Jump to content

Talk:Nithyananda/Archive 1

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

Rewrite required

Page requires a rewrite, the tone is altogether too informal, with peacock terms strewn about. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of substance with very little backup information, some citations would be nice. Articles appears to have noteworthiness, but the language needs to be helped along. Medic007 (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Video

To clarify - this is with reference to the video allegedly showing Nithyanand being intimate with a woman. --vvarkey (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to the reliabilty of Indian sources. Are any of these unquestionably reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NDTV is reliable (most others, wouldn't qualify as unquestionably reliable), but they have stuck to terms like "alleged" and "controversy" and offer no opinion on the veracity of the claim. The bigger problem is that the speculation also goes to the other player and could potentially involve two other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Besides NDTV, these are reliable too:
Express Buzz
Sify
Daily News & Analysis
Daily Pioneer
Merinews
KolkataObserver
--vvarkey (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A current Google News search returns [1], none of which I'm capable of determining reliability for Wiki purposes. I did watch one version of the video that's being discussed and to tell you the truth, unless "scandal" means embracing a woman and kissing her directly on the mouth, I'm kind of at a loss as to what the hubbub is about. I realize there may be cultural differences at play here, but I think we should be very wary of allowing a single alleged incident to carry unwarranted weight in this context. If we can track down a reliable reference or two to substantiate this, then fine. But let's try and keep in mind this is a BLP, not an opportunity for promoting a partisan "scandal". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To give you a better idea, this is like the Pope caught on video being intimate with a woman. Not that Nithyanand is as important as the pope. But generally, he was expected to be celibate. --vvarkey (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's remember we are bound to abide by both WP:UNDUE and just as importantly in this context; WP:BLP. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nithyananda Sex Scandal

Recently, Tamil News Channel SUN NEWS released Swamy Nithyananda scandal video clip on today at 8.30 PM. Watch the video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM07XWcLoog

Cautiously, the blind followers of this cult have set his Wikipedia page to be protected thus to avoid people entering the latest news there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanshy123 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's try and keep this discussion focused on talking about the material, rather than making comments regarding other editors and their purported motivations. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

non-npov

This article is self evidently biased in the presentation of its subject. As Medic007 points out, in all likelihood, an almost total rewrite or very extensive editing is the only way to remedy it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

What reliable sources adress this individual in any detail? Is oneindia.in reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The OneIndia article ends with direct quotes from the book "Nithyananda Vol.1". Many of the refs used here are from these direct quotes. This book is published by Nithyanana's own LifeBliss Foundation.
http://www.amazon.com/Nithyananda-Vol-1/dp/1934364142
So large tracts of the article are pure rubbish.
--vvarkey (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Archives

I have moved the utube sexy scandal link to the archives as a BLP protection, content is not going into the article so there is no excuse for placing the link on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Almost all the major NEWS channels confirmed the sex scandal. Why is this news held up? Azgar Khan (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Video

I can't speak to the reliabilty of Indian sources. Are any of these unquestionably reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NDTV is reliable (most others, wouldn't qualify as unquestionably reliable), but they have stuck to terms like "alleged" and "controversy" and offer no opinion on the veracity of the claim. The bigger problem is that the speculation also goes to the other player and could potentially involve two other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Besides NDTV, these are reliable too:
Express Buzz
Sify
Daily News & Analysis
Daily Pioneer
Merinews
KolkataObserver
--vvarkey (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A current Google News search returns [2], none of which I'm capable of determining reliability for Wiki purposes. I did watch one version of the video that's being discussed and to tell you the truth, unless "scandal" means embracing a woman and kissing her directly on the mouth, I'm kind of at a loss as to what the hubbub is about. I realize there may be cultural differences at play here, but I think we should be very wary of allowing a single alleged incident to carry unwarranted weight in this context. If we can track down a reliable reference or two to substantiate this, then fine. But let's try and keep in mind this is a BLP, not an opportunity for promoting a partisan "scandal". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's remember we are bound to abide by both WP:UNDUE and just as importantly in this context; WP:BLP. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The alleged sex scandal

1) That there is an "alleged" sex scandal involving Nityananda is accepted by everyone including the himself (and his website) a) His website responded to the videos aired on SUN TV. [1] b) Swamiji moved to court against the media. This is very important news related to him which deserves to be on the wikipedia. [2] 2) Nityananda's ashram in Bangalore was ransacked by angry villagers. [3] This is very important news related to him too.

Why shouldn't we publish it on wiki? PRKSandeep (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I altered the title of the first posting in this section as being provocative and controversial in the context of a BLP. I see no reason for not briefly mentioning this allegation in the context of this article, provided it is short, to the point and accurate IE supported by a reliable source. Above all, because of the legal sensitivity of the matter, the material must be edited "conservatively" for the protection of the subject; it is of utmost importance that it be made clear that this is an allegation only, it hasn't even been definitely factually determined that the subject appears in the video. VERY IMPORTANT: Please do not add anything to this article until its addition is discussed first here on the article talk page. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please add this ASAP? I don't have time now myself. Some admins have been overly stressing BLP about this. Maybe they don't understand how imp the news is here in India. --vvarkey (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting article that appeared in this morning's paper which quotes the ashrama's press coordinator stating that hedonism was permitted at the place by Nityananda. Since it comes from an official source, is it credible enough to include? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We have to be a bit careful in this, most of the reliable sources are still using the term "alleged". As for the hedonism bit, I don't see any reason not to include it, it's reported as a statement that's sourced and there aren't any real qualifiers by the reporting news outlet. Whatever is to be included, I'd echo Deconstructhis's comment that it be discussed with source on the talk page before adding in to the article. —SpacemanSpiff 05:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The hindu has reported the attacks [3] and then explained the context. We can do that too. 1)Start with the reports on attacks 2)explain why they happened. we can used "alleged" and "reported" to here 3)Response by the dhyanapeetam including denial, legal action and expanation of the hedonism?.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Sodabottle's suggestion. Perhaps the entire lot could be incorporated under a new section titled Controversy. What say? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear evidence of Nityananda

I wonder why his contents are getting deleted very fast.This is one of the hot topics right now and its sure that Wikipedia being the top rates site is preferred to view his article. I hope all these evidences are clear enough to finalise swamis sex tape. Shaunxavier (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPTheRingess (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text about alleged sex scandal

Below is the proposed text referring to the sex scandal. Please feel free to modify this.

Please discuss below. Once consensus is reached, we can move this to the main article. --vvarkey (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Controversy

On March 3, 2010, Nithyananada's ashram on the outskirts of Bangalore was attacked by a mob,[4] and there were protests and attacks in Tamil Nadu as well.[5] These were in response to video footage that was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News the previous day, purportedly showing Nithyananda having sexual relations with Ranjitha, a Tamil film actress. The whereabouts of Nithyananda were not known after the incident.[6]

Amidst police security which was subsequently provided, some huts on the Bangalore property were burnt down, which police suspected to be an attempt to destroy evidence. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour".[7] According to his press coordinator, Nithyananda encouraged the pursuit of both hedonism and spiritualism, because he believed his disciples ought to "live intensely".[8] On March 4, Nithyananda moved a civil court in Chennai, seeking to restrain the telecast of the video footage and prevent newspapers from publishing anything about him.[9].

Discussion

Perhaps in a tabloid newspaper but not in his wikipedia bio. Intimate sexual relations, a kiss? has the birthplace of tantra changed so much. 10:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
these references are from large mainstream newspapers, not tabloids. --vvarkey (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The content is tittilating tabloid style, wherever it came from, not in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Then change the content. --vvarkey (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to its inclusion, why am I going to change it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
OK we've noted your concern--vvarkey (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the prose - does it look better now? Ithink it could be condensed further. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. I think we can split into 2 paras. Cheers. --vvarkey (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
If you edit it until it doesn't exist it will look good. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In March 2010, in a hidden camera recording him illegally in his home he was seen in a loving embrace with a woman, this caused exaggerated outrage in the sexually repressed locals.[4] Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
:-)) @rob. vvarkey, this is still too titillating. Why not start with the protests first, then explain the context subdued terms later. It could be done in two or three sentences atmost. And please don't bring in Nakkeeran at all as a reliable source.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've split it into two parts - the "sex scandal" and the reactions and counter-reactions. Is this structure okay? Also, I think the title of the section is titillating - perhaps a more neutral one would look better? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Much better now. The section title can be changed to a bland "2010 scandal". But i have a concern. The video broadcast in sun TV, does not show "sexual relations". It shows some cuddling and petting and after that light switches off, while the background commentary mentions that they have censored the "objectionable" parts. But the telegraph article describes it as a "sex romp". The hindu article better describes it as a "compromising position".--Sodabottle (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely more than that. At least the uncensored version I saw. someone deleted the link i'd posted here. --vvarkey (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
vvarkey, such links can't be posted here. Libel law is strong both in India and United States. Wikipedia (and the editors posting the information) can be taken to court easily. That is why Wikipedia has such a strong BLP policy. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have got the finished desired edit, place it in the thread at the BLP noticeboard to see if there is support to include the section there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have toned down the article and title. If there are not any more objections, i will place it in the BLP noticeboard--Sodabottle (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I still object to the content, but I will comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've condensed it further - agree that it should be moved to the noticeboard now. Sodabottle, can you please do the needful? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. It is at the blp noticeboard now.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm questioning the necessity of including what I consider superfluous details, we're trying to put together material for a BLP here; not an investigatory newspaper account. In keeping with an expectation in policy that a BLP should be edited 'conservatively', why not something accurate and simple like: "On March 3, 2010, allegations of impropriety regarding Nithyananada appeared in several south Asian media sources. The allegations are based on what is claimed to be his appearance in a video purportedly showing him engaging in sexual activities with a young woman. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". On March 4, Nithyananda made application to a civil court in Chennai, seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material[10]" cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


WIKIPEDIA ..NO MORE NEUTRAL ???

