Talk:Nithyananda

Too many edits made by various users unseen by other editors

@Timothyjosephwood: & @Sro23: Some abusive users have totally messed the page. Can one of you revert back the page to this revision? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Nithyananda&oldid=754141701

Summary of a few of the changes made by spammers and fake wiki-users

Username	Original	Revised by this user
206.218.206.151	spiritual	controversial
	something about Nithyananda birth	<section deleted by this user>
		added section "Sex Contract for Volunteers" giving blogs as citation
		trying to add back "controvery" and "scandal" section which was removed after 1.5 years of discussion due to WP:BLP violation.
72.229.55.124		trying to add back "controvery" and "scandal" section which was removed after 1.5 years of discussion due to WP:BLP violation.

Another request I have : Can this article be protected in some way. People are abusing this page too much and I other responsible wiki-contributors often miss these changes. Thanks

Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, at least the current version is NPOV and makes it clear that these are simply accusations and Nithyananda has not been pronounced guilty. I am generally not in favour of including stuff like this, but I also notice that this has received sustained coverage for years. I am in a dilemma here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Hey that's great. I would like the section to stay. BUT with the other side presenting the facts also. What you see here is NOT NPOV. It looks NPOV because it has removed many critical information. Always editors have REMOVED both the points in favor and disfavor after debating over it for 1.5 years. If you REALLY REALLY would support let us do it. Then you must cover the micro details. Like - (1) The rape case was filed without mentioned a rape victim (since time of independence of India this is the first and only case where this happened. (2) The Supreme Court termed the arrest and all proceedings which happened as illegal. (3) Currently the so called victim is facing trials and many other conspirators as well. The entire case has been squased in the High Court, but NO NEWS CHANNEL has reported, because the channels have mis-reported the incidence right from the beginning and are themselves facing various defamation in Ohio, New York and Bangalore. Refer http://www.nithyananda.org/news/legal-victory-sri-paramahamsa-nithyananda-sriperumbudur#gsc.tab=0 . The whole rape case has been squashed. Also note, ideally wikipedia should completely remove this page if editors have decided to become accomplice with abusers, otherwise legal proceedings will have to taken against wikipedia. This is simply pathethic. I don't understand what is so difficult for people to understand even after 1.5 years of discussion, and why can't they refer to older discussion in talk page before supporting abusive edits. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And also about the COI edit notice. I have NOT MADE any edits since the time I have been told not to edit the page due to COI. I have always shared it in on talk page and got it done by a 3rd party editor like for example User:Timothyjosephwood. Now I would really appreciate that the so called neutral editors like Lemongirl942 read the previous discussions and make positive contribution and not support abusive edits. Otherwise sometimes I feel for the kind of harassment Wikipedia (and it's so called neutral editors) deserves legal proceeding just like it is in progress with 40 news channels, which wrote 20,000 abusive articles, and some other people who uploaded 2200 morphed-pornographic videos on different pornographic websites. Surely if this abuse continues it will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashaanktulsyan (talk • contribs) 05:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Be careful of crossing over the Wikipedia:No legal threats line. Just a friendly FYI. AndroidCat (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

One Sided Views Destroying Article With Long Content Deletions

I am unhappy with the last revision by @Lemongirl942: and I'm requesting @Sro23 and Timothyjosephwood: to take a look into this issue as a third party.

Please see that user, Inlinetext, has made 10 out of the last 15 edits by deleting the major content of this article which have stood and been discussed for many months... this is being accepted by Lemongirl942. But when I reverted back to the revision before the deletion started I'm marked with COI? Why is this being allowed to happen and why I am singled out when other users can delete half a page. Who has the real COI here? Very unfair! Rurban23 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The only article you have worked on is this one. You are what is known as Single Purpose Account. The material removed was done to protect the encyclopedia and all my removal (with due application of mind) edit summaries properly described the reasons and applicable policies. Since this is a BLP article very high editorial standards and reliable sources are to be maintained.Inlinetext (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't Canvass support for your cause. If you want a 3rd party opinion use 3rd opinion, but strictly speaking 3O is not applicable here since there are more than 2 editors involved in this content dispute. Inlinetext (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I'm mostly ok with it. I could see putting back in the more well sourced and apparently notable of the awards, and I don't hear a compelling reason not to include published works, since we regularly do that with people who have been published. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Time will tell ;-) Published works Yes, Self Published ? No ! Inlinetext (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

