Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

undisscussed deletion

this is the section I have trimmed...and will beback reverted it for discussion.

The salmonella attack was noted as the first confirmed instance of chemical or biological terrorism to have occurred in the United States.[108] Osho claimed that because he was in silence and isolation, meeting only with Sheela, he was unaware of the crimes committed by the Rajneeshpuram leadership until Sheela and her "gang" left, and sannyasins came forward to inform him.[109] A number of commentators have stated that in their view Sheela was being used as a convenient scapegoat.[109][110][111] Others have pointed to the fact that although Sheela had bugged Osho's living quarters and made her tapes available to the U.S. authorities as part of her own plea bargain, no evidence has ever come to light that Osho had any part in her crimes.[112][113][114] Even though there was not enough evidence to bring charges against Osho, Gordon (1987) reports that Charles Turner, David Frohnmayer and other law enforcement officials who had surveyed affidavits that were never released publicly, and who had listened to the hundreds of hours of tape recordings that were retrieved from the ranch, insinuated to him that Osho was guilty of more crimes than those he was eventually prosecuted for.[115] Frohnmayer, who had written his Harvard honours thesis on Nietzsche and Lenin,[nb 1] asserted that Osho's philosophy was not "disapproving of poisoning", and that he felt he and Sheela had been "genuinely evil".[115] Turner, identifying himself as a born-again Christian, was no less emphatic, describing Osho's eyes as "luminous, almost with a satanic glow in them."[115]

this passage is full of someone insinuated this someone asserted that ... even though there was not enough evidence... all rubbish someone said osho had evil eyes none of this deserves addition to the article.

so I trimmed it to this..it's a lot cleaner and simpler .....luminous evil eyes!

Osho claimed that he was unaware of the salmonella attack and other crimes commited until sannyasins came forward to inform him.[109] no evidence has ever come to light that Osho had any part in any crimes.[112][113][114] there was no evidence to bring charges against Osho.

and(will beback)reverted it

ill post it on the talk page for discussion and then you can all discuss it..

if no one minds or you are in agreement then comment.or forever hold your breath.. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

What do you think, Semi? Jayen 466 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hello jayen .

what do you think? please comment.. you are one of the main contributors here did you contribute this nonsense that I am wanting to remove? do you dissagree with my deletion? I have posted a comment on semi's talk page to see if he is still editing here and no reply so far!

i'm not sure of the biodynamics that have happened here so lets try to look at the issues with fresh eyes. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

I think half was from Semi, and half was from me. I definitely remember adding the satanic glow. I figured, might as well go the whole hog. :-) But I admit I am a little bit listless about this article at the moment. Partly because I'm busy at lots of other places. Cheers, Jayen 466 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion because the material appeared sourced, relevant, reasonably neutral, and I didn't see a consensus to delete it. The first assertion, that it was the first bioterrorism incident in the U.S., seems quite noteworthy. The second sentence should be re-phrased to avoid the word "claimed", per WP:WTA. Some of the other material might be shortened - I don't see the relevance of the topic of Frohnmayer's thesis - but that's more a matter for copyediting than wholesale deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Will as to tightening it up. Your deletions were too drastic but do point up something about this article which is the wide inclusions of 'alleged', insinuations and assertions. But let's see how SemiT reacts, he's the most likely to object. jalal (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks (comments noted)somewhere else the section about the ranch was accused of being too long in relation to the time spent there so trimming out some of the irrelevant allegations would help but ok copyediting and not slashing. My desire here is not to rewrite the article but to tidy it up and help to resolve this neutrality issue.. a lot of what is being discussed here is not even in the article? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Off2riorob, I would encourage you to be patient, turning up and deciding to delete content in this manner is not constructive and will serve only to exacerbate the ongoing POV issues that surrounds this article. I note you have also deleted comments from the discussion page, this is entirely inappropriate.

I would ask you to please take more considered action here and take the time to read the archives and appreciate that there are various perspective that should be considered.

In short I object to the changes.

I also object to Jayens recent removal of information relating to Prices visit and will reinstate it.

If the editors here have issues with the current content see WP:NPOVD and take appropriate action.

Will, the Frohmayer information served to balance Jayens framing of the comments and points to the fact that this individual, whos involvement is notable, is qualified to offer an assessment, I don't see the issue, his comment also ties in with Osho's interest in Nietzsche which is dealt with later in the article. Diff Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hello to you too!semitransgenic.have you read the page on how to welcome newcomers!

yes the pov .. I am looking for someone to sort that out. soon as possible. I get the feeling you are in the position of objecting to any changes at all! Is the page frozen ? would you let me know what you don't like in the article and we'll work on removing it! sorry if I dived in with my ignorance, please just revert any changes you don't like. I know better now. are you still open to helping to improve this article?

best regards(Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Move to America, again.

Jayen, your recent edits do not display any interest in balance. There are two side to this, you wish to ignore this, I do not. Osho entered America based on a false information and was found guilty of doing so, this is fact. The movement has their version of the story the authorities have another. There are also multiple sources that specifically question the motivation underlying the move to America and the means that were used to achieve it. This is relevant, notable, and there are multiple verifiable sources that deal with this, a number of which were included in the material you removed. Please be more responsible in your editing here. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I could go along with this..and there are multiple verifiable sources.

I posted this yesterday ..line 70 It could read something like.. although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert. there is nothing out of sync with this . Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)) this is after all what happened and I think it reads alright too. I would appreciate jalal and jayen to comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Discussion

Well, this is the diff that Semi complains about (left side is what I had changed it to, right side is what Semi changed it back to). Comments? Merits/demerits of each version? Jayen 466 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the source (Carter) for the Encounter group passsage that is part of this dispute: [1] Jayen 466 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the section starting "" marker turns text into a note that the encyclopedia reader then can't see on the finished page.) Jayen 466 16:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can understand why SemiT likes that one, although the 'pool of blood' could be just as good. It hardly seems balanced to cherry pick that version from Carter though. And why miss out Gunther? On the other hand, SemiT's version is a little less verbose. Our efforts to accomodate every point of view under the sun is resulting in a large article (300kb) full of 'alleged', 'insinuated' and so on (as noted by Off2riorob). On the subject of size, can we trim down the talk page a bit? It's getting on for 0.5Mb and takes an age to download here (not having a high powered Uni connection). jalal (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that semiT has decided the article is biased so has taken a stance opposing that.

so we have a situation whereas one 'story seems to be given uverdue emphasis! I agree with jalal the article is growing to capture tiny little nuances as both sides ( that seems to be what we have here ) struggle to more represent their position when to advance a step toward the middle would be the way to grow. I would be happy with that removing some of this talk. although as long as my posts remained available on my talk page. semiT would def require asking though! I'm left wondering if a total rewrite of the article would be a better way to progress????? have you thought to remove it??? semiT has left a comment as to his feelings about the article on my talk page. have a look. have you tried looking for someone to sort out the neutrality issue or a mediator. This is more complicated than I thought. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

we did arrange a mediation for the editors here, but SemiT backed out so it didn't happen, which was a pity because it would have been a good step forward. (BTW, could you practise your formatting a bit? There is a convention to indent successively the parts of a conversation thread, thereby making it clearer who responds to whom. See the link Editing help when you are in the editor) jalal (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I hear objections, then I plan on pulling together all the Talk sections relating to 'Move to America' and creating a themed archive page for them. That would be sections 2, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18. The whole talk page is too large and fragmented to be of use to anyone wanting to gain an overview of the issues involved. jalal (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

good idea..I am busy looking (trawling)through the old archives (wow!)

(Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

2 and 14 should ideally stay here for the time being, particularly as the American move is again a subject of debate; an editor has tried to excise the relevant item from the article another is suggesting rewording. There are plenty of other dead threads here should you wish to archive something.Semitransgenic (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Semitransgenic (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi, just in case you were not aware of this, my edits did not excise the Move to America at all. I removed (commented out) Laxmi's comments, and I removed reports of Sheela's having pressed for the move for a long time. Those were content that I added some while back. The section then being rather short, I also removed the separate headline for it. I retained the fact that he moved to America, that he was ill before, that he never sought medical assistance in the States, and that the authorities contended he had made false statements on his visa application. Cheers, Jayen 466 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That was the only thread that I thought might be contentious.jalal (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

so is this the actual dispute?

if it is the main potagonism then lets work it out and go for the middle path

all parties here to progress will have to be a bit flexible ..a bit of give and take

so tell me what is the actual problem

so what is your position on 2 and 14 then semiT? please!

lets clean the page of everything that is not in dispute and look at what is left!

(Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

yes it's true the american move is a subject of debate right now!

I think you should (or one of you could..) archive anything that is a dead thread!

for me you could delete the whole talk page as no progress is being made,basically as I see it there are two editors

glaring at each other over the fence with no thought about improving the article.

I can see no way in these circumstances to improve the article which should be the objective here !

I am new here but I am seeking help from wikipedians on these issues regarding this article.

(Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Hi Rob, with all due respect, I appreciate you are new here, we were all new here once, but there are guidelines, and for the most part they have been followed in getting to where we are now, I don;t think there is any doubt about that. Yes there has been some blood letting, but we all have points of view; you have your point of view, you wish to edit this article in a fashion that reflects that point of view, but I'm sorry it's not that simple, unfortunately. Maybe appreciate also that the article has been largely subject to WP:OWN, and not by me, despite what editors here would like you believe. You need to look at the article as it was before a concerted effort to provide balance was made, simply accusing me of having a history of aggressive editing, and alleging that I am 'stagnating' the articles development, is not constructive (no offense taken, its par for the course). But, its worth noting that there is a common courtesy here we try and adhere to, and it entails addressing the content and not the editor. If you have objections to content you need to express exactly what they are and ideally provide an alternative, but one that adheres to all notable guidelines, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:OR & WP:VER. Hope you can understand why this is important. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

and this is typical of the kind of stuff we need to avoid:"SemiT tries to bully people and threaten them, whether you want to be bullied or threatened is your decision. He has basically tried to control the page for the past year, mostly successfully". This is jalal's view, someone who has actually contributed very little to the article itself and instead tag-teams to force content entry provided by another. The allegation that I have tried to control the page for the last year is simply a lie, viewing the edit history will confirm that. As for aggressive editing please take note of WP:BOLD, and bullying? what a load of crap, this guy is probably old enough to be my dad - quit with the whining. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

third time i've tried posting this!!!phew.

I am in the process of reviewing the whole article from start to now.

although the article is unrecognisable from it's conception I see little actual improvement.

I don't want the article to represent my point of view.

what I want is to bring all parties here together to improve this article to make it a good article.

I don't mind whether it reflects my position at all .

I would like it to truthfully reflect Osho's life.

I feel it's impossible to address the content of the article without resolving the issues that I have found here.

the energy here IS stagnating the article.

(warring editors)(tit for tat editing)(constant reverting)

why not just step back all of you and let new people enjoy improving the article?

why be so attached to the article?

walk away and come back in a couple of months and see whats left!

regards (Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

In principal I have no objections to a complete rewrite, if it reflects the content found in verifiable secondary sources. I also note there appears to be an objection to the 100k size of the article, I do not believe the first step is to start hacking material out as this overlooks the fact that the bulk of the article has been written, and formatted, including all decisions about subject matter etc., by one editor, so it is suffering from issues relating to writing style; it's often flowery and pedantic. If the writing style was changed, and a more concise, pragmatic and encyclopedic tone were used it would automatically reduce the articles size. Having said that, Rob you still haven't outlined exactly why you find the content objectionable, you are simply commenting on the behavior of the editors involved. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thankyou for these constructive comments semiT.

I agree in the first look that perhaps a complete rewrite by a non involved copy editor maybe a good idea.

yes a bit flowery and pedantic. agreed .. not very encyclo like.

I felt in the begining that there were too many claims about this and that and that those type of things didn't benefit

the article at all.

clearer and simpler..less complicated.

regarding the article it's a while since I looked at it!!!

I will reread it. I did'nt really find the article objectionable ..as you say a bit flowery and for me over complicated

it was the dispute around the article that troubled me .. as I have said my idea here is to help bring the article up

to good article status and for it to represent Osho fairly and in an unbaised way.

jalal says he is happy with the neutral point of view issue but I myself would like to see that resolved.

regards (Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

The claims and counter claims issue arises as result of the fact that the literature is divided so you have: a) a perspective offered by those involved with the movement who believe Osho was infallible: b) a perspective offered by those involved with the movement who believe Osho was a charlatan: c) a perspective offered by commentators who make a claim for 'objectivity' : d) 'objective' commentators who lean towards a) : e) 'objective' commentators who lean toward b).

All of this needs to be reflected in the content. If it is not, I think any editor has a right to object, and this is why there is dispute, becasue editors are typically aligned with one of the above categories. There is no 'truth' as such, and there doesn't need to be becasue verifiability is the threshold for inclusion. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (U

you could have a rewriten page were jayen puts his osho bias point and you

put your anti Osho point and so on and on! to balance the bias out!

(Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

having to verify both sides of the generally axe grinding book writers is part of

the editing downfall here , I would like to suggest you try to use only the selection

of unbiased writings about Osho.

there is another group or perhaps many more groups .. are we to reflect

unlimited groups in the article?

the group where someone was not involved with the group at all but 'believes'

Osho was a charleton... this is what you call a 'commentator'

or they could be called a biased commentator.

like someone in politics that supports the tories and reports as if a neutral

heavily against the labour..encouraging others to 'believe in his biased opinion.

so you could be called .. a commentator heavity baised against Osho. (group f)

I don;t think you can deny this and why should you!

regards (Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Clearly put. The difficulties on this article have been not a shortage of verifiable sources, but agreeing on what should be here. Sometimes it's the case that both sides end up in the article, which is why it reads a little clumsily at times. But the main issue is the inability to reach consensus and a general combatitiveness. The WP process for that is to bring in Mediation, which we tried to do in September. Question to Semi: why did you back out of that? It would have been helpful for all. jalal (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If mediation is so important to you why have you not pursued it yourself? I had specific questions that needed answering, I emailed the administrator, got no response, and decided not to engage with it as the heated period had passed. I don't see the issue. And what exactly are your problems with the content? becasue you have not outlined them, ever, you simply accuse me of one thing after another, which is not constructive. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And Rob, you can accept what the other editors have to say regarding my conduct if you so wish, but if you are in any doubt about who has steered and controlled this article see here. Also, note that jalal really does very little here except make accusations about me. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

yes I'll lok at the old stuff although if we could just be new and fresh that would help. sorry about my badly formatet post I went to revert it but it wouldn't let me as someone was dealing with it . thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Personal comments

This is for everybody: "Comment on the edits, not the editors." The only topic of this page is improving the Wikipedia article on Osho. Comments about the behavior of other editors are off-topic. There are other pages for addressing behavioral issues, including user talk pages and requests for comments. I urge all the active editors here to work together in a collegial manner to seek consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to America, #3

The thing is easy to cover. First Osho got ill. This is notable in itself, even if he had not moved to the States. Then a visa application was made for him to go to the States, on a medical visa. He went. He never sought outside medical help in the States. The authorities accused him of having lied on his visa application. He later made an Alford plea to that charge. All of these things are stated in the article now, and were stated in the article as I had edited it a couple of days ago. What is the problem? Jayen 466 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

this is what you commented out:

On 1 June 1981, Osho travelled to the United States on a tourist visa, for medical purposes; he reportedly had a prolapsed disc which had already been treated by several doctors, including James Cyriax, a leading orthopedic surgeon flown into India from London.^[1]^[2]^[3] The move seems to have been instigated by Sheela,^[4] who stated Osho might have died if he had stayed in India and would find the medical assistance he required in America in the event that he needed emergency surgery.^[5]^[2]^[1] Sheela had apparently been urging Osho to move to America for some time, and had discussed a new commune in the United States with him as early as late 1980.^[2] Laxmi told Frances FitzGerald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who wrote a study of Osho's years in America for The New Yorker magazine, that she blamed herself for the move to America; she had been unable to find a suitable property in India, and thus, when the medical emergency arose, the initiative had passed to Sheela.^[3] Other authors have attributed the move to mounting tension, criticism and possible punitive action by the Indian authorities, which may have created an impetus for Osho to relocate to the U. S.^[6]^[7]^[8]