It is really nice to take the one-sided decision of fully supporting the Swamiji by not even allowing a shred of this scandal in his wiki page. But this is not expected of Wikipedia and its moderators. I also agree that the Swamji's personal life are off limits to the prying eyes of the Media but to take a stand and not show any evidence or even the presence of the scandal which is rocking Indian community spiritually and relgiously, its just unbelievable.

I have seen guys and "moderators" asking for evidence and references...lol. Nice. Go to any google news (preferably google.in) and Swami's news is featured in the hot lists.

Now the police have filed a FIR against this person.I am not sure whether the police complaint filed is correct morally but this is a VERIFIABLE AND UNQUESTIONABLE PIECE of evidence which should be atleast mentioned in Wikipedia.

The attitude shown by these moderators are unnervingly similar to the Communist propaganda machine in 50s-80s.

Never thought Wikipedia will lose its neutrality and become similar to magazines of the erstwhile "Ironcurtain" USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonerangertx (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This scandal broke 4 days ago and someone reading the Wiki article will think nothing happened at all. There's a lot of weight being thrown around here in the name of WP:BLP. --vvarkey (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Third that. Unsourced contentious info in BLPs should no doubt be immediately removed. But when we do have so many reliable sources about this incident, we shouldn't hesitate to include it. The experienced/involved editors should allow IP editors to add the info provided they cite RS, which is easy to get given the widespread coverage of the incident. The wordings or style of writing can be refined later according to consensus.-Mgtm7m (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep this in mind : 1)Only one editor is contesting the inclusion at all 2) A consensus edit was arrived at and is now at the BLP noticeboard to be checked out if its is OK. In cases like this we need to be sure. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Ok in that case, why not add a section discussing the controversy and label the entire article as "subject to change as it is a current happening issue". Currently this petition to include is in the backlog 36 out of 40 pending ones. Apparently the common idea, as one editor has put is to wait "till the dust settles" and by that time everyone would have forgotten about this and gone on with their lives...Kudos !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.214.241 (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree WP:BLP is very important. But I think we've erred too much on the side of caution here. There's been some 15,000 page views of the article since the scandal broke. [11]. The article probably won't get so many page views in the rest of it's existence. --vvarkey (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The idea is to build a encyclopedic biography, which will be for long term. "everyone would have forgotten about this and gone on with their lives". that may apply for a news report aggregator. Not a encyclopedia article, The 15,000 page views are here for the scandal news, which is available in other google hits easily. But we will build a stable biography, which will cover the subject forever. In such cases the best way to proceed is ask yourself - how will this look six months down the line.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that.This remark "every one would have forgotten and gone on with their lives" was actually implied by another editor ,not by me, who opposed the inclusion of this scandal.

Have a look at the WP:BLPN for this article where it is said to wait "till the dust settles".

So my question is this, is this delay in publishing this article an attempt to stop the divulging of the information to the public by his followers ?. If so they are doing helluva job :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonerangertx (talk • contribs) 09:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusing editors who have nothing to do with the subject is in bad faith. You are a new editor here. you can easily go through our (all those involved in the discussion) contribution histories to see where our interests lie. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may. All I am interested is this, why there is not even a mention of the controversy in the wiki article page.It is not even needed to get into all the tiny titillating details, which I agree are subpar to Wiki's standards but it can atleast be mentioned in one sentence while we are waiting for WP:BLPN to resolve. Not doing this, it portrays an ominous picture about the Wiki moderators.--Lonerangertx (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree and second. We can mention the incident in a succinct sentence without going into the contentious details for now. The gist of the information shouldn't get caught up in wikipedia red tape.-Mgtm7m (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed ?

I am not sure where to report this but googling for 'nithyananda wiki' shows User:Guru nithyananda as the second result. The user has a section 'Paramahamsa Nithyananda' expressing his/her opinion on this person along with a video link. Kindly look into it.-Mgtm7m (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, removed and added a speedy delete templare. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The user page you are referring to was created last September by someone and was subsequently vandalized through adding insulting comments and video links over the past few days. I have reverted the page to display the original content the creator posted last autumn. Please do not affix 'speedy deletion' templates to other editor's user pages, without a really good reason. If the editor who created the page wishes to change its contents, it is entirely up to them to sign in and delete or add content as they desire. If vandalism continues to occur on that user page, in all likelihood it will be protected and the vandals blocked from editing the encyclopedia. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the content, you simply removed the speedy template, with all the edits from the ips I assumed it was an article. I have reported the situation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

anyone can update the news related the video of nithyanandha swamigal with tamil actress ranjitha

suntv says they have checked the video with vidoe authentic forensic department

and found that video is authentic

nithyanadha swamigal ashramam says video is morphed

can anyone update the page with neutral views.i am unable to update the views neutrally so anyone help in expanding the history of nithayanadha swamigal in encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.m82 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We are working on that Raja. For the past two days, we have worked and arrived at a consensus edit (see above), which is now currently at the BLP noticeboard to check if it does not violate BLP concerns. (read the above discussions to see what is happening) --Sodabottle (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible addition?

March 2010

A video that claimed to show Nithyananada in a compromising situation with a woman was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News on 2 March 2010. This resulted in protests outside the Ashram during which a fire broke out. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". On March 4, Nithyananda made an application to a civil court in Chennai , seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material.[4]

Discussion of above edit

Its enough. I am all for adding it--Sodabottle (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am ok for adding this part too. Per WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP, no more than a few lines should suffice for this matter. While the rest of the article about him is a few lines long, it is preposterous to have 10 lines on the scandal. In any case, the lurid details of the footage and the reasons/justifications for/against his action fall under speculative at least for now. There is no urgency for this to go on Wikipedia. The dust and the glare will settle soon, and once the facts are clear, we can include it in the article. Till then, wikinews is the place for details. prashanthns (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I came from WP:BLP/N. I'm OK with the above as a compromise too. My preferred reading would remove the "comprising situation" euphemism, and simply say the video purports to show him having sexual relations (as I understand it does, I haven't seen it myself). If he/his organization denied it the video, we should state the autheniticity of the video has been denied. Then the public reaction. The whole thing no more than 2-3 lines. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
They appear to kiss and cuddle and a little more but I was thinking to keep out the sexual relations as that can mean different things to many people, I am avoiding that by the compromising situation comment, that is the issue actually, a kiss and a cuddle is not a big issue its normal but in this situation it is compromising. Is is disputed and that is there , I will just look again.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
late night broadcasts showed what looked like oral sex. but prime time versions were toned down to cuddling and kissing. "compromising situation" describes it well enough.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Shall we boldly add it now? we can also wait a few hours for any other involved editors to comment, but I left it at the BLPN and there has been no objections here or there. Lets wait a few hours, I would like opinions from Spacemanspliff and the ringess and Decon, although Decon did offer a similar addition for insertion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
no harm waiting a few more hours. i have left a message for Spiff in his talkpage. If no objection is raised is around in say five hours from now, i will add it--Sodabottle (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Add, no need to wait for me if there's consensus :) —SpacemanSpiff 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats almost everyone, apart from the ringess, I am going to add in and if the ringess objects later we can remove and discuss, but there appears to be little objection and adding something simple and without any tittilating aspects will cover the requests and issues of not censored...and so on Off2riorob (talk)
I have no objections. Sorry I didn't participate more in the discussions. I second the sentiment that given the current length of the article it would be ridiculous to have this scandal occupy more than a few lines. I too say let's wait 6 months or so and let the dust settle.TheRingess (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ringess. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The section as proposed is in the article and I have removed the BLP dispute tag as the dispute is not actually here but externally - the guru and his followers dispute the interpretation of the material but that much is clear from our wording and cited source. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly content with the edit; I do agree with the idea of waiting for 'the dust to settle', before making any big moves in this article, perhaps six months is a little excessive, but we'll see what happens. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well 6 months was just a number that popped up. Of course it's impossible to say how long this scandal will last. We don't need to provide a blow by blow of everything that happens. Might as well wait and see what if anything comes of all of it. Cheers.TheRingess (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs and philosophy

This article could benefit from a degree of expansion as regards Nithyanada's teachings and so on, what we have now explains nothing really about his teachings and beliefs. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in a better state now than it was two days back when it read like a devotee site. Whatever content gets added on this has to be reliably sourced. —SpacemanSpiff 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see that, yes that is not correct at all, perhaps later today I will have a look and add something, yes, reliable and independently reported. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

need some updation of videoscandal news on nithyananda swamigal

suntv has said that what the video they have telecasted is authenticated by video forensic department

They have also said that after authenticating the video from video forennsic department they have telecasted it

I expect this information to be updated in the history of nithayanda swamigal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.m82 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Expectations. prashanthns (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Cases filed against Nithyananda

The following fresh piece of development should be mentioned in Wiki. Times of India is verifiable and a reliable source of information.


