Talk:Rajneesh

Osho deportation

Archived to Talk:Osho/Archive 7.

Troubling passage

This solution could not be intellectually understood, as the mind would only assimilate it as another piece of information: instead, what was needed was meditation.

This passage really bothers me. What solution? When does this "was" apply? Who holds this opinion? "What was needed" and "the mind would assimilate", regardless of being sourced, are still opinions, not verifiable facts. We must convey them as such. ←Spidern→ 16:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

whether or not they are opinions is irrlevant. it's not the purpose of the article to judge whether osho's opinions are verifiable facts. his teaching was that trust and acceptance are not intellectual understandings and cannot be assimilated and the way to understand this is through meditation. i understand that you may personally disagree with this, but that is what he taught. jalal (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, whether a statement is an opinion is quite relevant in writing encyclopedic articles. According to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, we have an obligation to present all significant opinions. Now, it is one thing if we are stating that Osho had an opinion. "Osho said", or "Osho thought" is quite acceptable because it illustrates that Osho is the source of said opinion. However, the above passage cites an opinion and presents it as if the opinion itself were held by Wikipedia. The tone of an article must be neutral, or we end up becoming a partisan commentary. So either we reformulate the passage to say who holds the opinion (while citing that opinion), or we should remove it because it displays a certain bias. ←Spidern→ 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the citation clarifies that it is from a secondary source and not the opinion of Wikipedia? jalal (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not enough. Wikipedia is not a mechanism to pass opinion as fact. Citation provides the location, but we still have to illustrate that the statement is actually an opinion, in order to remain neutral. ←Spidern→ 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was clear from the context that that was his teaching, but I have inserted a "he said" to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding. Jayen466 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it reads much better now. Only thing which is slightly unclear (since the sentence comes directly after the quotation) is which "solution" is he referring to? If he's referring to "trusting and accepting" oneself, then perhaps we could substitute "solution" with "behavior", which draws the connection between the ideas better. ←Spidern→ 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it again, because I think the word "behaviour" did not fit well what was being described. You can find the relevant part of Fox online here; reading it in context may make the meaning clearer than our abridged version here did. We can then revisit it. Cheers, Jayen466 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

speaking of citations, i notice that you have changed quite a few cited passages ('spellbinding' to 'captivating' as one example) and I'm sure the original wording was correct. I don't have Fox to hand, but was it really 'captivating'? I realise that it doesn't change the meaning too much, but it seems that the original source should be kept to as much as possible. Editing just for the sake of editing is not helpful. jalal (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In using third-party reliable sources, we are not obligated to use the same words that they do. Quite the contrary, in fact; as long as the original meaning is conveyed, we are encouraged to paraphrase a used source in order to avoid running into a copyvio situation. And for what it's worth, I edit because I attempt to improve an article. Not just "for the sake of editing". ←Spidern→ 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes

In this edit, Jalal (talk · contribs) restored quotations which I had removed because I believed them to be a bit excessive. I try to avoid direct quotes as much as possible so that I can stick to verifiable facts and not present a primary source's opinion (yes, even if the quote is attributed by a secondary source) in excess. I feel that they do not present any additional reliable information in the discussion of the teachings of Osho. What are some opinions on the necessity to include these quotes? ←Spidern→ 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

in general, i agree. however, that section discusses osho's teaching and it seemed appropriate to use quotes from osho to illuminate it. upon re-reading, i now wonder if such short quotes shed any light on the teachings... maybe one or two larger chunks would suffice. jalal (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The true strength of an article depends on how many reliable secondary sources are used to explain a topic. Although using a direct quotation from a secondary source can be have its merits in the sense that you are able to trust that the attribution of a quote is correct, using direct quotes is tantamount to using a primary source in many cases. We cannot give undue weight by using too many direct quotations from Osho, as his own bias would taint the article in his favor. If it is possible to adequately describe the teachings of Christianity, Islam, or Scientology without quoting direct passages in excess, then surely we can do the same here. ←Spidern→ 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

the article doesn't really quote osho "in excess". jalal (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In "Ego and the mind" (443 words), we have 4 direct quotes (115 words) which is 25% of the section. Subsequent sections are better, containing one quote each. Each section should have no more than two quotes at most, or better yet, only one. ←Spidern→ 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