They do seem to all be more or less self-published. Maybe not a bulleted list then, but I wouldn't be opposed to summarily saying "he has authored a number of work published by [his organization]" or something similar. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing I noticed about the Finance and Management section: Reference 8doesn't even talk about finances. The quotations used in the section are of the news journalist who wrote reference 9, not from the Karnataka Police as it's made to sound now. And reference 7 says the financials allegations have all since been dropped. I'm not interested in joining the above discussion, but I'm interested in learning how things work around here because this seems to be as shameless as all the promoting going on Insight2010 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Spot on. This article was one bad mess. While doing a google search to locate current sources I came across this article possibly authored by an indef blocked user User:Soham321 heavily based on these same references. Inlinetext (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Rurban23 indeed appears to be a Single Purpose Account. And you are the one who, in August 2016, also deleted bulk of materials at your sweet will. The texts deleted by Inlinetext were somewhat promotional in nature coming mainly from self-published sources. -AsceticRosé 04:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: I wonder if you can then delete the Finance and Management sections because of mentioned reasons and possibly get this page protected from further vandalism from both sides. I had to remove more COI material today from Shaktinipada78 who was obviously self promoting. The only thing I would add though is to remove "controversial guru" phrase from the biography and replace with "notable guru", as this figure does indeed seem to be notable in the field of spirituality: as example, and these allegations that keep appearing are continuously poorly sourced and seeming proved false in US courts (as per controversy talk section above) Insight2010 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Reinstate Key Information, Plus Changes

@Inlinetext:, 1) I am re-adding some of the information that you have previously deleted on this page. Begging with the fact the Swami Nithyananda is commonly referred to as Paramahamsa Nithyananda. We don't need to state "better known as" if you don't like, but upon searching for this particular individual, I can see that he publishes under the name Paramahamsa Nithyananda on Amazon and his website and social media including public Facebook page. He's also called by this name in various articles online - needless to say this is a fair addition and need not be discussed further. DocTox (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Contravention of WP:SELFCITE. Furthermore, this reliable source clearly says "Nithyananda, of course, is no paramahamsa". In view of the controversy, a reliable source prevails over self citing. So your edit is reverted as per policy. Please obtain consensus and don't edit-war.Inlinetext (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

2) I am removing the phrase that says he founded an "e-commerce" site. Again, this claim is clearly not true. His primary website (here) does not even have a working store on it. The reference that you've attributed to this claim is the sole opinion of a tabloid writer and does not reflect the actual work of Nithyananda. If you would like to add something in addition to the Nithyananda Dhanapeetam, you may want to instead state that he also founded the Nithyananda Mediation Academy which is a registered Non-Profit organization in Canada, see proof here. DocTox (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced and verifiable. FYI, I didn't add that link/content in the body text. Wikipedia is based on 'verifiability and not truth'. Once again, your edit needs to be reverted as per policy. Please obtain consensus and don't edit-war. Inlinetext (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Inlinetext here. We report what the third party sources say over primary sources. --Adam in MO Talk 04:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent vs Outdated Information

In a ongoing issue, the latest news should take preference of old one. Much of the hue and cry about Nithyananda happened during the 2010-2012 time frame. It is now 5 years since. Not a single issue that was tagged on to him has been proven in any court. On the contrary, much of the material evidence as mentioned by the DNA article have proven to be in his favor. As such using the outdated news articles as a reliable source and ignoring the recent ones is contrary to the interests of truth. I hope the editors of this page consider this and suitably modify the page so that the readers are not misled -- acnaren

Do you know of any recent sources? The most recent source given on the article page is from February 2013. If there is nothing more recent than this, maybe the article should be deleted. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The DNA article (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-medical-tests-exonerate-nithyananda-of-rape-charge-2026394) is from Oct 2014 and seems to be the most recent (atleast 18 months after that article) Acnaren (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If the article is worth keeping, that should definitely be included. There are 77 people watching this page, so it should be possible to get a good discussion about deleting or rewriting. Right now it's just a stub that looks like it's written to be a hit piece. If the article is worth keeping, it needs to be completely rewritten. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice the missing '?' at the end of the DNA headline. It quotes anonymous 'official spokespersons' of Nithyananda. The DNA is also an unreliable source for such things being owned by pro-Hindutva BJP people. Inlinetext (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read the content of the article. The title only talks about the final results of the medical tests but the article mentions how the video was morphed and how most of the cases filed against him since 2010 have been proved to be false. Much of the writeup in the article today predates this observation. Also the article doesn't talk about spokepersons of nithyananda but officials from the CID. About DNA being owned by BJP people, do you have reliable references that show this or is this your own conspiracy theory and prejudice that you are imposing on wikipedia? Would you then ignore any write up about Hindus by Indian newspapers such as TheHindu or Economist because many are owned by communists? I strongly feel such random allegations about the neutrality of sources is a slippery slope and should not be done. I hope some senior admin can comment on whether this kind of practice is wikipedia practice and if it is tolerated Acnaren (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