" On Thursday, the police registered a case of cheating under Sec 420 of IPC against Nithyananda based on a complaint by a group of lawyers. On Friday, based on Lenin's complaint, police slapped more cases against him including those under IPC sections 295 (A) (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), 506 (1) (criminal intimidation) and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy). "

Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Nithyanandas-disciple-seeks-police-protection/articleshow/5652671.cms


Also the current paragraph in the main wiki article page stating that a fire broke out is ludicrous at the least. Its like saying "I went to Grand Canyon and I found out the soil is brown and the climate was hot".Of course we all know that !.

Looks like, instead of giving the correct info, the editors display an approach that is too protective towards Nithyananda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonerangertx (talk • contribs) 04:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Denial by Nithyananda

Nithyananda himself released a footage of him speaking to his devotees urging that he had not done anything illegal and requested them to be patient till the matter is fully resolved.


Rajesh.manirajan (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Soource: http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/08/stories/2010030863841200.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh.manirajan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is a "Paramahamsa"?

Some of the vigilante here have no idea of the cultural significance of this incident. Another feels that "it is exaggerated outrage in the sexually repressed locals". Another feels this an excess in the land of tantra! Perhaps a reading of Paramahamsa would be ideal. Tharikrish  21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest; generally speaking, calling other editors "vigilantes", or inferring that they're racialists is probably not the best approach to take if you're hoping to convince them that you're assuming the "good faith" WP:AGF position required in our policy. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the last edit. That is good. Now you are listening. There is nothing wrong in calling some of you as vigilantes, which is what some of you are. I never inferred that you are racialists (even though you could well be). I have quoted one editor verbatim above. I act on "good faith", that is why I suggest you to read Paramahamsa, before discussing further. Tharikrish  21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a cabal of editors from WP:BLP who love to throw their weight around here. It took days to even discuss the scandal on this Talk page, with their repeated deletes. They've been very successful in keeping away other earnest editors. Anyways, the article is somewhat up to date, in spite of their "help". --vvarkey (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Paramahamsa is a term that I see mostly on material that originates from his own order. It is a title that most people would like to have and is not a part of his name. Considering this, I would also propose to remove it from his name. If at all, it should be moved to a bracket saying "...(also called Paramahamsa Nithyananda). prashanthns (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. This should be the first thing that should be done with this page if you need a meaningful BLP. Similar to Nityanand Swami (Paramhansa), who is actually a Paramahansa, unlike the pretender for whom those who guard this page moves earth and the heavens to safeguard the Paramahansa status. Tharikrish  17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we then change to - " Swami Nithyananda (also Paramahamsa Nithyananda)" then? prashanthns (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose to move page to Swami Nithyananda

In view of the above discussion, a more appropriate name for the page is Swami Nithyananda. The first line can clarify that he is sometimes also referred to as Paramahamsa Nithyananda. He is primarily a Swami who refers (or is sometimes referred to) as Paramahamsa.prashanthns (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you start a move proposal? We already have Swami Nityanand and Nityanand Swami (Paramhansa) on wiki, so a disambiguator is likely needed, probably something like "(Bangalore)", but that would best be addressed in a move discussion listed at WP:RM. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do. prashanthns (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Tharikrish  17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You have my support --vvarkey (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved (see closer justification at end of section).

Paramahamsa Nithyananda → Swami Nithyananda (Dhyanapeetam) — The title Paramahamsa is a generic title for which there does not seem to be enough secondary sources. The subject is a Swami sometimes referred to as a Paramahamsa. Hence, this may be just included in the description rather than the name of the article. prashanthns (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • We need some sort of a disambiguator, I don't know what. There are quite a few Swamis listed at Nityananda (disambiguation) and all of them appear to be entitled to the Swami Nithyananda name. So something like (Bangalore) or (Tiruvannamalai) needs to be added. I support a move, but to a title that can't be confused.—SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest Swami Nithyananda (Dhyanapeetam), which is the name of his ashrama and is clearly identifiable with him. prashanthns (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Search Paramahahamsa Nithyanda on google, 260,000 results, here is his myspace page with the name of Paramahamsa Nithyananda and his own life bliss foundation with his name as Paramahamsa Nithyananda. Google image results for Paramahamsa Nithyananda 12 200 the life bliss You Tube all refering to PM. from there Paramahamsa Nithyananda's Public Statement in English regarding the recent allegations the guy is clearly known as Paramahamsa Nithyananda and the title as is is totally correct. Actually the conversation above seem to me to me that people don't like the fact that he is called and known as Paramahamsa Nithyananda but that is not a correct reason to change the title of this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject's birth name known? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Not by me, also recently in the infobox has been added title ..Paramahamsa that is not his title its a name given to him probably by his disciples or himself so it is totally wrong to suggest it is a title, as far as I know it means saint or something like that, I imagine the traditionalists don't like it but anyone can call themselves what they want and if they become known by that name that that is it, clearly it is not his official awarded title. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I also don't support the move, but I question your statement that is not his official awarded title. The wikipedia article on the term states that it is bestowed by someone else, but some people have given it to themselves. Until someone verifies how he got this title, I think we probably shouldn't make any assumptions about how/why he got it. The problem here is going to be that even if we find a statement to the effect that so and so bestowed the title on him, there will always be editors who doubt the veracity of that statement. It seems clear to me that he is referred to by that title by the press (even in bad press), and the question of whether or not he deserves the title (which is what this proposed change seems to be about) is at best non-neutral and at worst way beyond the scope of this article.TheRingess (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's imo more of an endearment than a title, it's not like he was awarded the status and got a certificate. He also appears to be referred to sometimes by some people as Godman, no one has officially bestowed the title on him and no one can stop him calling himself or being known as that. The catholic church has a hundred years and a couple of miracles before it gives the official title of saint but this is not a title at all, it is not official and no one can stop him being known or calling himself that even if they don't like it, he is not a proper Paramahama, of course he is not but here at the wikipedia as far as naming his biography we are not bound by such protocols.23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict)There's no "superior authority" that gives the title. In the case of Ramakrishna it was earned from the general public (and even there we don't have it in the title), but in this case it appears to be self-annointed with mostly self-published sources and PR pieces using the term. If you look at most of the new news pieces (those that aren't the "he's giving this lecture" variety), they use "Swami Nithyananda". —SpacemanSpiff 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Not to keep arguing a point, but I'm feeling frisky today, how do we know he gave it to himself? Not that I claim to know any different, do we have a source supporting the claim that he gave the title to himself, or is this just original research? Just trying to clarify. We can call the article anything we want, but if we have a source for how he got the title (either by giving it to himself or by having it bestowed) that seems to me to be a nice addition to the article. I have no idea whether or not he deserves it (perhaps if I assume he is guilty of what he is being accused of, then maybe I would conclude not), but that's just me, I'll leave that decision up to the experts, who have hopefully first published elsewhere. I think that states my viewpoint amply enough and now will (probably) retire from further discussions regarding his (deserved/undeserved; self bestowed/not self bestowed) title. I'm also going to stop, because now I'm no longer discussing how to improve the article, but am discussing the subject, so that's a good place to stop.TheRingess (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Here you go. This is a syndicated piece from the Ashram, and I'm quoting from the text: "Continuing his monastic wandering, nithyananda finally attained inner bliss at the age of 22. Rajasekaran became Paramahamsa Nithyananda." Until then he's referred to as "nithyananda" (apparently with an uncapitalized n). This was the source of the "self-anointed" bit in my earlier comment.—SpacemanSpiff 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think recent events are not a good reason to rename the article. He seems to have contributed a column on oneindia using the Paramahansa title, and the more recent books seem to be under the Paramhansa title as well. Oppose rename for now. --JN466 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
His cognomen in Tamil print media (where he has been writing columns and is covered more) has been "Swami Nithyananda". The Paramahamsa (819 google hits)title has been used relatively rarer than the "Swami" title.(4010 google hits)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Paramahamsa in the case of the subject has been a title given either by himself or his devotees. THere is no santioned body or procedure for acquiring the title. So, as many of those who disagree say, it is a relativistic title. It is hence for the sake of neutrality that I propose to not include the title in the name of his article - much like Sean Connery is not located at Sir Sean Connery. His birth name is Rajasekaran, but his identity has always been as Nithyananda. Now, the basis for my proposal to move to Swami Nithyananda is that a greater number of people would know him as Swami than as Paramahamsa, which is a self or a clique driven title. prashanthns (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't rename articles because we think it is a self driven clique as you call it or because we think he doesn't deserve the name, in his case it is simply his name chosen or given bu his diciples not any kind of official title at all, this is why I have added the citation req tag to the recently added title section in the infobox, that usage is for official titles and in this case it is not official at all, so that should be removed from the infobox regardless of the outcome of this discussion.. Off2riorob (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob, see the link above that I posted in reply to TheRingess. Page 4 treats the "Paramahamsa" as a title that he "earned" (it's a syndicated piece from the Ashram). —SpacemanSpiff 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps he does, but that doesn't make it any kind of official title but just a self given name, you can call yourself anything you want, if you become well known as that then that is that. What I see here is that the powers that be think he is a rubbish guru and doesn't deserve to call himself that but we at wikipedia are not involved in such religious politics to rename his article. Off2riorob (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of this person until I saw it at AfD a month or two back and even then I didn't bother to look at the article, so there's no stick in this for me. However, the implication from the article is that he "attained" the title of Paramahamsa which is significant. Don't forget the native language bit either, Gnews in Tamil 19 (Swami) vs 3 (Paramahamsa) and web of 3620 vs 764. English Gnews hits are 178 vs 69 (40 if you exclude the syndicated columns). If the request was to move to Rajashekarand, then it would be different, but we're really looking for a name (with associated title) that's in common usage. —SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Off2riorob, Kindly do not misquote me. I said "self driven or clique driven" and NOT "self driven clique" as you say, which would be quite an illogical phrase. It may so be that some may have an opinion as to his 'moral authority' over the title Paramahamsa. As you say, it is not for us to take a side on that issue through his article. All I am saying is that we should retain it as a name-claim and not his name, in which case it should be moved to brackets and not his article name. I am done justifying this point. prashanthns (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am closing this discussion with the following result: Move to Swami Nithyananda (Dhyanapeetam)