on the other hand, that is one section out of about twenty, so that is 25% of 5%, which is hardly excessive. :-) jalal (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming, of course, that each of the sections have the same number of words. At any rate, the point is that whether excessive in terms of the article, or in terms of the section, direct quotes should be avoided. ←Spidern→ 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a great point. If an article about a teacher actually says what he teaches, that is effectively a bias against sources that represent him as teaching something else. In fact, to give an accurate account of ANY subject runs the risk of making that subject look like what it is, which is a gross violation of neutrality against lies and ignorance. Perhaps it would be best if all the titles of all the articles were changed, so that there is no chance of giving a favourable impression simply because the article is actually about what it is about, and not what somebody might prefer it was about. Redheylin (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the point that you are trying to make. A reliable encyclopedia summarizes reliable secondary and tertiary sources, rather than quoting primary ones. External preferences don't make a difference if content is verifiable and found in reliable sources, in any case. Do you disagree with the premise that primary sources shouldn't be relied upon for an objective summary? ←Spidern→ 03:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

21 countries feared Osho??? Osho a small village boy with no money to begin with ends ups having 100 Rolls Royles.. Not being into any buisness at all. Pure Spirituality! 60 centres and thousands and thousands of 'not so fools' following him.. or were they 'fools' to follows him?? I mean thousands and thousands of 'fools'??. These people of scientific societies, having no relegion of their own ( mostly christianity and less muslims as religion). Fools talking about science and scientiology followed him for what good?? My point:The Crowd following speaks for itself. And if that crowd is belonging to a scientific society then.. speaks more for that person. There definately was an element of elightenment in Osho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.14.103 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Where secondary sources quote primary sources in illustration of key ideas, we may quote those secondary sources, even though this seems to amount to quotation of a primary source, providing it is contextualised as per the commentator and referenced accordingly. We are then following the outlines of secondary sources founded in a proper study of the material in question, which is self-evidently preferable to commentators who are NOT fully conversant with the material. Otherwise we end up with "Some people support Einstein's claim to be a mathematician, while others insist he was merely a member of a degenerate race who helped design terrible weapons". But the only people fit to comment on Einstein are those who recognise he IS a mathematician of stature and can prove it by referring to his own work. To say "Einstein developed a special theory of relativity which stated that E=mc2" can only be justified by reference to Einstein's own work, while to say that this reference constitutes a quotation of primary sources which leads to bias in Einstein's favour would be fatuous. It is fine to bring forward refutations of those teachings, but those teachings should in the first place be represented according to serious studies that draw upon and illustrate the ideas that were actually propounded, for which the only ultimate source is the teachings themselves. Then it follows that the refutations will also be apposite and important, since they are linked to a proper exposition of the material they intend to refute. Redheylin (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why "Osho" and not "Rajneesh"?

Throughout the majority of his public life, the subject of this biography was known as Rajneesh. The majority of his media coverage comes from the 1980s when he tried to set up a commune in Oregon, and he is therein referred to as Rajneesh. According to the article, he took the name "Osho" in 1989, and died in 1990. Shouldn't the article title reflect the name by which he is most commonly known? *** Crotalus *** 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See #Name. Jayen466 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That link doeesn't work for me -- do you have another one? I agree with Crotalus here. Msalt (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I changed my name would you also insist in calling me by my previous name? try googling rajneesh and see how few hits you get compared to googling osho! there are many many people who only know him as Osho.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Of course, there are also a lot of people who know him only as Rajneesh. And it breaks down along people who know him as a public figure(he was Rajneesh for the vast majority of his public notability) vs. people who are interested in his teachings. Google is not a good test because Rajneesh was best known before Google and the internet were active. A similar example is the Grateful Dead rock band; since Jerry Garcia died, remnants of the band have toured as "The Dead" and many people only know them by the last name, but I don't think it was be appropriate to call them "The Dead" except putting in the lede of that article "formerly known as" The Grateful Dead. Again, their main notability came under the earlier name. Another similar case is Guru Maharaji Ji (Prem Rawat), though that one is a bit different because Prem Rawat was his birth name which he is returning to. Rawat is in a category closer to John Cougar Mellencamp. Msalt (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

well I have to disagree with you there as I think google is a good test .. take jesus .. like what was his birth name? .. no one cares .. occasionally you see jesus of nazareth but mostly he is known by a name that was given to him by other people after he was killed /rose to heaven ..jesus christ. take your other example the grateful dead.. they are actually most famous with gerry and in the past ..the remnants go around a bit these days but they are mostly irrelevant and so what ever you call them they will still be remembered as the old band with gerry gacia..and anyone who knows them or wants to know them gets that .... but with Osho he is more famous today than ever before ... much more famous as Osho than he ever was as Rajneesh ..(Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

That's where I'm not sure you are right. I don't know how old you are, but in the 1980s Rajneesh was headline news in newspapers all over the world. Neither Osho (55 hits) nor Rajneesh (22) gets many hits on Google news today, to follow your method, and most of those are actually about Andi Osho, a comedian in Britain. Msalt (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

from google..