I'm not sure why you suddenly decided it would be a good idea to shorten the article by commenting out this section. However, the actual motivation for the move, aside from the 'medical condition', and the circumstances that lead up to it - as covered by multiple sources - are, for the most part, not dealt with at all. Your view, as outlined above, is over simplistic in the extreme. But that's OK, I intend elaborating on this period of Osho's life in due course. Another point we need to be clear on is that the authorities did not simply make accusations, they successfully prosecuted and found him guilty of visa fraud. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

":this is what you commented out:" Semitransgenic, this is an untrue assertion which I would like you to retract. I did not comment out that section. Here is the page as I left it: [2]. Please check again. Jayen 466 13:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And as you very well now, and FitzGerald reports, they did not successfully prosecute. Osho's lawyers made a plea bargain. There never was a trial. Jayen 466 13:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

it's not a particularly beautiful paragraph. seems to.., might have, had apparently etc. We have 200 kb of book excerpts and quotes on the subject (almost a mini book in itself) and no conclusion. The only factoid about this move to america is that he did, in fact, travel there, and he did it on a medical visa.

Although I guess we could dispute that as well... according to the Hindustan Times, Osho shaved off his beard and married a Greek shipping owners daughter. The Maharashtra Herald reported that Osho had been murdered in April 1981 and replaced by a body double. Police took it seriously enough to open an investigation. Do these reports deserve a mention as well? jalal (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is another version, according to which he never left the United States apparently, but died in US custody: [3] Chryssides is a respected scholar. :-( Jayen 466 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jalal that's a typically disingenuous stance, and not one you took when Jayen inserted this material, now that he wants to remove it you are in full support of its demise? Both of you should really stop feigning ignorance, it's rather tiresome, by all means if you would like another overview of the sources, we can do that. And what exactly have you done to try and reach a conclusion? nothing, except buttress jayen's position, you are not helping in the least. However, there is a conclusion, and we will get to it, in due course. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just my opinion. If you don't like me expressing it take it up with the WikiAdmins. Do you have anything to say about the content, and not just the editors? Do you think the paragraph reads well as it is, or is Jayen's an improvement? jalal (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can go with this, the final sentence, the other commentators will be given better coverage once I'm done sourcing, note also that currently Gordon is the only one referenced but Carter also deals with this, don't have the ref at hand.Incidently, why ignore the fact that Carter has chapter on this entitled Transplanting the Poona Colony?

On 1 June 1981, Osho traveled to the United States on a tourist visa, for medical purposes, and spent several months at Kip's Castle in Montclair, New Jersey.^[9] According to sources close to Osho he had a prolapsed disc and had been treated by several doctors, including a leading orthopedic surgeon from London, called James Cyriax.^[1]^[2]^[3] The move is reported to have been overseen by Sheela.^[10]She stated that Osho was in grave danger if he remained in India but would receive appropriate medical treatment in America .^[5]^[2]^[1] Osho's previous secretary, Laxmi, reported to Frances FitzGerald, that is was her failure to secure new property in India that led Osho to relocate when his medical condition declined.^[3]
Other commentators believe that conditions in India, including mounting tension, increasing criticism of activities in Pune, and threatened punitive action by the Indian authorities, created the impetus for Osho to relocate operations to America.^[11]^[7]^[12]Gordon (1987) notes that Sheela and Osho had discussed the idea of establishing a new commune in the U.S. as early as late 1980.^[2]During his time in America Osho never sought outside medical treatment, leading the Immigration and Naturalization Service to believe that he had a preconceived intent to remain there.^[3] The INS would later find Osho guilty of immigration fraud, including making false statements on his initial visa application.^[3]

Semitransgenic (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi, I am absolutely amazed by this version. It reads:

On 1 June 1981, Osho traveled to the United States on a tourist visa, for medical purposes, and spent several months at Kip's Castle in Montclair, New Jersey.[76] According to sources close to Osho he had a prolapsed disc and had been treated by several doctors, including a leading orthopedic surgeon from London, called James Cyriax.[77][75][78] The move is reported to have been overseen by Sheela.[79]She stated that Osho was in grave danger if he remained in India but would receive appropriate medical treatment in America .[80][75][77] Osho's previous secretary, Laxmi, reported to Frances FitzGerald, that is was her failure to secure new property in India that led Osho to relocate when his medical condition declined.[78] Other commentators believe that conditions in India, including mounting tension, increasing criticism of activities in Pune, and threatened punitive action by the Indian authorities, created the impetus for Osho to relocate operations to America.[81][82][83]Gordon (1987) notes that Sheela and Osho had discussed the idea of establishing a new commune in the U.S. as early as late 1980.[75]During his time in America Osho never sought outside medical treatment, leading the Immigration and Naturalization Service to believe that he had a preconceived intent to remain there.[78] The INS would later find Osho guilty of immigration fraud, including making false statements on his initial visa application.[78]

Let us start with the last sentence. FitzGerald, p. 86, which this is cited to, says: "Whether false statements had been made was the legal question at issue, and INS officials never proved their case. (In the end, they did not have to.)" The reason they did not have to was that Osho's lawyers made a plea bargain. In addition, the INS cannot find anyone guilty. This is a matter for courts, judges and juries. How can you write this, and cite it to FitzGerald, when FitzGerald says nothing like it? Jayen 466 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

fair enough we can use the sources that explicitly deal with him lying, what's your problem?? An Alford plea is one of the three type of guilty pleas available to a defendant, you need to check your facts on this, because you are wrong in believing he was not found guilty. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In a plea bargain you are not "found guilty", you "plead guilty" to an agreed charge and are sentenced without there being a trial to establish your guilt or innocence. Alford plea has always been wikilinked, and our article on it makes clear that it counts as a guilty plea. I would have thought that was apparent from the fact that he was sentenced. I have now expressly added that it is a form of guilty plea for those readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. Jayen 466 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you misrepresent what I have done in my edits, and that you misrepresent sources. I will charitably assume that you have done neither intentionally, but it is worrying nonetheless. Cheers, Jayen 466 14:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the second sentence, The New Yorker is not a "source close to Osho". It is improper to characterise it as such. Jayen 466 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, there are complaints about length, mentions regarding superfluous wordage, I'm trying to address bot so we can move forward as it seem to be a huge concern at the moment. Please check your understanding of the Alford Plea, if I am wrong I will gladly address the error. The closes source I accept may be inaccurate, but the New Yorker is reporting on information it received from sources close to Osho, perhaps this is incorrect. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to you to speculate who The New Yorker got its information from. I do not need to remind you of their fact-checking reputation. Jayen 466 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As I thought then, a mere oversight, as for fact checking, you do recall that slight anomaly in the Fitzgerald writings?? It's a newspaper, it's fallible, don't believe everything you read, right? Semitransgenic (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, how about reaching some consensus before hacking around on the article. Now the chronology is completely backwards. Title: Move to America. Osho moves to america, then he gets back problems, then we go backwards through to Laxmi looking for somewhere and reasons for going, then we jump forward in time to 1985 when he is in court (which is anyway covered later). As we say in Scotland, it's all durchanander. You are both too involved to read it with fresh eyes. jalal (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, what did you think of this version? This had the MTA integrated at the beginning of the Oregon section. Jayen 466 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept this change, I do not believe there is a chronology issue, it's a summary of the events surrounding the move, there is no onus upon this article to stick to an exact chronological time line from section to section. Jalal, Jayen, if you have an issue with the edits thus far I ask you to proceed to dispute resolution. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it makes very little difference what I think of that version. But since you asked... while I don't think that the "Move.." needs it's own section, the version you have above is a little rushed. It would be good to find a mid-point between the current verbose version and what you have there. I suggest dropping the section header and moving the current version into the first part of 1981-85 and excising some of the legal stuff that is repeated later on. As for the chronology, I think it would be better to read: bad back condition, tension in india, dispute with authorities, laxmi/sheela. then osho leaving to the us and kip's castle. then we can have 'some commentators...' I'd write it meself but it would just be reverted as soon as i did. jalal (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Again jalal, you are not making a case, what are your problems with the verifiable sources that are used here? what information do you find contentious? what content are you disputing? why do you think it doesn't need it's own section when one of the most thorough studies of the subject dedicates an entire chapter to it?? I'm not sure you have a real argument at all, it's simply a matter of you not liking it. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen asked for my opinion on two versions of the text and I gave it. I'm sorry you disagree with my opinions, but that's life sometimes, grow up. On your points:

what are your problems with the verifiable sources that are used here? I didn't say anything about the sources and I didn't make any comment on them.
what information do you find contentious? None really. I was commenting on the chronology of the text, that it reads strangely backwards.
what content are you disputing? None. I think some of the legal stuff can be trimmed as it's covered in detail later. And did I mention the chronology?
why do you think it doesn't need it's own section when one of the most thorough studies of the subject dedicates an entire chapter to it?? Because we're not writing a book, we're providing a Wikipedia article. Lets divide the headers into roughly era's (of which there are clear divisions) and work from there.
I'm not sure you have a real argument at all, it's simply a matter of you not liking it. I'm not arguing Semi, i'm trying to provide constructive input to improve the article. Arguments are down the hall, second on the left... :) jalal (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

you are not helping in the least. However, there is a conclusion, and we will get to it, in due course. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

==

I would like to get straight to the 'conclusion' that sentransgenic is saving for later! this vert and revert has gone on long enough. so come on semitrsgenic lets have the 'conclusion' (Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

I agree with jalal when he says there are quotes from all sorts of biased people and this is making the article overly long with no benefit at all to the article . It's would be a waste of my time even trying to do anything to the article as the two sides here has shown that they would only revert. as I mentioned before I would request a rewrite from an independant copyeditor to help resolve this and the flowery contents and the neutrality issue. is anyone against this? keep in mind the will beback said the only thing here is the improvement of the osho article. ( have you all read his comments?)I agree you guys should go to dispute resolution. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry jalal, but you are mistaken if you believe a section cannot refer to events outside the imagined time line you are imposing here, jayen saw it fit to add the verbiage about sham marriages, it's not necessary, please see the comment below, which jayen has declined to respond to, despite asking the question. And again, relative to the coverage given in the available sources this section is a non-issue. If you have a dispute to raise over this content please take it to the appropriate place.Semitransgenic (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi, you yourself added the phrase about sham marriages in this edit. You probably copied it across accidentally from further below. I have now removed that part. Cheers, Jayen 466 17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rob, you really need to understand how wikipedia works, your sense of urgency is misplaced, in theory we could be hammering this out for years, so dig in. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

yes I agree with you about learning how wiki works and I am learning slowly.I do not have the miracle capacity to turn up fully qualified in all the complex ways of the wiki like you! and I dissagree with you that there is any need to 'hammer it out for years' as you say. this is imo in no way beneficial to the article and in fact imo this squabbling over the article over a long period is doing the opposite of improving it. 'dig in' you say.. the man has been dead for years .. you have been debating the article for a year and the article has been debated over for longer than that. none of the imformation is changing or perhaps your waiting until I write my book! I would like an answer as the this 'conclusion' you mention . and an answer to my rewrite by copy editor query! thankyou. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

yes Rob, but that's not reality, you seem very concerned with time, and you are most definitely overtly concerned with the fact that I happen to be computer literate (not unlike a large segment of the population); what exactly is so miraculous about turning up on a wiki and figuring out how it works? it's not rocket science, lay off the bong Rob. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rob if you really want learn the ropes quickly watch jayen, he knows all the tricks of the trade, I credit him with teaching me the ways of wiki ; ) and we all know who his teacher was. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would really prefer and we have all been warned that it you want to talk to me about anything other than improving the Osho page the please lets either do it on your talk page or mine and if and when we do that I would prefer it we we could keep the thread on one or the other .. yours or mine ,. as —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Verbatim

Jayen, why are using these extended excerpts? What happened to summarizing? What exactly is the difference between a summarised statement such as "oversaw" and this "unilateral" decision quote. It really does read like you are trying to hammer home a particular POV i.e. Osho good, Sheela bad, you seem seriously hung up on presenting this woman Sheela as some kind of pariah. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi, please let's just agree to go with the actual source verbatims. "Sheela oversaw" and "Sheela's unilateral decision" just aren't the same to me, sorry. With attributed verbatims, there can be no quibble that you or I are emphasising or adding or subtracting something. Jayen 466 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, in principal, I have no problem with that, but let's not arrive at a situation where complaints about article size lead to a situation whereby trimming by certain editors takes us to a more biased stance (accepting that this is a likely outcome). Semitransgenic (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, we now mention the two counts he pleaded guilty to twice: Once in Move to America, and once in Arrest. I think we needn't mention the sham marriage plea in the Move to America section; it does not really belong there. I suggest we shorten the last MTA sentence to: "Osho later pleaded guilty to immigration fraud, including making false statements on his initial visa application." The notes that you added are useful of course; would you mind transferring them to the Arrest section, if you are agreeable to this? Cheers, Jayen 466 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with that as long as with both agree that there was a guilty plea, we can then leave that one behind us. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi, earlier today I specifically added to the article that the Alford plea is a type of guilty plea. I have never claimed otherwise. Jayen 466 17:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No response jayen?? so I take it you would rather dispute that Osho was found guilty, despite the significant evidence to the contrary? Semitransgenic (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes jayen, that's today, tomorrow your assessment may differ, we really never can tell, can we?? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi. There is a difference between (1) being found guilty and (2) making a guilty plea as part of a plea bargain.

Being "found guilty" is a finding of fact established in the course of a criminal trial. Such a finding is established by a judge or a jury.
In a plea bargain, there is no trial. Instead, lawyers of both sides agree to a bargain which will obviate the need for a trial.

I have affirmed consistently that Osho made an Alford plea (which is a kind of guilty plea). I have consistently denied that he was "found guilty", since that expression presupposes a trial with a judge or jury arriving at such a decision independently of the defendant's plea. It is not a major thing to me, it's just that we should not create the impression that there was a trial when there wasn't one. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, Jayen 466 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the distinction, and accept your point, but there are three types of guilt admissions: guilty: Alford: no contest. according to one item I have seen: "With an Alford plea, the judge asks these two questions: "Do you now consider it to be in your best interest to plead guilty?" and "Do you understand that upon your 'Alford plea' you will be treated as being guilty whether or not you admit that you are in fact guilty?". Whether or not there was a trial, there was a court, a judge, and a plea. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll remember, there were 35 charges. The proposal was, plead guilty to any two of those, agree to leave the country, pay a fine, and we are happy. That is how the deal worked. It was pick and choose, rather than being "found" guilty on any two particular charges and not on the others. Also remember that Gordon mentions (p. 199):

As I read through the indictments and consulted with neutral immigration lawyers and former INS officials, it seemed that the INS was reaching pretty far to arrest Rajneesh. He might well have known about the sham marriages, but I didn't see how, apart from taped evidence of a conversation with Sheela, this, or his aiding and abetting them, could be proved. The people I spoke with were even more dubious about the other two counts. None of them recalled anyone who had previously been indicted for, let alone convicted of, concealing an intention to remain permanently at the time he applied for a nonimmigrant visa, or for discussing immigration prior to coming to America.