The majority of editors who participated in the discussion supported this name for the article. There were several editors expressing dissent; the most vocal of whom was Off2riorob who felt that the subject of the article was most well known with his title "Paramahamsa", although this was disputed by Sodabottle. As some editors realised, the issue of how the title was attained was largely irrelevant to this discussion. We don't judge whether a title is "valid" or not, we simply use the name that a person is most well known by. However there is precedence (see WP:NCP) for not using additional qualifiers (which includes titles). Jayen466 is correct when he/she says that recent events do not constitute a reason to rename the article, but most of the reasoning of the editors supporting the move does not relate to these recent events. To conclude, this result seems to be supported by users Prashanthns, SpacemanSpiff, Sodabottle, Deconstructhis, Vvarkey, and Tharikrish, and also by the naming conventions guideline. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation?

This has been added uncited to the article, has anyone got a link or a cite to the uni where this can be verified?


According to Hindu University of America (HUA) auhtorities, " Swamiji resigned from his position in the Board of HUA in March 2009 ". Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's 'talk in article'. I reverted it and added an appropriate template to the contributers talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction Fact reg. Swamy as Chairman of Hindu University of America

According to Hindu University of America (HUA) auhtorities, " Swamiji resigned from his position in the Board of HUA in March 2009 ". This is for records purpose and time line references. The name is restored back to Hindu University of america and the url is www.hua.eduIsrabvk (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't find anything about him on this site one way or the other, was his leaving reported anywhere in print or online? Off2riorob (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

date of birth

As far as I can find, the subject has a birth certificate saying he was born on the first of january which I imagine is an auspicious date and the people that don't like him say he was not born on that date, I have found what are not really reliable citatons supporting First of january and I would think there is a astrology chart done for him on his web site somewhere but I can't see one as yet any comments or citations? Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Jan 1st is not an auspicious (or inauspicious) date in India. We follow different calendars for astrology. Our new year is different, and the date is different every year. --vvarkey (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

News update

This is an interesting read and could need adding as oan update to the article, any ideas http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8594250.stm Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly added a comment about this. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

--Sathish jo (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)== Criminal Investigation Department Investigation ==

Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the state has said Swami Nithyananda who was caught on camera with a Tamil actress, is absconding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathish jo (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The video and Nithyananda's religion

Only one video that was deemed suitable for public viewing is available on the web. That video shows Nithyananda "making out" with a woman.

Some people have expressed surprise-"oh,it was just a kiss. what's the big deal?". It wouldn't be a big deal except that Nithyananda professes to be a monk and claims to have renounced the world. See the dissonance yet?

In any case, some of the more explicit videos are not available on the web. They have been removed by you tube and other sites.

Also, on the subject of Nithyananda's religion-he himself and through Dyanapeetam.org claims to be a spiritualist-http://www.dhyanapeetam.org/web/default.aspx:"The Nithyananda Mission is part of a world-wide movement for meditation and peace. The goal of Paramahamsa Nithyananda's advent on planet earth is to spread the inner science of enlightenment by delivering physical health, mental wellness and spiritual awakening to all beings irrespective of their race, gender or nationality. To achieve this, Nithyananda Mission aims to initiate 100 million persons into the unique meditation Nithya Dhyaan and one hundred thousand persons to 'living enlightenment'.

So why does wikipedia insist on describing him as a Hindu and remove my correction every time?

I cannot help but think that the enemies of Hindusim are doing their best to describe Nithyananda as a "true Hindu" and that this is yet another attempt by decadent Westerners and some Indians(and ofcourse Nithyananda) to co-opt and pervert Hinduism through revisionist teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlwan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He is a Hindu and just went to the the Kumba melaOff2riorob (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"He is a hindu and just went to the the Kumba mela"

1) He claims to have gone to the Kumbh Mela.

2) Anyone can go to the Kumbh Mela-that does not make them Hindu. I suppose some of the Christian, Muslim and Non religious folk who make tourist trips to the Kumbh are also Hindu then?

3)Nithyananda and dyanpeetam.org themselves don't claim to be speak for Hinsuism but for Spirituality. In fact, Nithyananda in his book specifically addresses his religion and says he believes in spirituality and Not religion-neither hindusim, christianity nor islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlwan (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Give over he is a Hindu, born a Hindu' brought up a Hindu' educated as a Hindu, he became a guru but he is still basically a Hindu, he has not renounced Hinduism, has he? Of course all claimed to be enlightened people reject the confinements of specific individual religions. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So despite Nithyananda not believing in Hindusim,his religion is now Hindusim because Off2riorob thinks it is.Why does he have to renounce it-all he has to do is not believe in it.

He is a Hindu, but it can stay out for the time being and is out now. I will look around in citations to see if he is reported as a Hindu.Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why have wikipedia-let Off2riorob write his own.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlwan (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pehlwan, sometimes we get so emotional over the current news that we tend to lose the neutral stand. When things settle down, say in a few months, we tend to think more objectively. And to this end, I think editors here are doing a fine job. Anyway, I have dug through the google and found a link that may corroborate your side of the story but its upto the moderators to make a call.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/57993/post-scandal-nithyanandas-commerce-takes.html

CK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmoskramer (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

March 2010 is not an appropriate title for a section in Wikipedia. With respect to Wikify-ing, I am changing the title of the sex scandal section to "controversies" and adding the appropriate sub headings for such information. I've also added headings to other parts in an effort to better organize the article. This should not be disputed so please do not change the heading back to "March 2010" or shift anything else out of its headings (unless you have a better appropriate title). Thanks. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed to a less tabloid affair, Sun news video. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Still with a tabloid flavor. I suggest changing the title to Controversies. Tharikrish  20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree for controversy. Is better than naming the section after the channel that made the video. prashanthns (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Changed to "Controversy" as no other opinion has come. Tharikrish  14:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

There is this drawing of Swami's available on commons. Any thoughts on using it? prashanthns (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We could use a drawing but perhaps lower in the article, not in the info box, it is surprising no one has a photo of him. Actually looking at the pic it is not much of a representation and I would see no benefit to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yea. I myself am in two minds about its utility in the article, which is why I thought I should bring it up. I have no issues on its representativeness, but only that it kinda looks like a caricature. I would wait and get a few more opinions on its use in the lower half of the article.prashanthns (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was the word I was looking for caricature, I seem to remember the picture being in the article previously and I may have taken it out, but don't quote me. I would actually strongly object to the insertion of this caricature into a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..the photo I removed was quite good, but a copyvio though. prashanthns (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was, but alas a vio. I had a look and couldn't see if I had removed this drawing, no worries. If I get chance I might email a request for a picture from the foundation or somewhere, although I have done that a few times and only had one result. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Need more information on the person

This is a well orchestrated campaign of nityananda supporters masquerading as objective info presenters. Even for an untrained eye, the hymns of praise are very obvious. All reports in the news are mentioned with the pretext " alleged" and " accused" and everything that elevates his position is devoutly referenced with adjectives and referenced shamelessly to his own website.