redacted per WP:BLP.Inlinetext (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what that apparently random dump of documentation is supposed to support, but it doesn't support that there was ever a conviction, which is what actually matters. We generally don't include unfounded rumors, especially not ones based on primary sources. TimothyJosephWood 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The document contains alleged STD test results of both Rao (positive for herpes) and Nithyananda (negative for herpes), which (if true) make the allegations of Rao that she was raped from 2005-2009 unlikely. I just reread the DNAindia article and allegedly Nithyananda had an additional medical test more recently showing he is "incapable of rape". The DNAindia article also discussed the earlier STD test results. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And all of these court documents are basically useless to us because WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly more importantly, Rao claims that these supposed medical records of Rao are fraudulent. Jrheller1 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually not more important, since they'd be useless to us even if we could verify they were genuine. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The DNAIndia article reported these alleged medical records of Rao as fact, so it is obviously important to know whether they are fraudulent or not. If they are fraudulent, then the article is obviously not a reliable source. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But you would need other reliable sources to determine whether the article in question was itself reliable. You cannot however judge the reliability of a secondary source by using primary and unverifiable documents and original research. We are encyclopedia writers, not investigative journalists.

Additionally, it looks like the matter may be settled anyway, since DNA India appear to have a history of plagiarizing content from Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• The most recent seemingly reliable source I have been able to find is this article in "The Hindu" on August 21, 2014 stating that the rape case against Nithyananda is ongoing and he had been ordered to take some kind of medical test. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here is another article from September 2014 describing the potency test. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So to summarize the most reliable sources, the rape case against Nithyananda is still ongoing and the results of the "potency test" do not exonerate him (they are confidential). Jrheller1 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

redacted per WP:BLP Inlinetext (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

These are all primary sources and legal pleadings/allegations by the Swami (which Wikipedians are presumed incompetent to evaluate) taken off a prweb listing and clearly unusable in a BLP for a controversial subject. Now stop wasting our time.Inlinetext (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

AND, The Appeals court in 2015, tossed these out saying the cause of action and proper forum is in India link. Inlinetext (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, The Appeals court in 2015 is speaking of separate lawsuits filled in the state of Michigan. USDC-SDO heard the case and ruled in favor of Nithyananda.DocTox (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• We are not interpreting WP:PRIMARY court documents for use on Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source or move on to something else. TimothyJosephWood 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood what can be used as "Primary". As the documents appear to be legitimate, there must be a public copy. I will thank, thank you.DocTox (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So that you don't misunderstand. Even if you find and link to a copy from the court's official website, those documents are unusable. You must also be aware that a US Court of Appeal has found in 2015 that Aarthi Rao's US passport is impounded in India since 2012 and she thus cannot defend herself in USA. Consequently the 2014 US decree is merely a symbolic (hence valueless) default one obtained in-absentia because the defendant was in India and unable to travel. So don't waste our time unless you have multiple very high quality reliable secondary sources. Inlinetext (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of Wikipedia talk pages to spread sexual innuendo and dubious documents

The BLP policy allows any editor to immediately remove contentitious material, including on talk pages. Inlinetext (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Nithyananda tilt

I observe that while battling vandals, the article is taking on a pro-Nithyananda tone.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 02:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article? --- "Finance and Management" --- Contains 100% criticism. Anti-Nithyananda tone. --- "Timeline" --- Each point is negated, again, by an allegation or cited criticism.

Where in your assessment do you feel this article is pro-Nithyananda tone? I notice you have a long history of editing Tamil pages. I have to wonder if you're connected to Nithyananda as I do believe he is from Tamil Nadu? DocTox (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research

This edit that DocTox is edit warring is a patent example of WP:OR. There is nothing in the source. If there is, please quote it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow you're really aggressive about this. After failing to explain my mistake and respond to my request on your talk page, you then blast my talk page and post here also. Your stance on defending this bizarre and outdated claim make me wonder if YOU have a COI. After-all, you are from Singapore/Malaysia where Nithyananda has centers. DocTox (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If you feel I have done anything wrong, go ahead and complain at ANI. User:Inlinetext changed it back to statusquo. You changed the consensus version without obtaining consensus. I am reverting it back to statusquo. For reference, you are the one who is edit warring. You want to discuss changes, propose them on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: : This User:DocTox has already done that once at ANI and was ticked off. S/he should discuss and obtain consensus for NPOV and RS content instead of trying to insert dubious sexual titillations based on unproven court records. They are also now making 'opposition research' based personal attacks against other editors which tends to show COI. Inlinetext (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Inlinetext - what the hell are you talking about? You are the ONLY user who has mentioned any sexual reference in the article body. Which, mind you, is to be removed as per "Controversy" section consensus here. DocTox (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@DocTox: Be civil. There is no consensus for your edits or changes. Several editors have objected to your insertions. Also take care not to insert poorly sourced sexual material about (B)LPs on article talk pages or discussions. Inlinetext (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)