Talk:Nithyananda/Archive 3

Why Nithyananda's sex scandal details are not here?
I am amazed to see this article is missing Nithyanada and Ranjeetha sex scandal details. Are you trying to prove that he is all clear saint? What happened to you Wikipedia? You are one of the most respected and trusted organization and you should not be biased. I demand that that episode should be added in this article so that all can know what kind of cheap person that so call saint is. Don't try to hide anything, specially the fact which is widely accepted. This will impact your credibility Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilabhverma (talk • contribs) 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately his followers keep deleting any reference to this. It is impossible to keep this page clear, without vandalism and deletions by his followers.Abox26hs (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC) abox26hs
 * Actually, when people post crap like what I deleted here, Wikipedia editor would remove it, because it's unsourced defamation in the biography of a living person; see WP:BLP policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

See also, above. I'm finding little in the way of credible evidence. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/swami-nithyananda-ranjitha-sex-video-confirm/1/1095166.html Ravi My Tea Kadai  19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indian news is notoriously unreliable, and we cannot possibly take seriously a source that opens by calling him a "godman". More importantly, this article provides no actual evidence – there's no named source at the "Forensic Sciences Laboratory" nor any links to official documents or statements (nor names of or material from the "independent US-based experts", for that matter). Meanwhile, the article admits it is cannibalizing previous stories published in "Tamil newspapers", which makes it tertiary at best (and too vague to verify as one), for the material it isn't a primary source of. It's just not secondary sourcing so it cannot be used for any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, yet that appears to be all it consists of.  Even if we took the article's hand-waving about "experts" seriously, it indicates one alleged confirmation that the tape is legit versus four saying it's fake. There  something encyclopedic here, namely that there's been a media scandal in India, with accusations of impropriety made, and counter-accusations of video-faking to frame him, plus ensuing legal actions both against and on behalf of Nithyananda and, apparently, Ranjitha.  Links like the one to India Today are evidence the scandal, as a media and social phenomenon, does exist, but not that the allegations on either side are true.  Doing further reading on this, there does seem to be some report somewhere indicating that the video has been declared not to have been doctored (in the opinion of whoever analyzed it), but that doesn't confirm who the parties in it are. PS, and this just "original research" on my part (which is fine on a talk page): There's actually a large amount of clear video of both of these people on the Web, and if you watch the "scandal" tape  anyone with functional eyeballs can see it isn't Nithyananda, and I'm skeptical about Ranjitha, too. The photo in the India Today piece has, in fact, been heavily modified; see the actual frame in the original video here. The scenario doesn't seem plausible anyway.  Why would someone with Nithyananda's money and entourage be alone with her (whoever she is) it what appears to be a tiny, cluttered apartment?  This guy seems to be surrounded by people at all times, has meals prepared for him, and is older and thicker than that. The guy in the video looks to be about 25 or so, not a man of means, and is eating cheap packaged food.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)