The article as it stands now seems to be just about a single scandal. It provides no background as to why he was famous and why the scandal was considered so important by the Indian Media. I plan to get some links that talk about this. People who are interested in helping out, can contribute to the effort. Acnaren (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I will help if details about his life, early life and so on could be found in WP:RS reliable sources, seems like that would be a clear improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
He became popular in India mainly because of his spiritual healing (Still looking for some solid references here) and he had a large set of celebrity followers/disciples including chief ministers of a couple of state and quite a impressive list of Hindi and Tamil actors and actresses - many of them who seem to show continued support post scandal (see references to Juhi Chawla and S.V.Shekar below). He fist came into popular limelight because of a series he wrote in the popular Tamil magazine "Kumudam" called "Kadavai Thira Kattru Varattum" (meaning "Open the door, let the breeze enter") (I am still trying to find an english reference for this.. can anyone let me know if they have one?).
Here are articles from reliable media that refer to his association with Modi - Chief Minister of Gujarat and Yedurappa the Chief Minister of Karnataka.. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-03-05/vadodara/28146699_1_narendra-modi-sardar-sarovar-narmada-nigam-invitation and http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/On+the+run,+Swami+Nityananda+arrested+near+Shimla+hill+station/1/93931.html
And links that refer to famous followers in the cine field - Vivek Oberoi - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-06/news-interviews/28107129_1_sudeep-kannada-film-vivek-oberoi, Juhi Chawla - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-02/bangalore/28357630_1_juhi-chawla-bidadi-ashram-birthday-celebrations, Vishnuvardhan (actor) (I could only find a photo here) http://gallery.oneindia.in/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1537971&g2_serialNumber=3, S. V. Shekar (The article is in Tamil) http://www.koodal.com/news/tamilnadu.asp?id=54777&section=tamil&title=s-v-shekar-meets-nithyananda, Michael Richards (of Kramer fame in Seinfeld) - http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/13/entertainment/et-richards13 - Acnaren (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sun News Video section needs to be updated

The last news there is 7 months old. Moreover, the section reads like a news report with a collection of random details rather than a summary of important events. Also we need to rethink the sections based on recent events such as the CID claiming that they sent no news to the media and that the media made up many of the alleged confessions and events of the case - http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/apr/120411-News-Bangalore-Swami-Nithyananda-Sex-videotapes-CID.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent link, if there are notable updates we want to add them at the earliest convenience. The face that the press created titillation and exaggerated reports is also to be expected and we understood this at the time and did not report unduly at wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heading of this section isn't appropriate for the content, and the content has very few mention about the case and the reason for arrest. In a complaint lodged with the Chennai police, Nithya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin of Athur in Salem accused Swami Nithyananda of harassment and criminal intimidation. The Central Crime Branch police registered a case under Section 295 (A) (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 420 (cheating), 506 (1) (criminal intimidation) and 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy) -http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/07/stories/2010030763560100.htm This heading should be renamed to Controversy and more information should be added about the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanraj1981 (talk • contribs)

One mans controversy is another mans fun. Section titles of controversy are to be avoided. That article is from fifteen months ago now, some of those charges have not been progressed and the filer of that report has since been charged himself. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason given for reverting the title 'controversy' to 'Sun News Video'. If a famous person is arrested on criminal charges, can we not call it as controversy? this content is not neutral. Arrest of Nithyananda was part all news media in India. why there is not much information about the case? There is mention about the arrest but there is no mention about reason for arrest or the criminal charges for which Nithyanada got arrested.--Mohanraj1981 (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nithiyanandha.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nithiyanandha.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Controvery Section - Linking only to copyrighted material and Using reliable sources

Please do not link to copyrighted material. See the copyright section of WP:CONV. Unless the video has been explicitly placed in the public domain you should not link to it. Also please use only reliable sources. Gossip magazines and Tamil Cine News don't qualify as reliable sources. See WP:RS

The Controversy section has gone through a number of revisions. As such don't bother changing it unless you are adding sufficiently new information. Also as mentioned earlier in the talk section there are enough links from reliable news sources in the article about the controversy. Do not add new links unless they add sufficient value to the article - Acnaren (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the High Court of Karnataka has banned all telecast of the morphed video or parts of the video. As such, uploading, disseminating and linking to it is illegal. Kindly refrain from doing so. http://www.breakingnewsonline.net/news/7189-hc-bans-video-broadcast-of-nithyananda-sex-tapes.html - Nithya Yogananda —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

The phrase "hugging and kissing" has been returned to the article because the previous phrase "compromising situation" is vague, unclear, culturally specific, and unencyclopaedic language. It invites both speculation and confusion about what actually occurred — and hugging and kissing is what occurred, something that is not regarded as compromising in many parts of the world, hence the probability of confusion. Wikipedia is international and attempts to transcend localised interpretations of language. In the West, for example, "compromising behaviour" would be widely understood to mean full sexual intercourse, but no citations have been adduced to demonstrate that intercourse occurred in this instance. Use of Tamil Cine News has been objected to while ignoring the other reliable sources. This is cherry-picking. — O'Dea (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

False information.

Saxena arrested for cheating distibutors and for telecasting nithyananda video and moreover is CEO Sun Pictures only. The link itself shows as follows :


Shows as "He was arrested in July on charges of cheating and intimidating film producers and distributors. Ten criminal cases were filed against him, of which six were quashed by the Madras high court. He has been granted bail in the remaining cases".

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-15/chennai/30159419_1_sun-pictures-w-hansraj-saxena-metropolitan-magistrate


Sobanbabu.b (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to restore removed referenced material and refs

It's usually not a good idea to undo the hard work of others. I would only remove sourced material after gaining consensus from other editors. This is a one time revert. Dlohcierekim 02:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Not reverting. The material removed is a little too gushy and some of the ref's were from the subject. Dlohcierekim 02:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

<<ec>>Not sure I'm following you. Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia. Please indent by placing a : before each subsequent post in a discussion. Please sign your posts by placing four tildes after each talk page post, thusly ~~~~. Please do not "shout" by using all caps. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please do read the guideline and policies linked in the welcome I left on your talk page. Please do realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Once again, one should discuss changes rather thansinglehandedly deciding what content should or should not be. Changes should be in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies rather than personal opinions about "truth". Cheers, and happy editing Dlohcierekim 05:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nithyananda is fraud, Please remove his name from Wikipedia

Hi Sir/Madam,

Nithyananda is a fraud. He is not a saint(swami). The birth details of Nithyananda(many other details) mentioned in Wikipedia is not correct. He has given all false details. He has spoiled so many families, women, men, whoever he could try. He is seriously charged in rape cases and many criminal cases. His details in Wikipedia sends a wrong information to society, showing him as good. It is totally wrong. I was going to his ashram regularly and seen his cruelties closely. All the allegations Lenin, Arathi Rao and Vinay bharadwaj has made on Nithyananda are TRUE. Nithyananda is torturing Lenin, Arathi Rao and Vinay bharadwaj day-in and day-out. One cannot imagine the way he tortures people. Please remove Nithyananda's details from Wikipedia. For TRUTH's sake please remove nithyananda's details.(If you want I can give you more details)Satyajayate1 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

This is a well orchestrated campaign of nityananda supporters masquerading as objective fact- presenters. Even for an untrained eye, the hymns of praise are very obvious. All reports in the news are mentioned with the pretext " alleged" and " accused" and everything that elevates his position is devoutly referenced with adjectives and referenced shamelessly to his own website. No matter , what is said here, his adventures are easily accessible on Youtube.

Here are a few gems:

"The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". So Nityananda is the victim here, and what his ashram retorts was of primary importance and had to be mentioned. Here is the question, Why were the quotes of his accusers not mentioned anywhere ?????. If the swamy's deeds are good and honorable, no amount of malice can tarnish his image. The authors seem to be to be too insecure about the essence of their guru's convictions.

"Diverse range of meditation courses catering to a wide cross section of people [8] which he teaches at his centers and public programs. He has followers and runs ashrams in India and abroad". Note, "Diverse" "wide cross section of people", could have easily said teaches "diverse courses" and left it there. ..But AGAIN, objectivity was never the GOAL. And, what is this obsession with repeatedly emphasizing his exploits "abroad", ...Are the authors implying something???. It sounds more like an unpaid advertisement than an objective post.

