic for the legal name. This name was added by User:APPU [3]. Eevee01^(talk) 16:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it again seeing as there is community consensus for Republic TV's deprecation and Acnaren being the only one supporting its inclusion in the archived discussion. The UN complaint isn't given a whole lot of weight by the Business Line citation so I'm not even sure if it should be included in the manner currently present in the article. Also I think the addition of Sri and Swami in the name violates MOS:HONORIFIC regardless of the sourcing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Republic TV should not be used as a source. I also agree with not including honorific titles in the name. @APPU and @Acnaren I’d like to also hear your views on this matter. Eevee01^(talk) 05:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree to not use Republic TV as a source. But I think we can not help removing Sri and Swami, it is the part of his legal name; I would have never added it if it was merely his common name. This is a court order can be used as a source for his legal name. Some other sources I found [4] Appu (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In the documents you mentioned Sri is mentioned in everyone's name. Also there are no reliable sources which address Nithyananda with his "legal name". Eevee01^(talk) 05:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The usage of the term swami is very close to the English "Father"/"Mother" in clergy names (Mother Teresa, etc.), so I'd be supportive to having it in the article, even in the title. On the other hand, sri is a honorific pure and simple and should be left out per WP:HON. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth name

@Kashmiri, see Patronymic#India. Nithyananda's name is RS is A. Rajasekaran in which "A." stands for Arunachalam (his father's name). In Tamil Nadu, the use of initials and/or surname is up to the prerogative of the person with no strict rules. The late chief minister Karunanidhi preferred to be referred to as M. Karunanidhi where the initial M stood for Muthuvel - his father's given name. M. Karunanidhi's son prefers to be referred to as M. K. Stalin incorporating both his father's and grandfather's names. However M. K. Stalin's son prefers to be referred to as Udhayanidhi Stalin, with Udhayanidhi as his given name and Stalin, his father's given name, as his surname rather than as an initial. Eevee01^(talk) 09:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)