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,270,000 for osho.
Results 1 - 10 of about 551,000 for rajneesh

I'm not sure where you are coming from? if your talking about the bio terror then that has a page and is well linked ...I'm older than the mountains but younger than the trees.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Results 1 - 10 of about 196,000 for andi osho. not bad for a comedian with a funny name .. you and Osho and andi osho have something in common in that you are all comedians .. so heres my best guru joke of the day.... Why did the guru refuse Novacaine when he went to his dentist? ....He wanted to transcend dental medication. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

pretty funny though the laughing gas books put a funny spin on it. Best joke remains guru & hot dog vendor . ("Make me one with everything"/"change comes from within") but eternity is young. BTW, my stats come from a Google News search, not main google. "Results 1 – 10 of about 59 for osho. (0.33 seconds)" Up four in a few hours! Msalt (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

yes the laughing gas makes the joke even funnier..ah google news .. well imo with osho he might not appear on news as much as say a comedian that was alive and working and creating "news"..

Results 1 - 10 of about 353,000 for j krishnamurti... not a very popular chappie is he!
david beckham 16,000,000 ..five times more popular than osho  (on the internet)

I think a general search is more reflective of the name he is "known by"..and a general search is more reflective of his current popularity than what "news" is being created in the moment. enough of this .. did you look back at the history of this page to see the previous comments?(Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

A previous discussion about this is at Talk:Osho/Archive 10#Name. I was personally surprised at the redirect to Osho as I only heard about him as Rajneesh. FWIW, the place in Oregon was called Rajneeshpuram. A thought that comes to mind is that while he alive he was most notable to English speaking people as Rajneesh or perhaps the sex guru or Rolls Royce Guru. A year prior to his death he took on the name Osho and today his group uses the name Osho International Foundation. I'd go for Osho pointing at the article about the group rather than the person and that this article be moved to either Rajneesh or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Rich Man’s Guru still gets a fair number of hits.

It'll be hard to construct a Google test current popularity as both Rajneesh and Osho are common names unrelated to the religious/spiritual movement or its founder. FWIW, the current www.osho.com site does not seem to mention the founder at all unless you look hard for it. Checking the osho.com site for Rajneesh finds that they have scrubbed the name Rajneesh entirely other than it's used on the old books and apparently was the title of either a book or series of lectures known as The Rajneesh Bible. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support moving this article to "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", which is the title used in other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO the redirect from Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh to here is enough. As demonstrated in the earlier discussion, use of Osho predominates in scholarly sources today and is standard in the Indian press, which regularly features excerpts from his books under the author name "Osho". Jayen466 18:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the page "Osho" should redirect to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, as other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica use the term "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" to refer to Rajneesh, and we should follow their model. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the name Rajneesh is used more in the world of anti-cult activists, but most people know about him (these days) from the books and meditations, which go under the name Osho. Is it possible to check the Wikipedia logs and see how many searches there are for Osho and how many for Rajneesh? Definitely in the 'meat world' Osho is the more common usage. jalal (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[1][2][3]; [4][5]. Jayen466 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stats: Osho movement = 96 hits in Google Books, while Rajneesh movement = 361 hits in Google Books. Quite a big difference. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho = 1,776 hits in Google Books, while Rajneesh = 2,038 hits in Google Books. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"followers of osho" = 19 hits in Google Books, while "followers of Rajneesh" = 59 hits in Google Books. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely doing searches in google books is skewing the results towards books that are out of date/out of print/out of copyright. It would be better to base the stats on something more up-to-date. If I search an acedemic library and limit the search to books published before 1995 I can come up with even more dramatic results, but I'm not sure they are relevant to this discussion. The trend to the future is that more and more references will be to Osho, and fewer (proportionately) to Rajneesh. jalal (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree - he is more commonly known as Rajneesh in WP:RS books and biographical encyclopedia entries, such as Encyclopedia Britannica (which I might add is written by friend of new religious movements, J. Gordon Melton...), etc. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to Britannica's approach is duly noted. I still think we have to stick with Osho as the name for this article, for various complementary reasons, Britannica's present preference for the older, historical title notwithstanding:

1. Our naming policy is based on the principle of least surprise, and a preference for the most easily recognized name. Article traffic statistics currently point to an overwhelming user preference for "Osho" over "Rajneesh" or "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" [6][7][8], indicating that Osho is the most common and easily recognized name among Wikipedia users.
2. Applying the Google test recommended in WP:Naming conflicts shows that 2.13 million English web pages mention Osho, but not Rajneesh, vs. 0.3 million English web pages mentioning Rajneesh, but not Osho. This ratio is in the same order of magnitude as the preference ratio among Wikipedia users for Osho over Rajneesh. I see no good reason to alter the article title in favour of a name that is ten times less common in practice.
3. Our naming conventions express a clear preference for self-identifying names, as well as current official names. The subject of this article discarded the title Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the late eighties, some time before his death in 1990. Since then, all publications authored by him have been published under the name "Osho". This has been the case for over 20 years. Osho is both the self-identifying and current official name.
4. While Britannica, Gale and others have opted for the older, historical name, it's easy to find reputable reference publishers who have not. Examples:
   – Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge;
   – Encyclopedia of Community, SAGE Publications;
   – Historical dictionary of New Age movements, Scarecrow Press;
   – Holy people of the world, ABC-CLIO;
   – Exploring New Religions by Continuum International Publishing Group leads with Rajneesh/Osho and then points out in the first sentence that Osho is the present name, and uses it predominantly throughout the remainder of the article;
   – Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis.

Following WP naming conventions, as well as current user preference, we are still in very reputable published company, even if we differ from Britannica's approach in this regard. Jayen466 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When I search for "Rajneesh", it takes me to "Osho", so it's not a problem. What wikipedia really ought to do is simply assign an ID number to every article, and then use redirects to get to those articles. Then the debate over which title is the "right" title goes away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although this is about a bit more than renaming an article I think... :) jalal (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The point being that it doesn't really matter what the article is called, as long as youo can get to it easily. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Majority of biographical articles cited above have "Rajneesh" in the title

Even the majority of examples cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), use "Rajneesh" in the title of the articles about Rajneesh: Examples:
– Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge; -v OSHO (BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH), article starts off with: Osho was the founder and leader of the Rajneesh Movement.
– Historical dictionary of New Age movements, Scarecrow Press; OSHO — formerly, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
– Exploring New Religions by Continuum International Publishing Group Rajneesh/Osho.

See also Talk:Osho#Encyclopedia_articles_use_.22Rajneesh.22_in_title. If even the articles cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) use "Rajneesh" in the title of those articles, and the predominant majority of biographical articles about the individual in Encyclopedias use "Rajneesh" in the title, we should take our lead from these sources, and do so as well, in this article. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia pages

I took a look at all the other WP language versions and they all use Osho as the title, even the Chinese version. I think Rajneesh is much more common in USA, but in foreign countries Osho is the more common term. Certainly in China, Japan, India and Malaysia, most have never heard of Rajneesh. So although Cirt has a point that English publications in the past have used Rajneesh in the title, it raises the question of whether the title should synchronize with other Wikipedia versions. It's also clear that as time moves on, the term 'Rajneesh' will be used less and the term 'Osho' will be used more. Should we be guided by the past, or look to the future? As the search term 'Rajneesh' already redirects to this article, there seems little to be gained from changing the title to 'Rajneesh'. jalal (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is circular reasoning, as other Wikipedia articles and pages are not WP:RS. It is clear that the predominant majority of reliable sources, especially titles of encyclopedia articles, use "Rajneesh" in the title to refer to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Jalal (talk · contribs) is wrong, evidently he did not check "all" of the other Wikipedias - for example see: Italian Wikipedia - "Osho Rajneesh", Dutch Wikipedia - "Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh", Polish Wikipedia - "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)", and Portuguese Wikipedia - "Rajneesh". Cirt (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine as a compromise modeling the name for this page after the Italian Wikipedia or Polish Wikipedia models, the Polish version is probably the best way to go here. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This would also be in-line with Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge; -v OSHO (BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH), which was itself cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), above [9]. Cirt (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too clear on what the problem is with the existing situation. A search on Osho or Rajneesh ends up on the same page through the miraculous use of redirects and the very first sentence explains the other names he is known by, this is as used by most other WPs (except, as you have noticed, the Italian and Polish). I know this sticks in your craw a little, but could you explain why the current situation is improved by undoing a move that took place (after much discussion) a couple of years ago? Quoting academic books from the last century as justification doesn't persuade me, they will slowly be phased out in time. Are there any other reasons? Thanks in advance for you patience with me. jalal (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I think that Wikipedia should use the same name for the article used by the majority of WP:RS sources, and in fact, encyclopedia articles, out there - namely Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Wikipedia articles by their very nature are informed and drawn from WP:RS sources, and the name for this page should be modeled after a preponderance of these sources. See Talk:Osho#Encyclopedia_articles_use_.22Rajneesh.22_in_title for some examples of the names chosen by other encyclopedias. Note the years on those entries - multiple cites are from 2009. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Material added