For brand association, it is normal to have film personalities in advertisement campaings ranging from condoms to sanitary napkins, I do not see how the mention of VIVEK OBEOI benefits this article informatively, spiritually or even rationally. This is was done with a singular purpose of garnering attention not objectivity befitting WIKIPEDIA.

"A video showed Nithyananada hugging and kissing a woman while watching television[16] was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News on 2 March 2010. This resulted in protests outside the Ashram during which a fire broke out".

Here again "hugging" and "kissing". Made it sound like an innocuous jesture done to an infant out of parental affection. The fact is he was not merely hugging and kissing a woman but it went further in a "BEDROOM". The fact that it was not broadcast on live TV, dose not mean nothing further happened…it just means that decency prevailed on part of the TV channels. I wonder if authors of this post could be this objective, if their family starred in that raunchy video. Now, that would be be a true test of trust and belief in the swamy. Apparently, fires just break out whenever the swamy is challenged. I wonder what would happen if he had to take a potency test....annihilation, i presume.

Note, no where is it mentioned that he did not hand himself to the law, the very day court summons were issued. That issue is again inconvenient to the present discourse, and thus safely ommited.

There are a million more outliers that show that this is written by someone near and dear volunteers....(personal gopikas and gopals) ( pun intended !!). The sad part is, this is not even skillfully done and blatantly shows its partisan viewpoints. He perhaps should employ more devout full-time "paid daytime volunteers".

Let him come out and say, i am human and have carnal urges like everyone else. That would be a fair point and would save you guys a lot of time on the internet. Please don't elevate a human with all his frailties to a state of divine perfection. If this is about money and propaganda, then it is certainly not about spirituality. Lastly as authors of this post, don't count too much on your objectivity and balance, maybe they are good enough for your local ashram circulars. This is a free intellectual forum ( wikipedia ) and your ramblings will be thoroughly challenged. Please stick to your websites and save yourself the embarrassment.....and for a disclaimer : i am a proud and practicing hindu who believes that BS should be exposed for its stench.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me xyz (talk • contribs) 22 August 2012 - Sig. added by 220 of Borg 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a free informational forum It is an encyclopedia. Dlohcierekim 02:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
ALL THE MORE REASON TO POPULATE ENCLYCLOPEDIA WITH FACTS AND NOT YOUR OPINION OR HALF-BAKED ASHRAM MANIFESTOS. IN THE SAME TOKEN, I WILL REFRAIN FROM, POSTING ABOUT UPCOMING MOVIES OF A CERTAIN "ACTRESS" CONNECTED TO THE SWAMY IN SOME PERVERTED NEWS ARTICLES ( I CAN DO WITH REFFERENCES, IF YOU INSIST). LET SENSE PREVAIL. IF YOU WANT TO SELL SOMETHING PAY FOR IT AND DO IT ON YOUR WEBPAGES. DONT TRY TO GALVANIZE OPINION HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.162.32 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2012‎ - Sig. added by 220 of Borg 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

"Nithyananda, was born as Rajasekaran in January 1978 in the town of Thiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu made famous by spiritual masters such as Arunagiri Yogeshwara, Arunagirinathar, Ramana Maharishi and Yogi Ramsuratkumar". Considering that this post is about a controversial personality, this statement is un-neccessarily and included with the implicit intent to mislead and confuse the reader. Without any doubt, Thiruvannamalai is a wonderful place and is home to many masters including Arunagiri Yogeshwara, Ramana Maharishi and Yogi Ramsuratkumar, unfortunately, it is also the native place for many rapists and personalities of questionable moral character. The fact that only yogic masters have been associated with Nithyananda, is clearly an effort to implant opinion and to equate nithyananda with other spirutual masters. So the phrases about the masters has been removed, this removal will not affect information dispensed by the sentence. Latest post now reads "Nithyananda, was born as Rajasekaran in January 1978 in the town of Thiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu".


The existing text has been modified along with references to state cases registered against the revered swamy. A suitable reference has also been added. This line would help readers understand the reasons for the summons, magnitude of the offenses and reasons for the protests that followed. The text now reads "After release of video, Bidadi police registered case under IPC sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 506 (threat to life) and 420 (cheating)[20]"

In its present form the post reads " There is, however, a wide variation in publicly reported numbers of his following ranging from 2 million [17] to a self published 10 million followers.[1]". This is again verbal dexterity and pomposity and not actual representation of the facts and the context of this info. Please read the reference. This has been modified to make these facts more verifiable. In its latest form it now reads "At the time of his arrest, NDTV speculated that he had about 2 million followers worldwide (17), while his website projects this number to 10 million (1). " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.162.32 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says " He studied Yoga, Vedanta, Siddha, Tantra and other eastern metaphysical sciences from his mentors Raghupati Yogi,[13] Kuppammal, Annamalai Swami and others[1]" . Studied/studying- is a a concentrated, prolonged and evolving intellectual endeavor, that is different from experimenting, as is stated by the refferenced article from public domain. So that had been modified to reflect what is stated in the external reference- About Raghupati Yogi, INDIA TODAY says that derived this info from public domain, and is not a direct result of their investigation. The second part about Kuppammal, Annamalai Swami and others, is from their own website- both unverified. The phrases have been modified accordingly and now read " As per unverified information gathered from the public domain, he experimented with Yoga, Vedanta, Siddha, Tantra and other eastern metaphysical sciences from his mentors Raghupati Yogi,[13] Kuppammal, Annamalai Swami and others[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.162.32 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The post reads " In April 2010, Nithyananda was arrested after failing to answer bail for criminal charges regarding allegations arising after a video was released allegedly showing him in a compromising situation with a woman". This has been modified to factually portray the prominent reasons for his arrest, (cited in the reference -13), after modification the article now reads "In April 2010, Nithyananda was arrested after failing to answer bail for criminal charges including rape came up after a video was released allegedly showing him in a compromising situation with a woman" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.162.32 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Nityandanda was watching TV, is true. However, it is only part of the truth. Of equal importance is the detail that he was on his bed in his bedroom. So the text has been modified to illustrate fact that this "video depicts him on the bed with a sari clad women watching TV. There is no disputing the fact, that the lady was sari clad, and definitely not an infant being showered with parental affection. The text has been appropriately modified.-call_me_xyz

There is emphaisis on the response of Dhyanapeetam website, to the release of the video, calling it defamatory. Hence there should also be a counter emphasis on the fact that the TV CHANNELS stand by their claim that the clippings are original and not doctored. The wording has been subtly altered to state the same.- call_me_xyz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me xyz (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section had been changed to a description of how humans cannot expect to understand and judge a divine master--basically, the editor had used the criticism section to challenge people's criticism. Upon reverting the edit, I found that the old version of the section was an equally unsourced smear against the Swami. I've removed the section entirely for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.25.95 (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is not really sure. This needs to be rewritten, especially the part about Sun TV. The fact that Kanimozhi is under CBI scanner is irrelevant to the topic and adds only to the assumption that the accusations made against Nithyananda is also incorrect. Hahahari (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thinking the same - as such I have reverted back to a prior more NPOV version. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I had written the section to highlight the situation between the two parties involved controversy - Nithyananda and Sun-TV. This is the first development in the case this year.. And the fact that one of the parties in the spat (Sun-TV) is being investigated for a large number of scams by the CBI and local police I felt was relevant to the case. But I am fine with the removal. I'll submit a shorter version and run it through the discuss page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren (talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have reduced the addition to just the new news item regarding this case and removed the references to other cases filed against Sun-TV and Kalaignar-TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnaren (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 July 2011‎

In the present post the sentence reads "He was also coronated in April 2012 as the 293rd pontiff of The Madurai Aadheenam, which is the oldest Saivite matha in south India.[13] ". Again this is an extension of the stated intent of this post and done to galvanize positive opinion. This is about a controversial character who has several pending criminal cases including rape. His annointment is a fact and should be stated. But elevatory phrases about the entity which granted this status, is unnecessary and done with an intent to project his status. This is a public encyclopedia and should be treated so. The latest sentence now reads "He was also coronated in April 2012 as the 293rd pontiff of The Madurai Aadheenam".06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)~call_me_xyz

An update to the controversy section has been added. This has been done with suitable refference derived from a newspaper. This would impart balance to the article. Alot of effort has been put to better the article and information. Do not delete without consensus.--Bed side volunteer (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