There is a paper by James T. Richardson that has detail on how the US authorities were trying for years to find a way to deport Rajneesh from the States, by hook or crook. He writes, "it was quite an eye-opener". But that is all by the by. Fact is, Osho pleaded guilty to these two charges, so that is what we have to say, and it is what we are saying, is it not? Let's move on. Jayen 466 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the nuances jayen, but as jalal likes saying, that's a sword that cuts both ways, Osho overstepped the mark, and paid the price, he played a game, but forgot that he wasn't powerful enough to dictate the rules, therein lies the lesson, first time he took a major ego bruising (what ego? you say), too bad, but it comes with the territory. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well, that's life. Clarke goes into how Osho was rather ungracious and querulous in defeat, saying if the world perished, it was only what it deserved and all that. Jayen 466 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Osho versus the United States of America?? not a fight many people win, not sure who told him otherwise, but they messed up wholesale in doing so. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"It was pick and choose, rather than being "found" guilty", but someone has accept to give a guilty plea in the first instance to arrive at a position where picking and choosing is an option; as far as they were concerned he was guilty, and the plea was based on being guilty because they had enough evidence to find him guilty. He was guilty, that's their conclusion, whatever way you dress it up. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Semi, but it was never established in a court of law. FitzGerald says it, verbatim: "The INS officials never proved their case. (In the end, they did not have to.)" (p.86). We can't fly in the face of that and pretend that officials' private beliefs are the same as a court finding. Cheers, Jayen 466 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the INS with the State Attorneys office here. Anyway, we can't ignore the legal formalities either, or the outcome of the court. There was court of law, and there was a judge of law, otherwise a sentence could not have been passed. The sentence was based on his guilt, as per the Alford Plea, I really don't see how you think it is any other way. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it any other way. The sentence was based on his guilt, as per the Alford plea. It was you who stated, in the article, that "The INS would later find Osho guilty, cited to a source (Fitzgerald 1986a, p. 86) that in fact does not say that – or anything like it – but instead says, verbatim, "The INS never proved their case". I am prepared to put a photograph of that source up online, or e-mail it to any editor who wants to see it. Jayen 466 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, the inclusion of INS in that sentence was an oversight, which I corrected. The INS case you refer to relates to the original charge sheet, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. The fact of the matter is that there was a guilty plea, a sentence was passed in a court of law, it was passed by a judge, and the sentence passed was in accordance with the terms of agreement set out in the Alford Plea. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We are in agreement. :-) Jayen 466 16:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

phew!! ; ) Semitransgenic (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"pop" jalal (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article or section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.

who is going to do this checking?

(Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

I have checked it and it seems neutral enough to me.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

so if none disputes the neutrality of the article anymore I'm going to remove the banner.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

the person that nominated the article has been involved with editing the article for almost a year so I fail to see how with all his editing he can still claim the article to be biased! (Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

the world tour

I would like to see the world tour explained in a little more detail. in the article it just says Osho was deported and returned to india and in another part that he went on a world tour and was refused entry to 21 countries. I feel this is giving undue weight to the negative aspects around these details. it wouuld be better if it read.. Osho was deported after an alford plea but was however allowed to go to the destination of his choice.. and then the places that he was allowed into could be given some space .. I could resesrch the details for this.. I think he first went to uraguay and was allowed permission to stay with the president saying (as I recall) nice things about Osho.. and he gave some talks there called the transmission of the lamp . I would need to reference these details this is just a rough idea. Then as I recall the American government stepped in to coerce Uruguay to take away his permit to stay and they bowed under the pressure of having there loans recalled and threw him out.. then he was in Greece also granted a tourist visa, after he soon started talking and calling the priests fools he was again thrown out . [Ireland] was also a place that allowed him to stay ,I think he was there with a few friends for four weeks were he stayed in a small bed and breakfast in limerick as I recall where I imagine they appreciated his joke telling and then finally I think he flew to Nepal where he was allowed to stay and talk ..where a property was also looked for until the best option was finally India and a deal was done with the Indians to settle the old tax bill and he was allowed to return to Poona. It wasn't that he pass actually deported from 21 countries .. I think the only country that refused him entry on his arrival was the UK., the rest was just nespaper speculation and national posturing from goverments. So I feel that these details would help balance the article and all details could be easily sourced. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

maneesha james is one side of the story here someone comments .. From the back of the book: "[This] is the last book in maneesha James' trilogy, and the first detailed account of Osho's world odyssey as told by one of the disciples accompanying him. Beginning with Osho's enforced departure from the United States, the story takes the reader to a dozen countries as his people attempt to find a home [4] (Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Maybe have another read, the article does cover that aspect in quite some details (look for "Travels and return to Pune"). At one time there was a photocopy of Osho's passport on the web with all the stamps in it, but I can no longer find that. The issue around deportation has been discussed recently. In his case, he flew to India first and then on around the world and returning to India. Brecher 1993 covers this in quite some details, including interviews with some of the officials involved, but that is too lengthy to include here (about 100 pages). jalal (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks so then would you say i'm wrong in thinking that he was allowed to go to a country of his choice was he put on a plane without having any choice as to the destination? I must be wrong them , I had the idea they he flew out of the country on a rajneesh plane! is there a link here to the brecher book? (Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

We've been through this. FitzGerald, Carter, Latkin as well as contemporaneous news sources report that Osho "agreed to leave the country" as part of his plea bargain, or that he "was 'allowed' to depart from the country voluntarily" (that is how Carter puts it). However, dozens of subsequent news and other sources reported that he had been "deported". I have not been able to find a legal definition of "deported" that would be incompatible with what happened. It seems to be a broad term applied to the process of making someone leave a country, rather than a term restricted to one specific type of legal process. But I am not a lawyer. At any rate, I promised Cirt we would not change this without a source providing a clear and cogent argument that he was not "deported". In this context it is relevant to note that even autobiographies published by the Osho organisation state that he was deported from the States. Cheers, Jayen 466 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ok your right it is mostly covered there . so I am going to delete this section as I know you are already complaining about length. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Replaced at my request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry to have reposted the here again.. its not neede=d /.. you can make your own mind up,,, (Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Name

Why is he called by a name he only adopted a year before his death? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" at least during the time he went by that name? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the name he was and is commonly known as when he died and since his death by the general public and press and book releases is Osho. In the article this is well explained in the first paragraph.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

How about verification for this? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent scholarly writing uses the Osho name, sometimes with Rajneesh added. [5], [6], [7], [8] And it is easily verifiable in amazon that all his books are published under the Osho name, and have been for the past 20 years or so. The book by Fox (Osho Rajneesh, 2000) uses the interesting approach of calling him by the name he was known by at the times the events described occurred. So Fox refers to him by his nickname of "Rajneesh" when describing events of his childhood and early career, as "Bhagwan" during the Poona and Oregon years, and as "Osho" towards the end of his life. In the chapters discussing his philosophy and legacy, she again refers to him as Osho. That's an approach I have contemplated proposing here as well. Either way has pros and cons. Cheers, Jayen 466 11:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the press, the Times of India uses Osho: [9] Hits for Rajneesh in the Times of India are mostly for other people called Rajneesh, such as Rajneesh Duggal: [10]. Jayen 466 11:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Osho's ashram

In this edit, I removed the text, "His ashram is today known as the Osho International Meditation Resort." . Jalal (talk · contribs) reverted it here with an edit summary of "Undid revision 264483032 by Spidern (talk) Uncontroversial, common knowledge". I had removed it for several reasons:

The statement was unsourced (it's not common knowledge).
The statement could be seen as promotional.
"Ashram" is not an English word, and not commonly known to those unfamiliar with eastern religions. The word is not properly defined here.
No context is given for the statement, which proceeds mention of Osho's death.
Badly constructed sentence. You generally don't call something "his" if he is dead. ←Spidern → 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jalal. The place is regularly mentioned in Indian newspaper articles. If a source for the new name were needed, this one would do. Would also be useful in Osho movement. Cheers, Jayen 466 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to Osho movement. Strange that an article about osho movement doesn't mention the headquarters... jalal (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to address Spidern's concerns:

* If you feel a source is needed that shouldn't be difficult. However, it is common knowledge and somewhat obvious.

* It could be seen as promotional, but that is not the intent. An article on Microsoft would have a link to their web-site, in fact is common on Wikipedia for that to be the case.

