Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Rolls

Please provide a better supporting reference for the "bought by his followers" assertion, it's vague and potentially misleading. The current link goes to a story that has nothing to do with the matter, it's a generic item on Rolls. Most likely it was Rajneesh Services International or one of the other Rajneesh corporations that bought the cars, Philip J. Toelkes has stated that Rajneesh did at least choose the colour. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

all the cars were repainted when they arrived. That is the colour that Toelkes is referring to. The Rolls' were paid for privately and donated to RSI (or similar, I think there was a special Trust setup for that). And, no, I don't have a source, it's just for informational purposes. jalal (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Palmer, Charisma and Abdication, "The Rolls Royce collection was a wise investment of the commune's money". See also http://books.google.com/books?id=6TMFoMFe-D8C&pg=PA402&dq=rajneeshpuram+rolls&sig=SaXz9_5BMSp7Sdlxx8CRo3ehB4k And, not to forget, http://bluebook.state.or.us/kids/trivia/this2.htm Of course, some of the commune's money was his, since the royalties from all his x-hundred books went into its coffers (he had given Sheela unlimited power of attorney). At any rate he did not walk around with cash or a cheque book and would not have been the one paying. -- Jayen466 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the Palmer reference, so why not use it? (The whole quote, not just a number) --- there was an edit conflict while trying to submit the following -- Ok but the acquisition procedure has to be accounted for somewhere - there were 93. And "followers" could mean the general populous of Rajneeshpuram or it could be referring to wealthy patrons such as John Shelfer, but also, Rajneesh Investment Corporation was the final holder of assets following the sale of cars.It's rather vague. If the cars were "donated" was it by individuals? If the cars were "bought by his followers" what's to say RIC didn't simply buy then using money made from Rajneeshpuram and other business enterprises? Semitransgenic (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it varied; some were bought by the commune, a few were gifts from outsiders (I seem to remember reading that Hasya, the wife of a Hollywood mogul, gave him one). At any rate, as you rightly observe, there was a trust that received the funds from the sale. Happy to use Palmer as ref.; we could use this (wording altered to avoid copyvio) as a following sentence: The collection of Rolls Royces was explained to a skeptical public as "a sign of the great love between master and disciple," or, alternatively, as a "joke". Is that what you meant? Just came across another ref: [1] -- Jayen466 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the points raised below, I would like to see the suggestion of investment being mentioned also. Readers will make up their own minds about what that might imply, just as they would about the 93 Rolls Royces being "given to him by his followers". The strategy of seperating Osho from RIC I think is a bit disingenuous. As Jalal has pointed out, a lot of money was made from the books Osho "wrote", did he give that away? I don't think so. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i believe he did. Having signed this unlimited power of attorney, any income from his books went to the foundation. He did not have a private bank account; but then he didn't need one, because he was looked after handsomely by the foundation. -- Jayen466 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording on the number of Rolls Royces, Jalal. That's definitely better. However, I would like one of us to revert your deletion of the word "expensive" that I added before Rolls Royces. You are right that there are no cheap Rolls Royces, of course. However, I think that to be encyclopedic, it's useful to have that adjective there. I'm 46 and am well aware of the Rolls' symbolism. However, my children (8 and 11) have never heard of the car, and my perception is that the car is not nearly as famous with, say, 20-year-olds in the U.S. has it has been in the past. 20 years ago we could have said "Rolls-Royces"; now it's important to say "Rolls-Royce cars."Msalt (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, when the article is open again I'll replace 'expensive'. jalal (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

_{Definitely hard times if kids don't know what a Rolls-Royce is any more. :-) -- Jayen466 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}

Current references

I start this section to discuss how a larger variety of references could be used to present things more neutral and therefore enable readers to obtain a more realistic and comprehensive picture. I start with a simple question about a specific reference.

1) Why is the book "Bhagwan: The god that failed" by Hugh Milne not cited more often? As I understand this book describes extremely different sides of the authors personal experience within the Osho community. It also seems to contain a lot of (mostly undisputed) facts that have been confirmed over the years by others. As a side remark, I noticed when browsing Amazon how much this wikipedia article about Osho reads like a love letter. Some of the reviews about books focusing on Oshos life give a completely devastating account. A balanced account should be in between the love letter and devestating accounts like the amazon review of Milnes book written by the user "kaioatey". To finish off my simple question: Why is this book not used as a reference more often? (143.50.37.229 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Abuse of referencing for POV