'Bed side volunteer', please do not give 'orders' to other editors. See wp:Ownership of articles: "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively." In most cases not only is consensus not required to delete edits, if the edit breaks a WP guideline such as wp:blp they are required to be reverted/deleted immediately. In fact it is an absolute requirement to do so if they are poorly sourced etc. - 220 of Borg 20:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Section update: The information and the so called medical record provided about Aarti Rao is only a claim of Swami Nithyananda's side and is impossible in the grounds of the US laws. Hence, this medical record claim can not be added as a fact. Medical records of an individual is highly confidential in the US; and courts, hospitals or anyone can't disclose it to public for any reason. According to the US laws this claim of Swami Nithyananda can not be true (and not legal either). Thus, I am removing this biased information in order to keep a more neutral view.

slow motion edit war

It has come to my attention that editors of this page are engaged in an edit war. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. User:CityOfSilver has readded material contentiously removed by user:Call me xyz who appears to be user:68.50.162.32. The material removed is cited material and a list of publications by the subject. CityofSilver has sought discourse w/ the anon. As have I w/ Call me xyz. Call me xyz comes across as hostile and threatens to remove material if re added. IMHO as a neutral 3rd party, I believe CityofSilver's adds are reasonable. I advise CityofSilver and Call me xyz to seek another outside opinion if this dispute cannot be resolved with my input. I suggest both parties carefully review WP:edit warring. Both parties should carefully read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I recommend that Call me xyz accept the invitation from Wikipedia:Teahouse. Perhaps they can explain matters better than I. While I was composing this post, Call me xyz redachted relevant content from talk. Please do not do this as it makes it difficult to follow a conversation. It would be better to strike material wishes to retract. Dlohcierekim 06:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A : As much as this is not my field of expertise, i do appreciate your efforts to teach me web web Etiquette. With that being said, may i request you to seek differences between a objective post and a organizational manifesto. Irrespective of the groups numerical strength and collaborative efforts that come with it, facts and tone alone should have a bearing on opinion, espicially those generated by Wikipedia. If editors intend to post an objective post, they should do it responsibly taking into account, all facts and opinions. Would appreciate if this post dosent seem like an advertisement or an organization mouth piece, but more as a balanced excersise which gives a succint opinion about all the events and individuals. Self aggrandizing words are uncalled for, as much as scandalizing facts that do not agree with their agendas. For instance the line " Swami Nithyananda has developed a diverse range of meditation courses catering to a wide cross section of people(8) ", now read the external reference (8), the reference talks about the personality absconding from law. As you have said, All of us live for a passion, me perhaps for wikipedia, the editors for their cult. I do understand that this is a collaborative effort, and do appreciate your claims to neutrality. However, this post seems to be rigged by some insiders. This kind of lopsided efforts do have a bearing on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.162.32 (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I would request "call me xyz" and 68.50.162.32 to kindly go through WK:BLPEDIT. While I do see a few edits by people related to the subject of the article the corrections seem to be non malignant. The changes made by both of you don't add any serious encyclopedic value to the article and seem to be focused on changes to the language and tone. For instance the article already said "According to his biography, he has experimented in..". It is irrelevant to add "According to his biography, he claims to have etc". It is a sheer waste of time in making such changes that are disliked by the subject of the biography. I would also request you to read WP:BLPCRIME. While there have been a number of allegations against him you should note that no official case has been filed on him yet even after 2 years of the first FIR being filed. Also take into account WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. You don't have to add every trivial allegation against him. For instance 2 years ago 40 cases were filed on him and none of are still being processed. Listing everything is a waste of time. Acnaren (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Personal volunteer, I am not sure, if i agree with you. The tone in this article is planted to extol and galvanize positive opinion on very very very controversial personality- with lot of criminal and civil cases pending against him in courts. A casual read of the article would find that all the cited refferences do not match for the information that is put forward. Trivial and inconsequential sentences are cherry picked deliberately from news reports that are either reporting his arrest or his attempt to avoid the law. For instance, check all the references cited in the article, they talk about his arrests, interestingly these very references are used to exlain his popularity and his cults social significance. His arrests get a very cursory mention as if they were misendemors, the cases include RAPE and CHEATING...please check references. If you are talking about redunduncy and inclusion of trivial facts...lets focus on a few other issues : 1) What is the point is writing about his cinema connections, without mentioning the main actress with whom the controversy started with ( for a hint chck my user name).....2) What is the point writing about writing about his drivers cases. 3) What is the point in writing up excepts from his personal webpages that talks about himself ( How about consulting WP:NOTNEWSPAPER here).. Isn't this self promotion. 4) Why was the was the most recent controversy at the Madurai matt not mention, what about his passport controversy and potency tests...they made enough newspaper headlines 5) When the organizations reply to the video release has been implicity mentioned as "DEFAMATORY", why not give his accussers a chance and cite what they think of this character/swami. After all this is a free encylcylopedia , and people should take only facts from here and not advertisement pamphlets. If you want to advertise pay for it and do it on your samies website, not here.--LoveRanjitha (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)--LoveRanjitha (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)LoveRanjitha
Reply to Mr. Acnaren, Could you give reference to the 40 cases pending against Nithyanada...for instance, any news article or website. We would like to include that in this post. To impart balance ato the article. Otherwise this post looks like a promotional advertisement. I will appreciate your help. LET US MAKE WIKIPEDIA BETTER.--Kama ananda (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Mr. Call-me-whatever. But all your changes are of malicious nature and don't reflect true journalistic intent. There is no need to refer to the abusive slur "Sex Swami" to a religious person. Also the tiger skin issue is clearly been thrown out by the police - http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/regions/madurai/aadheenam-raids-yield-nothing-vital-380. By referring it to it partially you have clearly shown your intent as a party to malign the biography rather than contribute to it. As such I am forced to undo all your edits including minor ones that you have added just to add apparent credibility to your edits Acnaren (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Mr, AC_Nareen,
All my listings are true and have been derived from Newspaper sources. There is no reason to retract them, they reflect the incidents that have happened. The issue of "SEX SWAMI" is not done to malign the character, rather it a reflection of an affectionate nickname in numerous Newspaper reports---try to google the word, the truth is glaringly evident. Regarding tiger skins, it is a fact that police registered a case, no where in the post has anything said about conviction. Now contrast my edits, with your excuses for picking selective and miniscule positive phrases from newspaper articles that amply cite arrests, deplorable bed manners, and run-ins with the law. Are we to believe that phrases such as "The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour" and selective omission of self professed disciple Ranjitha (despite affirmation of acquaintances such as Vivek Oberoi, Juhi Chawla and Narendra Modi) were done with true journalistic spirit. Take a deep breath and practise what you preach---don't be the vandal that you claim to abhor. This is a public web encyclopedia, which will have diverse verifiable accounts posted---If you want chants and Hymns of praise, you can always do so on your paid personal webpages. I have not touched any of your propaganda, try to respect diversity of facts...Afterall, this post is a reflection of the reported facts and not your wishfull thoughts. Om Shanti!!. --Call me xyz (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

exclamation mark  I have indented posts and removed excess line spaces in an attempt to make this section more understandable. If anyone objects, just revert me! Could edtiors not familiar with it please read wp:indent and perhaps wp:Talk page guidelines which says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.". - 220 of Borg 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


The controversy section has been updated following the removal of Nithyananda as the Madhurai Adeenam Pontif. All suitable Newspaper references have been cited.--Call me xyz (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)--Call me xyz (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a 293rd pontiff of the Madurai Aadheenam,

He was removed as 293rd pontiff of the Madurai Aadheenam. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.145.3 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Revising content

Naikrosh (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am planning to revise the content on this article. Making a note here of the current issues and proposing the changes before publishing them... as it appears there has been some edit war over happening over the content. A few observations on the current state.

  1. Controversy heavy: Controversies section is disproportionately larger than the others. It has already been flagged for cleanup.
  2. Not Informative: Little information outside of controversy and scandal is provided. Needs more bio, public life etc related info.
  3. Sabotage Evidence of sabotage attempts. Many scandal related references have been tucked away in places where it is irrelevant. E.g: Right after the mention of the Date of birth a there reference to his arrest. The same reference has been repeated a few sentences later again in the context of his teachers. Similarly, information that otherwise belongs in the controversy section (like arrest) is repeated in other sections(introductory para). Analyzing history shows attempts to include profane comments
  4. Edit War: Looks like one of persons trying to sabotage and engage in has been banned and may have used different aliases in the past.

Proposed Changes: Planning to make the following changes in a phased/incremental manner:

Additional info on the following topics:

  1. Biography
  2. Public life
  3. Teachings and Meditation Programs

Changes:

  1. Minor cleanups to controversies section.. to meet standards of objectivity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naikrosh (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Naikrosh (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Expanded biography

I am going ahead and adding the expanded Biography section.

Swami Nithyananda's Main teachings to the common man is to follow the four principles ( Four Tathwas) that is Integrity , Authenticity , Responsibility & Enriching Self and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanchiraja (talk • contribs) 12:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Self-promoting and unreferenced biography + removed reliable reference from controversy

The article, especially the "Biography" section, is full of poorly referenced contents written in a self-promotion style (see WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES for guidelines).

