Jump to content

Talk:Rajneesh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.223.6.168 (talk) at 15:16, 22 November 2011 (→‎Osho vid: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeRajneesh was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 18, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 23, 2007.
Current status: Former good article nominee

New sources for use

  • King, Tim (2010-01-29). "Amazing Images of Rajneesh Puram, Oregon's 'Bagwan Period'". Salem News. Retrieved 2011-02-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Zaitz, Les (2011-04-14). "25 years after Rajneeshee commune collapsed, truth spills out -- Part 1 of 5". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  • Zaitz, Les (2011-04-15). "Thwarted Rajneeshee leaders attack enemies, neighbors with poison -- Part 2 of 5". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  • Zaitz, Les (2011-04-14). "Rajneeshee leaders take revenge on The Dalles' with poison, homeless -- Part 3 of 5". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2011-04-19.
  • Zaitz, Les (2011-04-14). "Rajneeshee leaders see enemies everywhere as questions compound -- Part 4 of 5". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  • Zaitz, Les (2011-04-14). "Rajneeshees' Utopian dreams collapse as talks turn to murder -- Part 5 of 5". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  • "Rajneeshees in Oregon: 25 years after the collapse of Rancho Rajneesh". The Oregonian. 2011-04-16. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  • "Rajneeshees in Oregon: The Untold Story". The Oregonian. 2011-04-16. Retrieved 2011-05-02.

I'm surprised that these weren't here already. AndroidCat (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added some material and will review these sources more thoroughly over the coming days. --JN466 12:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links to the other Osho articles in the site. It can be used for all Rajneesh Movement related articles.

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I've found a signature supposedly of Osho's. Would it be a wise decision to use it?

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, it could be used under the same license used for Nehru's signature. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 00:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Osho's signatures were very involved, sometimes coloured, and are marketed as "signature art". OIF has registered the "Osho signature design", and its use is not allowed without their written permission. Some people have contested their right to claim ownership of the signature design, but unless there has been a definite court ruling, Wikipedia tends to stay on the safe side to protect commercial downstream users of its content. User:Moonriddengirl is one of the main copyright experts here; you might be best off asking her, with a link to this conversation. --JN466 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) From a copyright standpoint, this is a tricky issue; see Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Looking at the supposed signature, it certainly seems complex in design; it may well be creative enough to warrant copyright protection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From a non-copyright standpoint, if Osho changed his signature every once in a while I doubt a single signature could truly be representative. Copyright-wise, I agree that it seems like there is enough creativity and complexity to warrant a copyright. It looks like three jet trails are passing through his signature, with the eensy-teensy plane visible on the middle one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls Royces, edited.

Edit

His large collection (of rolls royces)...

The Rolls-Royce automobiles in appearance...

Reason: The initial sentence implies ownership of the rolls royces, and in context creates a potential for taking away information which is not factual, particularily a negative connotation of the commune, regardless of the oppinion, the statement that they are owned by osho is incorrect. http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/innercontent.asp?FileName=biography8/08-20-rolls.txt I did not put the reference in context, since I dont think it was neccessary, but here is my source.

Please, seek out a more correct answer, and write to that![1]

128.138.177.203 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)No account yet (hoping for "WecanWorkTogetherMakeitBetter"). 7.29.11 11:15p.m.[reply]

That is a primary document and using it would be original research. If you have a reputable source that supports your contention, please provide it. Rumiton (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cult

the lack of criticism indicates the typical behaviour of a cult and the work of cult members 87.123.97.189 (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "leitmotif"

Recently I made an edit removing the term "leitmotif" from the "Ten Commandments" section, which was shortly reverted. Here's the before and after:

  • "The ideas expressed in these Commandments have remained constant leitmotifs in his movement."

to

  • "The ideas expressed in these Commandments have remained constant themes in his movement."

The reverter said that the phrase should be kept because leitmotif can refer to anything that repeats. While this is sort of true, the term mostly refers to music, and even when it doesn't, it still only refers to art. Besides, I think the reverter has only a passing knowledge of the nuance and definition of the term. A motif/motive is something specific: a phrase, a melody, an image, etc. I'll admit I'm not too familiar with Osho's work, but did he actually and literally repeat his "Ten Commandments"? Otherwise, they aren't motifs. Even if he did repeat them, leitmotifs specifically are motifs that symbolize something, such as a character, place, or idea. The Commandments aren't symbols, they're phrases that mean what they mean, even if they aren't all meant to be taken literally.