* Ashram is not an English word. Well, it's in all the dictionaries I've seen, including OED, Chambers and M-W and it is also linked from the text to the Wikipedia page Ashram

* Last two points have been fixed I think.

jalal (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of "fact" tag

In this edit, I placed a fact tag here because the statement ("Excerpts and quotes from his works appear regularly in the Times of India and other Indian newspapers.") was unsourced. Here, Jalal reverts it with an edit summary of "unclear fact". Precisely what about my challenging of this information is so enigmatic? ←Spidern → 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you asking for a citation that Osho's quotes appeared in the T of India, or 'regularly in the Times of India' or that they appeared in other Indian newspapers? And if you require a citation that they appear in other Indian newspapers, how many citations should be provided? (Originally it read 'many other Indian newspapers'). jalal (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I was challenging the entire assertion that "Excerpts and quotes from his works appear regularly in the Times of India and other Indian newspapers." Frankly, we cannot provide supporting evidence for this statement by citing individual cases of media mention and adding them up. This would constitute synthesis, or using multiple sources to justify a statement not found in any of them. This interpretation is not up to us, as editors, but to reliable sources, which present facts which are verifiable. If the assertion is truly significant, then it will be no problem finding reliable secondary sources which back it up. ←Spidern → 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

well, if you go to the Times of India, Lifestyle section, Spirituality, Speaking Tree they have a regular column using excerpts and quotes from Osho and have done for many years. This is verifiable by viewing the site. However, you are asking for a secondary source that mentions that, which I haven't found. So I guess you are correct in removing it. jalal (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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.^[13]

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. Jayen 466 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, Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 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". Jayen 466 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)

[11][12][13]; [14][15]. Jayen 466 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:

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" [16][17][18], indicating that Osho is the most common and easily recognized name among Wikipedia users.
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.
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.
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. Jayen 466 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 [19]. 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. Jayen 466 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osho on Homosexuality

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)

Yes, seems to me, too, that Osho contradicted himself on some subjects. This makes a good teacher, you are compelled to think and find out by yourself what you belief and hold true.

How to insert what he said on homosexuality I still don't know. I have not thought about it again until now. But it has to. Osho is thought to have been sort of sex maniac, that's why it should be mentioned.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.213 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that there are sufficient sources to show that the subject condemned homosexuality, at very least. It was not a major part of his teachings, but a short sentence on the matter wouldn't be out of place. Will Beback talk 09:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
An apparently moderate and sober treatment of the issue is in Susan J. Palmer's The Rajneesh Papers. ISBN 8120810805. Pp 110-111. However that's focused more on the movement than the subject so it might be a better source for the other article. Will Beback talk 09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It IS a major part of his teachings, because he kept on and on about a certain one of his formulations - the four stages of sexual love; autosex, homosex, heterosex and beyondsex. He considered that his way could not arrive at the fourth without passing through the third. From this viewpoint, for example, he said that Walt Whitman might have become naturally enlightened had he tried being hetero. Nevertheless, homosex is better than no love at all. He repeated this a dozen times or more in public lectures. This message comes to you only in the interests of knowledgeable debate. Redheylin (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be best to find descriptions of the subject's teachings in secondary sources. Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss this 4-stage progression? Will Beback talk 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can think of - Jayen knows more about 2ndry sources. I do not want to edit the page - and to tell the truth, I think most times a person is usually the most reliable source about their own opinions when these stand beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of consistent public statement. I find this generally to be the case in wiki, whether we talk of scientists or celebrities. That's not the intention. Just, since the matter was raised, I mentioned that it is better if everyone is familiar with the facts. Osho was known as the sex-guru in India because he advocated discussion of sex, sex education and an end to religious control of it, free contraception, the dissolution of the family into the commune and serial monogamy leading to celibacy. He saw homosexuality as a product of sexual segregation, particularly in male power elites, and he advocated positive discrimination for women. He discussed sex as a meditation among a hundred others but suggested that most of the people who claim to practise this are delusional. He did not advocate promiscuity: he was the world's first to begin a "condoms against AIDS" campaign and was excoriated for it a couple of years before the govts that excoriated him did the same thing themselves.

On the other hand I have seen it argued here that a misconception, if filed as a story and plagiarised by a few other newshounds, deserves to be placed here even if it the misconception can readily be refuted from the subject's own statements. This is not a standard of debate with which I care to engage. Since the editors concerned are bent upon inserting what they know to be untruth, I prefer simply to leave them to wind themselves so tightly that they choke. Redheylin (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The are many problems with primary sources, especially in the case of someone who had given as many talks as this subject. I'm sure that Palmer isn't the only one who's discussed the subjects views on this topic. I'll see what I can find next week. Will Beback talk 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While there are problems with primary sources, this discussion was kicked off and claimed legitimacy by quoting some. Now, the 3 web pages linked by Austerlitz above already show a very multidimensional approach, at times critical, at other times supportive of gayness. The following could be added:

Homosexuals are called "gay" people. They are really gay! The heterosexuals look so sad. Whenever you see a couple you can immediately know whether they are married or not: if they are sad they are married, if they are looking dull and dead they are married. Marriage kills all joy for the simple reason that it creates so many conflicts. Hence all societies have condemned homosexuality, for the simple reason that if it is not condemned, what will happen to reproduction? In the past it had some meaning, but now it has no meaning.
Now the day has come when homosexuality CAN be accepted, should be accepted as a natural outlet of your sexual energies. I am not against it, I am not for it either. I am simply saying that if you have to live your sex you can choose your style, you are free to choose your style. If you decide to be stupid, at least you should be given the freedom to choose what kind of stupid you want to be! I give you total freedom.
My effort here is to help you to go beyond it, so if you are homosexual you have to go beyond homosexuality, if you are heterosexual you have to go beyond heterosexuality. And there are other people also who are neither, who are autoerotic, autosexual. They have to go beyond their autoeroticism. Man has to transcend sex, whatsoever kind of sex it is, because unless you go beyond your biology you will never know your soul. But meanwhile -- before you go beyond -- it is your freedom to be whatsoever you want to be.
You say, "I am homosexual. I feel terribly oppressed and stricken by the stigma of homosexuality." There is no need to be "terribly oppressed." You must be accepting people's condemnation. Deep down somewhere you are also against it; otherwise, why feel oppressed? If people are against, let them be against! You need not declare to everybody that you are a homosexual. You need not move with a flag that you are a homosexual! You can remain a homosexual. Of course, you cannot hide it because your sex style changes your body language. The way the homosexual walks is totally different from the heterosexual; the way he talks is totally different. And he looks so gay, so happy!
So you will have to remain a little less happy, that's all. Don't look so happy, and walk a little more consciously, that's all.
— Osho, The Way of the Buddha

In Iran, the punishment for homosexuality is death -- although because of this punishment, more Iranians are homosexual than anybody else. Because when something is so dangerous, people become interested: "Naturally there must be something in it. When the punishment is death, that means there must be something higher than life in it, more than life in it. It is worth taking the risk!"
But why should people be worried about others? About everything the society remains alert: nobody should have his own individual way about his sex, about his love, about his clothes, about his way of talking, manners. Every society imposes a fascist rule on its members. It destroys much that is beautiful.
— Osho, Ah, This!

In the West, if you are walking hand-in-hand with a woman no problem arises, because the society is also the same. But walk hand-in-hand with a man, two men walking hand-in-hand, and people start looking at you. Something is wrong -- you look homosexual, you look gay. It is dangerous! Now homosexuals have been one of the tortured minorities in the world, very much tortured. In some countries they are killed. In some countries, for example in Iran, if it is found that two persons are living as homosexuals or lesbians, then the only punishment is death. What nonsense! They have not committed any crime against anybody, they have not harmed anybody! Two men living together, or two women living together, this should be nobody else's business.
But there is a great fear of homosexuality, and the reason is that homosexuality has been repressed down the ages. ... The homosexual has a very different lifestyle, and you are heterosexual. He belongs to another religion, he has another politics, he is not a man like you. The moment somebody says that he is gay, a gap arises, a great gap. Now how can you communicate? But all these fears have to be dropped; these are all defense measures. They simply show that you are not yet settled in your being -- afraid any outside influence may take you away, off your ground.
— Osho, Be Still and Know

As for secondary sources, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, vol. 1, p. 253, say:

"Palmer [...] hints at a slight ambivalence within the group, noting that 'homosexuality [was] not considered sinful or abominable ... but a cowardly cop-out and that in one publication Rajneesh grudingly admit[ted] ... that homosexuality can also be a valid path to superconsciousness."