Moreover it seems many of the earlier well-referenced contents from the "Controversy" section have been removed (see this diff for example).

The article needs thorough cleaning and improvement. I am adding a COI tag to the biography section. Please do not remove it until all the issues are resolved through discussions in the talk page. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 19:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the biography had no reliable reference i have deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As addressed by Subh83, There are many issues with this article. The entire biographies section violates wikipedia's neutral point of view WP:NOR, Thus it should be deleted. Lookinhotbra 04:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs)

Also, Many of the articles published on may 2013 were DELETED by the user Acnaren without any discussion even though the article had reliable information FROM NATIONAL DAILY NEWSPAPERS. Lookinhotbra 04:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

addressing concerns

Subh83 With respect to your comment "From single source". For any living person's biography there can really be only one source for his biographic material. Consequently this comment seems unreasonable.

Secondly with respect to "until all the issues are resolved". Could you provide a specific list of issues would be useful. That will allow targeted discussion to address them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naikrosh (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "there can really be only one source for his biographic material". No, that is not the case. The policy that governs this is WP:BLP. Compliance is mandatory. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User Lookinhotbra is vandalizing page

User Lookinhotbra has begun vandalism on this page and editing willy nilly without discussion. Request Lookinhotbra to behave or this will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.195.57 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I complied with wikipedia's rules of WP:NOR, WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES and wikipedia's policies before deleting the article. Go ahead and report to anyone you want to. Lookinhotbra 04:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Spiritual wandering

Please provide relevant references for the spiritual wandering section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ive deleted this section as no references have been provided Lokayata91 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS HERE BEFORE MAKING FURTHER EDITS

It is futile to engage in revert wars and edit wars.Please discuss any edits here before making changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokayata91 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction should describe how he came to world-wide prominence and got gobal media attention (since that's what qualifies him as notable, deserving a wikipedia article). Something along the line of "he came to limelight worldwide for the first time when a video allegedly featuring him along with a South Indian actress in a compromising position went viral on the internet and TV", as quoted in this article, would do. But may require a better euphemism, given that it's a sentence in introduction. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Section on recent child rights violation accusations

Added this section on a recent event: Swami_Nithyananda#Child_rights_violation_in_Bidadi_ashram. Please feel free to expand and improve. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The child rights violation event has already been covered in the "en:Education section". Lokayata91 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear All,

I would like to ask a question. Can we remove the old content available on this page that has no link with this person now and is indirectly affecting his upcoming life? If yes then please remove the below mentioned content from this page as its too old and now the issue has been resolved and its appearance over here is again and again bringing this issue in front of everyone.

Content to be remove is as mentioned below:

Controversy Sun TV scandal A video that apparently showed Nithyananda engaging in sexual acts with women, allegedly Tamil film actress Ranjitha, was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News on 2 March 2010.[20][21][22] This incident also resulted in protests outside the ashram during which a fire broke out. While the channels stand by their claim that the film clip is original, Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website insists that the videos are morphed and defamatory in nature.[23] On March 4, Nithyananda made an application to a civil court in Chennai, seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material.[24] Responding to the media reports, Nithyananada said that he was in a "state of samadhi" (trance) when the video was made and that the tape had been "misinterpreted, morphed and manipulated" during an interview with Times Now on 13 March 2010.[25][26] In another followup interview to Outlook magazine, he claimed that an earlier mutation had rendered him incapable of sex.[27] After release of the video, Bidadi police registered cases under Indian Penal Code sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 506 (threat to life) and 420 (cheating).[28][29] After evading summons for 49 days, Nithyananda was arrested on April 21, 2010 in Arki in Himachal Pradesh by Bangalore Police with the help of the police of Himachal[30] and the interrogation was done in Bangalore by the CID of the Bangalore Police.[31] On 11 June 2010 Nithyananda was granted bail, and was released from judicial custody after 52 days in Ramanagaram sub-jail. In October 2010, the releaser of the video who worked as Nithyananda's driver was charged by Bidadi police under several sections of the IPC with accusations of defaming Nithyananda through distributing the video.[32] Subsequently, in July 2011, Nithyananda's ashram filed a complaint against Sun TV Network, claiming they were the agents behind what the ashram alleged was a morphed video and the repeated telecasting of it.[33] On February 2013, the High Court of Karnataka quashed two FIRs against Nithyananda, one pertaining to his activities at the ashram and the other over alleged assault on a pro-Kannada leader[34] Accusations by Arathi Rao Arathi Rao, a former follower of Nithyananda, gave a detailed account of her five-year experience with the guru. She alleged that Nithyananda repeatedly raped her and threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed it to anybody. Arathi also claimed that it was she who had secretly filmed Nithyananda's sex tapes with a Tamil actress.[35] The ashram held a press conference which ended abruptly, the devotees and some journalists had heated arguments and they even exchanged blows. Later, activists of the Nava Karnataka Nirmana Vedike stormed the ashram to protest against the alleged attack on the media.[36] Karnataka Chief Minister Sadananda Gowda ordered the police to arrest the guru and seal his ashram.[37] On June 13, Nithyananda surrendered himself before a court in Ramanagaram. He was released on bail the next day and the ashram was unsealed a few days later.[38][39] In August 2012, after failing to appear for a court-directed sexual potency test, passports of Nithyananda and 30 of his associates were seized at Delhi Airport.[40] Following this event, widespread resentment of Nithyanandas was reported at Madhurai Adheenam by various section of the media.[41] Mahamandelshwar and Madurai Adheenam controversies In June 2012, a Hindu organization in Tamil Nadu, filed a petition in Madurai court against Nithyanada alleging misuse of Madhurai Adheenam mutt for practicing immoral activities and for serving holy water laced with drugs.[42] On October 12, 2012, Arunagirinatha Desikar, the 292nd head of Madurai Adheenam mutt, who had earlier anointed Nithyananda as his successor in April 2011, an appointment widely condemned at the time by Hindu religious bodies and the government, sacked him after pressure mounted from the state government and other Hindu religious and charitable organisations.[43] Following this decision, Sri Arunagirinathar sought police protection, citing threats to life from Nithyananda disciples.[43] In another related incident, pursuing eye witness accounts alleging widespread usage of tiger pelts and elephant tusks within the ashram, Madurai police opened cases against Nithyananda under the Wildlife Protection Act.[44] In February 2013, Swami Nithyananda was conferred the title of Mahamandaleshwar of the Mahanirvani akhara during the Kumbh Mela in Prayag. The event was a closed ceremony and the Deccan Herald described it as "clandestine". The appointment met with protests from some other akharas and saints as traditionally the Mahakumbh officials are invited as are other akharas. Narendra Giri, the mahant of Niranjani akhara, was quoted as saying "Though it is the prerogative of the akharas to confer the title of Mahamandaleshwar, one has to see whether the person is fit for the same. The title is given to the saints, who have selflessly served the mankind. Nityananda does not deserve the title." Ravi Shankar also criticized the conferment. The Mahanirvani akhara defended its action. Mahant Ravindra Puri was quoted as saying "Nityananda may have been facing charges, but it is his personal life and we have nothing to do with that. We should keep in mind that the charges have not yet been proved."[45][46]

Thank you

Not done: Seems to be a clear move to whitewash page as the requested change is a deletion of the entire controversy section. Cannolis (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Want to remove the Controversy section because whatever allegations have been mentioned over here were later proven false by the court. Also, the content is too old and now if people go through this content then they may make a wrong perception about swami nithyananda. Wikipedia is to give genuine and current information to the folks but here the news is too old and its appearance online on this page may put wrong perception in people'e mind.  Not done - As already explained above - we do not re-write or whitewash history Arjayay (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

<edit semi-protected>

Then whats the right way to get this controversy section removed? Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravindaran Shastri (talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also want to remove the Controversy part because here are so many points available in it that are based on non-factual error. And if I also cannot then please tell how can it we done? Also, want to add few points like "http://nithyananda.org/news/us-federal-court-issues-nearly-half-million-dollar-judgement-against-false-victim-aarthi-s-rao"....So, please un-protect this page.

 Not done - If other arguments to censor the article didn't work, why would just saying "I want to remove the controversy part" work? Did you not read any of the previous discussion? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

add this news

kindly add this news http://www.tamilus.com/nithyananda-tested/131 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilus (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.dhyanapeetam.org/web/default.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Swami+moves+court+to+restrain+media&artid=%7C5iOe3W9JXI=&SectionID=lifojHIWDUU=&MainSectionID=lifojHIWDUU=&SEO=&SectionName=rSY%7C6QYp3kQ=
  3. ^ http://www.dhyanapeetam.org/web/default.aspx
  4. ^ "TV footage sets angry mob on Nithyananda ashram". The Hindu online. March 4, 2010. Retrieved March 5, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nithyananda/Archive_1&oldid=1142772876"