Re this revert, while there is a lot of red in the diff, all that is actually different is that I added a paragraph mentioning that (1) followers entered into marriages of convenience to circumvent immigration restrictions, (2) Osho was declared the leader of "Rajneeshism" to facilitate his stay in the country, (3) his application for leave to stay as a religious worker was first rejected and later granted. Jayen466 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osho on Homosexuality

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

It should be inserted, but how best? Embedded in his teaching on energies?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.72 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

what exactly do you want to insert? (not three pages I assume). Osho talked on many subjects, they can't all be covered in a Wikipedia biography. he also contradicted himself on many subjects, making a summary very difficult. jalal (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles use "Rajneesh" in title

1. Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", [[Encyclopedia Britannica]], retrieved 2009-04-23 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
2. Kushner, Harvey W. (2002), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Encyclopedia of Terrorism, SAGE, pp. 306–307, ISBN 0761924086
3. Fahlbusch, Erwin (1999), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", The encyclopedia of Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, p. 233, ISBN 0802824137 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Doniger, Wendy (2006), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 902, ISBN 1593394918
5. Houghton Mifflin Company (2003), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 1261, ISBN 9780618252107
6. Joseph, Bea (1986), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Biography index, vol. 14, H.W. Wilson Company, p. 566
7. Parry, Melanie (1997), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Chambers, p. 1529, ISBN 0550160604
8. "Rajneesh, Shree" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t142.e9655>
9. "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t101.e5930>
10. "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree" Oxford Dictionary of Hinduism. Ed. W. J. Johnson. Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t272.e2018>
11. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2009. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
12. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh." Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2009. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

Please keep this subsection for listing such references only and not for discussion, thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)

Above on this page Jayen466 (talk · contribs) cited [13] the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge; -v, which has as its article title: OSHO (BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH). I think this would be a most acceptable compromise, and we could model our Wikipedia page after the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, and similarly title this page Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Cirt (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While my personal preference would be to stay with Osho, Cirt's reasoning seems sound enough, and I would have no grave objection to the change – though I reserve the right to change my mind if Gale and Britannica change to Osho. ;) Other views? Jayen466 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. Msalt (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Nice idea. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's after the fact, but it seems to me the best compromise, so no objections here. jalal (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cirt. That title works well and will astonish the least number of people. I had no idea my comment would trigger this much research and discussion. All I was trying to do in the first place was to remember the name of the cult leader in Oregon that had a bunch of Rolls Royces. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• IIRC, I was the admin recruited to move the article from "Rajneesh" to "Osho" in 2007.[14][15] This is a sensible compromise that probably didn't occur to anyone back then. I'm glad it's worked out.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Excerpts from Osho's works" ???