Mullan says that he was inconsistent on the topic of homosexuality, like with most topics. That is borne out by the above quotes; so if editors want to insert something like this, there are some secondary sources commenting. On the other hand, it's not a major issue in the literature on him; he was inconsistent on most everything, not just this. The passage on gender relations from The Rajneesh Papers would, as Will says, make more sense in Rajneesh movement. JN 466 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling that. Pending other sources, it looks like Mullan may be the best secondary source for the subject's beliefs on this topic. Will Beback talk 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone here say that the subject was notable for his views or comments on homosexuality? I would say not. Are we to add a section to all articles about their comments or stated views about homosexuality? Osho also talked about lesbianism, are we to add comments about that? I have some good quotes where he talks about the beautiful lady-boys of Bombay, he loved those lady-boys, lets add that. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

The subject's views on sexuality are indeed notable. As I said before, I don't think that picking quotes from among hundreds or thousands of talks is a good way to proceed. Secondary sources are always preferable. If there are others besides Mullan then let's find them. I don't think that an entire section is warranted. Probably just a sentence or two. Let's see once we have all of the facts. Will Beback talk 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The sex guru. If we are to add men = men comments we should also add girl = girl comments..also it is worth noting that Osho's views on man=man sex changed over time mostly relating to and incorporated his views on the emergence of the HIV Virus and the dangers of that to a communal way life. Also it is worth noting the difference between man-man sex and man-man love and Osho's comments and opinions regarding the difference. Osho was named the sex guru in the press but his was the way of the heart. His message was love, he said many times that sex was a base energy and as you raised up your energy to higher levels that sex would 'drop away'. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

If there are sources that discuss the subject's views on female homosexuality then let's look at those too. Mullan doesn't appear to differentiate male from female homosexuality, so we might not need to either. Will Beback talk 16:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I merged two threads on the topic. Will Beback talk 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Merged? Which two threads? Would you provide a link to this'merger'. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

[23] Will Beback talk 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a 'Lady-boy' a kind of 'merger'? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

I do agree that Osho's opinions on sex are significant both intrinsically and as a matter on which one might wish to be informed due to the sex-guru legend. And I'd say the formulation I mentioned was, in turn, a significant part of those opinions. I cannot say I find the above quotations are contradictory; I am not really confused by coming across the ideas that "it will be hard to leave sex behind without any enduring experience of heterosexuality" and that "everybody is what they is and there is no need to shoot gays". Rather, the ideas I mentioned above seem to me internally coherent. It is not "contradictory" and "incoherent" simply because the man is not telling you how to judge and what to accept and to reject with your oh-so-valuable emotions. Making a precis of it is a bit of a challenge however. Redheylin (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal to summarize Mullan. Something like, "According to one [religious scholar, writer, friend, etc.], Osho had inconsistent views of homosexuality, including describing it as a disease and a 'very immature level of development'". While that doesn't include the "4 stages" mentioned above, it does imply a hierarchy of development that appears to have been a repeated concept in the subject's reportedly inconsistent views on the topic. However I'd like to keep checking on the sources to make sure that there isn't more on this topic in the secondary sources. Will Beback talk 09:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Mullan, we have Palmer saying he "grudgingly" admitted homosexual love could be a valid path as well; I also found this (Taylor & Francis Group), which describes some of the four stages. Personally, I am still not convinced that highlighting his views on homosexuality is due weight; as part of a wider discussion of his views on sexuality it might make sense.
Do editors feel his teachings on sex need to be described in more detail in the "Teaching" section? He did have quite a marked influence on tantra as understood in the West. JN 466 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that adding a commment specifically about Osho's views on Homosexuals(male) would be giving Homosexuality undue weight as it was not one of his core teachings at all, actually, not one of his teachings at all. I wouldn't mind it being in teachings if you were going to broadly expand that section to include a lot of other comments about other aspects of his sexuality comments, like eg, tantra and as I mentioned rising in love and the death of sexuallity through meditation. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

It will be undue weight without a comprehensive treatment of Osho on sex. To look at "Osho on Sex, Love and Meditation" would not in any way be undue weight - it almost deserves its own article. But that is not possible without a comprehensive secondary source and, amazingly enough, it seems nobody has written anything reliable on his thoughts on that. Redheylin (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject's views on sexuality in general are probably worth expanding too, to the extent that we have reliable secondary sources. Are we sure that there aren't any already? Will Beback talk 22:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know - I'd have thought Paul Heelas was the man most likely....Redheylin (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles use "Rajneesh" in title

Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", [[Encyclopedia Britannica]], retrieved 2009-04-23 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
Kushner, Harvey W. (2002), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Encyclopedia of Terrorism, SAGE, pp. 306–307, ISBN 0761924086
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)
Doniger, Wendy (2006), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 902, ISBN 1593394918
Houghton Mifflin Company (2003), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 1261, ISBN 9780618252107
Joseph, Bea (1986), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Biography index, vol. 14, H.W. Wilson Company, p. 566
Parry, Melanie (1997), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Chambers, p. 1529, ISBN 0550160604
"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>
"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>
"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>
"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
"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 [24] 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? Jayen 466 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.[25][26] 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)

Just one thing: I checked Ringo Starr and Muhammed Ali - their birth name is given in the article, not the title. As far as I am concerned this is a simple matter of respect. If those people elect to be known by those names then that suffices. Osho chose to be known as Osho. Therefore I would like to be referred to the policy that subjects should be identified by the name by which they are referred to most on the web, or by their birth name, even if they have changed their name since those references were made. Take Sean Combs - look here[27] and here [28] and you will find three times more references to him as Puff Daddy - but he has dropped that name and that has been honoured by wiki. Why different here? Redheylin (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)]

A better example would be Cat Stevens. That's the name he's best known by, even though it's neither his birth name nor the name he later chose. If Ringo Starr today changed his name to "Joe Smith" the article wold still be at "Ringo Starr". See WP:NC for the naming conventions. Will Beback talk 20:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good example. But if you go by the name he's best known by, then we'd have to go back to "Osho" in this article, as per the analysis we did in 2007. :) (Only kidding) JN 466 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, can of worms, Will and very interesting! The "Cat Stevens" page appears to have had some argybargy about it, which did NOT end with the page titled Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) but it seems a reasonable compromise has emerged. I agree that there is no special guidance for proper names. That made me look at his old labelmate Richard Thompson (musician) - and there his Arabic name is not even mentioned! That made me look at prominent Oshoite musicians like Davy Graham and Morgan Fisher and behold, no mention of Osho even, never mind the names! So I guess what this means is; we should all go mob-handed to Sean Combs and change it to Puff Daddy....? Still not sure about the dual name here though. Redheylin (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My godless, even Terence Stamp does not namecheck Osho and - well, I heard him on the radio recently and he would not shut up about how great Osho was.... Redheylin (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That was quick, Off2rio!! Redheylin (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In Russian he's Rajneesh Chandra Mohan! Redheylin (talk) 21:46, 9 June 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. Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 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. Jayen 466 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.

[[29]] 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 [[30]] —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)

Thankyou Spidern for at least understanding my frustration and attempting to help me with your explanation. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

hii this is apuraw kabir here....i dont know some people hate from osho...and why they are changing the mind of the other peoples....i think it is because they hate from themselves..... Apuraw Kabir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.200.149 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandilism

I came across vandalism on this page, in the first sentence. I undid both changes to the state the page was on Aug 8 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.245.66 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, "71", for your help editing this encyclopedia! Please consider creating an account for yourself.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 06:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thompson quote

Question for editor Off2riorob, who once again deleted a perfectly good, well-sourced quote from the Appraisal as a thinker and speaker section of this article: You stated in your edit summary...

“

this source as yet is not considered to be a wikipedia RS, andanthony is not a notable enough person to have his views published here.

”

To me this statement sounds a bit like weasel words (not considered^{[by whom?]} to be a Wikipedia RS) as well as just a tad of Royal blue imperiousness. Can you point me to where in WP:Quote or MOS:QUOTE it tells editors to turn down their noses to persons of low or no notability when quoting? In some cases it is moreso what is said rather than who said it that counts. Otherwise there would be a Wikipolicy or guideline, yes?
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been debated before, Jayen will show you the discussions. I am unsure as to where they are but I have added the source, sannyasnews and been told it is not good for usage here. As far as notable comments go, the article is big enough without us inserting comments from john and harry, I also quite like the comment from Anthony but I don't think it is notable enough and citable from a reliable source to warrant insertion. I will ask Jayen to join this discussion as he is more experianced. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my edits, I will leave it there and we will see what happens, please don't reduce the size of the comments as people with poor eyesight will struggle to read the comment as I said in my edit summary which you have just reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that your heart's in the right place, Off2riorob, and I do consider Jayen a well-established and reputable editor. However, there is no spam on the Sanny site, and it is a site specially designed for followers of Osho, so even Jayen ought to see the site as reliable source for all things Oshoesque.