Honestly, I'm surprised the reverter even bothered to change it back, because even if "leitmotif" was correct, "theme" is correct as well, and "leitmotif" has no advantage over "theme". I suggest we use the "themes" sentence, since it is a simpler term that more people know. If I don't get a response in two days, I'm just going to change it. -Macfluffers (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. The word "motif" has a specific nuance that wouldn't always be covered in a one-sentence summarization of the term; a motif is an element that is repeated, such as a phrase, image, etc, and a leitmotif is a symbolic motif. That's the definition in the Wikipedia page, so that's the one we should use. Anyone who has studied art, especially music, will be thrown off by misuse of the term. "Leitmotif" as it's used here is a secondary or tertiary definition at best. Even if it were an appropriate word, why link it to the Wikipedia page? After all, the Wikipedia page only discusses the term in the Wagnerian context. Read the leitmotif page and tell me why reading it would help anyone reading about the Commandments. At least remove the link; it's superfluous.
Plus, there isn't one reason why "leitmotif" is a superior term to "theme".
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Macfluffers (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lietmotif" is a more accurate term. These recurring themes are associated with Osho, after all. I don't think that the link should be removed. Those unfamiliar with musical terminology would not comprehend it's meaning. Any third opinions? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The article Leitmotif does state, "By extension, the word has also been used to mean any sort of recurring theme, (whether or not subject to developmental transformation) in music, literature, or (metaphorically) the life of a fictional character or a real person." The article also states that the German word Leitmotiv literally means "guiding motif". I think this corresponds quite well to the use of the word here.
The use of the English word in this extended meaning is exceedingly common, with lots of uses in this week's press: [9] ("the leitmotif of Maddow's argument in the following segment: that a critical look at the conservative rhetoric belies the actual facts"; "I wish I had added what was the leitmotif of my school re Policing is becoming increasingly complex, facing new technological developments and new risks"; "Underlining the party's differences with their Conservative coalition colleagues has been the leitmotif of this year's Liberal Democrat conference"; "Today this government aggrandisement has rekindled the struggle of government against localism, a leitmotif of English politics"; "Legislation has become the leitmotif of civic Scotland since the birth of devolution"; etc.).
So I just don't see a problem with it, and find the added connotation of "guiding principle" makes it the best word in the context of the "commandments". I am sorry we seem to be disagreeing here; I accept that everyone uses words differently. Hopefully I have shown though that the use of the word in this meaning is by no means as unusual as you thought. Cheers, --JN466 16:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I had never heard the term used outside of a musical context before. I still hold that the nuance should be taken into account, that it's not superior to "theme", and we shouldn't use a term that needs to be linked to be understood. I guess it doesn't really matter, if I'm out voted. Macfluffers (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BhagwanShreeRajneeshOsho.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BhagwanShreeRajneeshOsho.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No consensus to move as proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) → Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh – Previous discussions about this article's title have demonstrated that there are compelling reasons why both "Osho" and "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" should be the title of this article. The compromise, heretofore, has been to include both. While I do not contest the validity of including both names in the title, the current format that combines the two names is contrary to guidelines. In Wikipedia article titles, bracketed terms included at the end of the title are disambiguators. The natural conclusion for a reader who is familiar with these disambiguators is that "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)" means that Osho is a type of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or else a concept within the broader study of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The natural conclusion for a reader who is unfamiliar with these disambiguators is to recognize that these are two names for the same person and therefore other articles should be created that do the same (ie. such a user might rename the Student article "Student (pupil)", for example). In order to maintain both names in the title and also conform to guidelines, I recommend the title Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh because "aka" means "as known as". I had previously recommended "nee", which was rightly rejected because it means "born". "Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", however, is used in the literature and is a marked improvement on the title of this article. Neelix (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This "aka" is unnecessary and undesirable, setting a dreadful precedent. Whatever title might be chosen as an alternative to the present one (which works for me, let me say), it should not include "aka". To EncMstr: arguably there is some "unusual notability" of the sort you mention, in this case. NoeticaTea? 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Osho is an acceptable title for this article, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is an acceptable title for this article, and Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is an acceptable title for this article. The only title that is not acceptable is the current one, Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), because it is the only one that clashes with the guidelines. I have no preference among the first three article titles, but we cannot use the fourth. Neelix (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. the historical context of the name change is notable, it relates directly to events that took place while he was known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The bulk of this article deals with his life as BSR. --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that fact prevent the article from being moved to Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? Neelix (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Osho vid