This makes the page seem like even more of a promo piece. Let's avoid all this spam in the External links section please. Perhaps best to take a look at the External links section of Prem Rawat, and model after that - see here. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam? It is quite common for us to have ELs to excerpts from an article subject's works. These are Times of India/indiatimes.com articles, their copyright status is okay, and they add value for the user. Jayen466 11:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Excerpts from Osho's works" all to Times of India/indiatimes.com articles, no Western media sources or links, no links to criticism of any kind or any critical websites - seems quite POV and unbalanced indeed. I imagine you would object as well, if someone were to add eleven links to external websites and media articles all critical of Rajneesh with bolded subsection headings and bolded sub-subsection headings creating obtrusive headings in the Table of Contents - you'd complain of WP:Undue weight perhaps? Let's just avoid that particular conflict altogether, thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are neither critical nor promotional, they are just works by the article subject, which any reader can judge for themselves. It is standard for us to have those, and you have inserted many such links yourself in other articles. We cannot apply a "lex Cirtis" – if you approve of an author, links to their publications online are in, if not, they are out as "promo"! If there are general grounds for not linking to excerpts of authors' works available in reliable online sources, then please explain them to me. As for your comment about the lack of Western media, the subject is Indian, and the Times of India is as reputable a publication as they come in India. Puzzled. Jayen466 11:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oregonian wrote a series of investigative journalism articles on Rajneesh - their journalist was then targeted for assassination and her name was put on a hit list for writing these noteworthy pieces. Shall we include links to articles such as these as well, in their own bolded-highlighted subsection in the External links section, to other media/press coverage arguably much more noteworthy than some "excerpts to works" ? Cirt (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, even the article on Adolf Hitler has an external link to a full English translation of Mein Kampf. Wikipedia is not censored.

I am aware of RS stating that the reporter, Leslie Zaitz, was put on a hit list. I am also aware that nothing ever happened to her, that no one was ever indicted or prosecuted in relation to Zaitz, and that the subject of this article was neither prosecuted nor indicted for anything but immigration violations. Let's also not forget that those sannyasins who committed serious crimes in Oregon also tried to murder Osho's own doctor, a man whom Osho subsequently entrusted with a leading role in the administration of his estate. It's also worth mentioning that the movement Osho started has never again been found guilty of similar abuses. These events occurred a quarter of a century ago. The fact is that according to RS, Osho's reputation is flourishing, in particular in India. Hence the presence of his writings on a regular basis in the Times of India, which as it happens has the widest circulation among all English-language papers. Jayen466 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh is an extremely controversial figure with an enormous amount of criticism written about him and his movement. If we are to permit pushing out his "works" in an External links sub-subsection that draws significant attention to it in the Table of Contents, we should have a sub-subsection in External links devoted to that critical coverage as well. Otherwise, best to use the Prem_Rawat#External_links model. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Added {{No more links}} to the External links sect. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I think you're wrong. I believe if India's most reputable paper puts his stuff online, it is okay to link to it. And I have no objection to adding external links to material that is critical of Rajneesh. On the contrary, if you know of good stuff out there, it should be there, just as long as the sites comply with the guidelines given in WP:EL – no self-published stuff, etc. But I shan't war over the addition of the ToI articles with you. Jayen466 16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho's videos on Utube viewed more than 5,000,000 times.

May the 1st 2009 the osho videos on the Osho international site on You tube. com passed the 5 ooo ooo views landmark. Most popular views are the videos specifically regarding meditation . This is a massive total and shows Ohso's popularity around the world , some of the videos there have subtitles in Russian , Spanish and Italian. This is worthy of insertion perhaps in legacy. What does anyone think? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

WP:RS/WP:V source for this assertion? Cirt (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

oh hello cirt again..are you following me around ? I can do nothing without you appearing as if by magic! I shall take it as a mark of respect that you consider me worthy of tracking (Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

If you go there and count up the views you'll see how many views there have been , it's over 5,000,000 now and is beginning to be reported around the web. Here is a picture of the occasion and here is it being reported on Osho Internationals official blogspot.

[[16]] I imagine counting the numbers on utube is a bit of a job and the official Osho International blogspot will be unworthy as a reliable source??? I have only just discovered this and have yet to look any further, I went there and one video alone on the Osho utube site has over 900.000 viewings. I imagine the Osho international press office have released a story to one of the Indian newspapers and I'll have a deeper look around and anyone else who is interested could have a look around for more articles regarding this massive viewcount. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry? are you refering to this [[17]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement If you go there and count up the views you'll see how many views there have been. But that blog is not a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am looking forward to entering the wonderfull world were when I am run over by a bus I will refuse to believe I was run over by a bus untill I read about it in a reliable source , even if I see a photo of it running me over I will refuse to believe it untill the source is provided. However if I am down the park at the lake and I hear a quack quack I am sure it will be a duck. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

"Truth" is not an attainable standard for this project. Verifiability, on the other hand, is. I can understand your frustration to the extent that personal knowledge can sometimes seemingly override what the newspaper says; but if we allow that which is unsupported by reputable sources (all of which conform to a specific criteria explained here) to find its way into our encyclopedia, we have abandoned all hope of maintaining verifiability short of speaking directly with the person holding a viewpoint. ←Spidern→ 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)