Talk:Mukundananda

July 2025

Per @Vegantics's observation, this article reads like a promotional brochure for the teacher and his organization. It appears to have been written primarily by several editors with a close connection with the subject. I request the editors of this article to read WP:COI and disclose if they have a conflict of interest, i.e., a connection with this teacher or his organization. For those who do, please note these guidelines from WP:COIEDIT:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{edit COI}} template), so that they can be peer-reviewed;
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
• you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.

Thank you. -Ram1751 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also encourage editors with a close connection to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry as the behavior of at least three accounts indicates a coordinated effort that may originate from one person. Vegantics (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

There definitely has been WP:COI editing on the article but most of the sourcing is actually acceptable from newspapers. I wouldn't classify these are being too closely associated with the subject. Veg Historian (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think @Vegantics is saying the editors are too closely associated with the subject. Much of this article is also sourced from blogs which are not WP:RS. The first three references are blogs or dead links. - Ram1751 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have removed some of those unreliable links. There is a lot of newspaper coverage for Mukundananda so this article could be expanded with other sources . Veg Historian (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The Indo American News articles read like verbatim press releases from the organization. For example, this one which I removed from the lead. Therefore, they are not WP:RS. The same is true of much of the other "newspaper coverage" in this article - they read like verbatim press releases. Per WP:NEWSORG - "Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." This article was created primarily from these cherry-picked press releases masquerading as news articles. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Some of the citations have been removed by quoting them as 'bad sourcing' , like: https://www.storizen.com/author-interviews/swami-mukundananda-a-manual-for-life/ and https://nrinews24x7.com/india-is-the-mother-of-spirituality-and-democracy-says-president-murmu-at-global-spirituality-mahotsav-in-kanha-shanti-vanam/

The above sources align with Wikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs and is not churnalism. So, 'Bad sourcing' seems to be an invented term for this deletion. Please avoid deleting sources in the absence of proper explanations. Rishi Kumar Tripathi (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight WP:NEWSORGINDIA, a noted trend of certain Indian news orgs being prone to overly promotional and/or paid news pieces. Such sources should be duly scrutinized for a neutral tone, and frequently seem to fail in this case. Vegantics (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ram1751, Indo American News is an WP:RS. This is not an organization publishing churnalism. Indo American News is currently being used on 60 Wikipedia articles. The newspaper has been published in Houston, TX since 1982. This is a professional newspaper with 38 years of experience. I cannot find any discussions on Wikipedia where there has been any other suggestion that this is an unreliable source. I am supportive of your other edits but there isn't any issue with the Indo American News source. Veg Historian (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Rishi Kumar Tripathi, nrinews24x7 is the definition of a bad source. As soon as you click on the website you are bombed with pop-ups and spamful join requests. This is not a recognized newspaper. The website describes itself as a "digital content platform". As the other users have noted above this type of website is overly promotional fitting a definition of churnalism. You could take this to WP:RSN and any experienced user would tell you this is a very weak source for a BLP. Veg Historian (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)