Guys, i have emailed Klaus Steeg, the head of Osho International Foundation (OIF) and while he did not actually express willingness to release the following vid under a free license, he did express concern that if he did so, the advertisement to OIF in the vid will be edited out. By this, i infer that he would be willing to release it provided that the advertisement is not edited out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otGQqO2TYMI

I plan on adding the vid here under the following caption:

This way there will be a reason not to edit out the advertisement. Any thoughts? I would like to have general consensus reached on this. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 09:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wikipedia articles should not serve as a platform for proselytisation, nor should this article function as an advertising vehicle for OIF. Such an edit would also border on infringing WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you haven't bothered to watch the video. It's actually an interview, rather than an edited propaganda vid. So, the prosletyzation claim does not hold ground. Furthermore, i do not care for OIF's objectives at all, let alone more than those of Wikipedia. As such in the future, when you are discussing on a talk page, either be civil, refrain from putting allegations against editors, and focus solely on the content; or just get lost! Understood? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure your claim of incivility is accurate. I did watch the video, it consists almost entirely of Rajneesh philosophising, it's largely primary, and is not an "interview" in the typical sense. It is not objective enough for the purposes of the article. Furthermore, you state above that you have communicated with an OIF representative, who has stated explicitly what the terms for inclusion are, and you have then expressed an interest in adding said content - that they have endorsed - I don't therefore don't believe it is uncivil to suggest that this perhaps borders on COI. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't state Perhaps! You said it did. Unless you have sure proof that i am a shill of OIF and care about their interests more than Wikipedia's, then i suggest you better keep quiet! Doing so based on mere speculation with insufficient evidence is both uncivil and disingenuous. Furthermore, just because Osho does most of the talking and Jeff McMullen is just limited to asking a few questions, that does not make it an interview? I fail to see the logic in that. I also don't see a guideline which states that videos of one philosophizing violates wikipedia guidelines (you didn't specify, but i take it you mean NPOV). You would have had a point if it was an edited propaganda vid, with subliminal messages. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 13:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in essence, what is stated above is that any edit that has the appearance of providing advertising for OIF - following direct communication with the organisation - would be an infringement of COI; you can choose to take that personally if you wish, but that was not the purpose of raising the issue. Put simply, I watched the video, and do not believe it is appropriate for our purposes, so i therefore oppose its inclusion. Apologise if I caused you any offence in the way this was initially expressed. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you opposing it at all. I don't take disagreements personally. You may have a point that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a platform for advertisement. However, you used a quote to imply directly that i cared about OIF's goals more than Wikipedia's, which i did take as a personal insult. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 13:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and similar recordings have been broadcast in multiple TV documentaries, news programmes etc., creating precedent in reputable sources. If you can get the file with an appropriate license, go for it. :) --JN466 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do OFI own the rights? if not, you don't need their permission, you can simply try and source this video elsewhere, ideally the full version, and not just the OFI choice edits, then there's a better case for inclusion. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, they do. They have obtained copyrights over Osho's works. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not so sure about that, it's from a 60 Minute AUS item called The Orange people, it happened because of public perception issues in Australia at the time, their commune there (Pemberton) was getting a lot of flak, none of this has been touched upon in the article yet, so perhaps it's time to elaborate. Showing only the clip of this program that OIF have approved, if there is an entire program to consider, is problematic because the context is lost. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched many Osho interview clips. In each and every one of them, there are two people videotaping the event—one Rajneeshee and one media person. In most cases, the media persons can be seen in the video. Furthermore, the video has already been copyrighted by OIF. It has been on youtube for 5 years, and 60 Minutes has not taken them to court. So, we have no reason to reason that they are not the rightful copyright holder. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that may be so, but again, showing only the clips that OIF have approved, if there is an entire program to consider, and additional context to explore, is not something I support, and I especially do not support the inclusion of video that serves to advertise OIF. --188.223.6.168 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/innercontent.asp?FileName=biography8/08-20-rolls.txt
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajneesh&oldid=461947598"