Please see the next section about decreasing image caption size.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 11:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall us having discussed Thompson's paper before. I agree with Off2riorob though that it is quite clearly a self-published source and that sannyasnews fails RS. --JN 466 11:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I have never seen any discussions about Anthony's paper, but the source of sannyasnews has been debated and rejected. can you find a reliable source Paine? I couldn't. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the quote is relatively harmless to the article, I've commented out the sannyasnews source and added a Fact template until I can either show that it's a RS or find a better RS. Please allow me the time to do this.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing the sannyasnews citation and replacing it with a fact tag is not the way to go with this, this comment is nowhere in a wiki reliable source. As much as I like it it should imo be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying that you are going to look for a reliable source is not an excuse to keep a uncited addition in the article, please take it out until you find one. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Off2riorob, if you feel that strongly that the quote is harmful to the article, then do rm it and I will not revert until and unless I can get a RS. I did find a better template though.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You won't find another citation that is any better than sannyasnews, take your reliable claim to the RS talkpage and try to get sannyasnews allowed, I often want to cite sannyasnews as well. I will support you in that. Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the RS talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I'm not sure we're actually ready to build a case for Sannyasnews, though. Jayen feels that it's a self-published source, and I am unable to confirm or deny this yet. Thompson does have his own blog where a longer version of the article has been lodged since '07, but I cannot find any list of staff for the Sannyasnews site. So while Thompson is obviously a contributor to the news site, it's not obvious whether or not he is a paid staff member of the site. So it could very well be that the Sannyasnews people read the blogged article, trimmed it down and published it on their site with Thompson's permission, but I cannot even ascertain the copyright implications. Some websites do publish articles and such without the permission of the author. The ones that have permission generally say they have permission. So even though Sannyasnews appears to be a pretty fair-sized website with lots of articles about Osho and sannyas, it may need to grow a bit more sophisticated before it meets Wikiquality standards.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 13:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) k. I found this website with a long article that quotes that very same Thompson quote. It's copyrighted 2006 to a Timothy Conway, PhD, so Thompson's article is evidently even older than 2007. It appears that he had the article on a different website before uploading it to it's present resting place at Blogspot. So how close is Conway's Enlightened-Spirituality.org website as a RS for the Thompson quote?
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be ok, doesn't look too bad, ask Jayen if it is ok or ask at the reliable source talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Asking at the RS Talk page has been accomplished. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Help with a reliable source.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to contact (email) the organisers of sannyasnews on the site, Anthony is not one of them, he has contributed the piece you are linking to and the organisers have posted it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an Osho webzine that helps validate the Thompson quote and all or much of his article. I find that Thompson is from Chili, and that English is a 2nd language for him. This info was in the Conway article. Conway also stated that Thompson only hit on some of the criticisms of Osho in the Calder article.
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

the rebelious spirit is deff not a reliable source. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

that calder source is self published.Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Understood. I just included it here in case readers wonder what we're going on about. <g>

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not disputed that Anthony wrote these comments. I dispute that he is notable enough to warrant his comment being inserted here and I do not think you will find his comments in a wikipedia RS. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's also understood. But every quotation is supposed to be reliably sourced. And notability of the quotee is often much less important than the quote itself. This is an appropriate and good quote that I believe improves the article. If it can be reliably sourced than it deserves the space.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I also think it well written and worthwhile.Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what happens, Paine has left a question at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources Perhaps as the quotation is not of any issue of controvertial then that citeation may be allowed for this specific comment, I am far from an expert on links or much of anything else for that matter. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

TYVM! — ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

it definitely fails WP:RS, it's from a forum, it's a case of WP:SPS, it should not be used. BTW anyone can tag PhD after their name, but even if he is a PhD, it does not qualify his opinion. Relative to the standard of sourcing used in this article thus far this item is not admissible. Please remove it. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob & Paine, please state the distinction you make between the Thompson item and the Calder SP item that is being rebuked. I take it you have no problems also detailing Calders claims then? Or detailing further Hugh Milne s experiences? or the other sources Calder refers to in his item? Contrary to the other commentators cited in the Osho appraisal section, most of whom are published academics, Thompson is a non-notable individual and is not published by a reliable third party source; Semitransgenic (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The thompson comment is not self published, it is on a third party site. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Semi, the main distinction would be their opposing viewpoints, of course. Calder wrote his criticism of Osho, and then Thompson answered a part of that criticism (but not every point as was noted by Timothy Conway). Another distinction might be (although I haven't yet researched it yet) the fact that, as Off2riorob points out, the Thompson comment is on at least three 3rd-party websites. Thus far I've only found Calder's article on his website. If RS's can be found for both, I would have no problem seeing both quoted and detailed in the Osho article and that particular section expanded. Nor do I have any problem detailing Milne, either, nor any other sources as long as overall NPOV is maintained in the section and article. Still not sure why Thompson's notability keeps coming up when, as yet, nobody has cited a policy nor guideline that prohibits quotes by non-notable people. And who ultimately judges such notability? How do you know that Thompson is non-notable? Are you an expert on Sannyasin and all things Osho? Just as many, many people are articled on the Wikipedia of whom I've never heard, maybe, just maybe, there are people out there who are notable enough to be in Wikipedia who are not yet in it? And once more, I'm still as yet unclear on your stance that there are no reliable sources. I've offered three such sources with perhaps varying levels of reliability. And in this context, why wouldn't at least one, the Conway website, be considered a reliable 3rd-party source? Conway's is not a blog nor a forum per se; it's just a website where he has captured the thoughts of several others, including Calder and Thompson, quoted them and has given details about them. For example, that's the only website I found so far that mentions Thompson's country of origin, Chili. Conway also criticizes Thompson for not "answering" all the critical points made by Calder. So at least in this context, maybe you could enlighten me (us) with details as to objectively why the Conway site (if not the other two choices I listed on the Noticeboard) is unsuitable in this context? Rest assured that I'm just trying to understand as clearly as possible so as not to waste my (nor your) time in my continued search for a reliable source for the Thompson quotation.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Meredith 1988, pp. 308–309
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Gordon 1987, pp. 93–94
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f FitzGerald 1986a, p. 86
^ Palmer 1988, p. 127, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 377
^ ^a ^b Fox 2002, p. 22
^ Wallis 1986, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 147
^ ^a ^b Lewis & Petersen 2005, p. 124
^ Guru in Cowboy Country, in: Asia Week, July 29 1983, pp. 26–36
^ Geist, William E. (1981-09-16). "Cult in Castle Troubling Montclair". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-11-27.
^ Palmer 1988, p. 127, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 377
^ Wallis 1986, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 147
^ Guru in Cowboy Country, in: Asia Week, July 29 1983, pp. 26–36
^ Cite error: The named reference JMF4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Meredith308309-1] Meredith 1988, pp. 308–309

[Gordon94-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Gordon 1987, pp. 93–94

[FF1-86-3] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f FitzGerald 1986a, p. 86

[4] Palmer 1988, p. 127, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 377

[JMF22-5] Fox 2002, p. 22

[6] Wallis 1986, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 147

[Lewis124-7] Lewis & Petersen 2005, p. 124

[8] Guru in Cowboy Country, in: Asia Week, July 29 1983, pp. 26–36

[NYT160981-9] Geist, William E. (1981-09-16). "Cult in Castle Troubling Montclair". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-11-27.

[10] Palmer 1988, p. 127, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 377

[11] Wallis 1986, reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 147

[12] Guru in Cowboy Country, in: Asia Week, July 29 1983, pp. 26–36

[JMF4-13] Cite error: The named reference JMF4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]