Instead of using quotations together with the correct citation where passages are quoted directly from the literature, some quotes in the current articles are abused to push the writers point of view. He then takes the stand that a change in wording would be misrepresenting the literature. He constructs a chain of direct quotes to put a message across. This should not be acceptable. A better style would be to clearly mark quotations appropriately and thereby distinguish single opinions represented in the literature from general statements. It is unacceptable to push a message across that it only portrayed by one source while making it seem like a general statement and blatantly omitting other sources or collecting them at the bottom in a section of their own. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

The "changes in wording" that I object to are WP:OR. You are simply trying to pass off your views as those of the source quoted. -- Jayen466 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What a nonsense. It has been claimed by the source I cite. If you prefer one could add the reference after "It has been claimed" as the source exactly claims the rest of the sentence. If you you are unhappy you can still add quotation marks to your original quote as should allways be used when things are quoted word by word. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

I've removed the sentence altogether; it is not really needed. -- Jayen466 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC for POV conflict (bio)

Outside help required to move forward. Please review edit history of the last 24 hours and discussions above, from #Falsification of sources onwards.

No please review all of the discusssion as the same accusation of POV pushing. Repeatedly raised by various people both here and in the German wikipedia (about the same author). Also note how even when he agrees with a poster he never changes those things unless pressure is exerted. Instead he goes off on minute tangents evading the original criticizm. (62.47.13.60 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Notability

Please take note of the fact that there are 20 references to material written by BSR, two of which are autobiographical, this is more evidence to support the assertion that a POV issue exists.

General notability guidelines:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

"Sources,"defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Semitransgenic (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are notability guidelines used to justify the presence of an article on a topic in Wikipedia. They have nothing to do with what you are talking about. The notability of Osho is beyond question. There is considerable academic literature on Osho; in India, students of philosophy write doctoral theses on Osho's thought. Please note that the English-language Wikipedia is also the Indian Wikipedia. Re your question on the "influential paper", this is the wording used in Fox, an academic treatment of Osho's life and work by a sociologist of religion. I believe it was a Bombay daily; I can check up on this if you like. Cheers, -- Jayen466 17:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For your reference, these are the relevant sections of the Bombay High Court tax judgment used to source the "sea change" statement:

12. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as two of the three members of the Appellate Tribunal have rightly observed that the perception of the people towards the preaching of the philosophy of Acharya Rajneesh has undergone sea change during the last few years. While earlier, he was supposed to be controversial personality and most of the people of this country were averse to his thinking and preaching, during last few years his teachings and philosophy have become more acceptable to the society. About 650 books written by Acharya Rajneesh have been widely studied and translated in many European and Asian and Indian languages. He wrote on diverse subjects like Vedanta, Geeta (Geeta Darshan), Sant Kabeer (Kahe Kabeer Diwana), Guru Nanak (Ek Omkar Satnam) which is commentary on the Sikh scripture known as ‘Japuji’, hailed as best commentary by Gyani Zail Singh, former President of India. The complete Osho literature was accepted in the Parliament library and Mr. Shivraj Patil, the then Speaker of Lok Sabha, who received the literature from the trust, termed the literature as ‘original creation’. He observed that essence contained in all the volumes is that one should find peace in one self, only then can peace be attained in the society and in the entire universe.

13. Not only Acharya Rajneesh is being studied by number of universities abroad but several students have also prosecuted higher studies in the philosophy of Acharya Rajneesh in the Jawaharlal University, Patna University, North Gujarat University, Banaras Hindu University for Ph.D. Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur has established an Osho Chair with the financial support of the Government of Madhya Pradesh for the study of his philosophy. In response to the letter dated 28-3-2001 from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Headquarters) to the respondent seeking certain clarifications for the purpose of application for exemption under section 80G, the respondent gave the details about its activities in the explanation dated 9th April, 2001. It was pointed out that some of the important purposes and objects of the trust are, besides to spread and impart preaching of the philosophers, to conduct and arrange seminars, tours, shivirs, research and other programmes, to start, promote and conduct Gyan Yagna, Sadhana centres, seminars, discourses, study groups, to give loans, freeships, scholarships, prizes, monetary assistance to carry out research and preach philosophy, to impart medical knowledge by way of Sadhana and other suitable systems beneficial to physical and mental health. It was pointed out that the main and fundamental activity of the trust is meditation which is gaining momentum and popularity in the country. It is pointed out that Acharya Rajneesh had developed several techniques of meditation for improvement of mind and body. Over the ages, meditation has been the bed-rock of the Indian philosophy. Important religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism have emphasised the importance of meditation as a means towards attainment of eternal peace. The respondent contended that the trust activities are for the benefit of general public at large with its fundamental charitable object to develop human mind, body and soul with a view to achieve physical, mental and spiritual well-being with the ultimate aim of achieving self-consciousness. With these objects, the respondent claims to have opened 250 centres around the country. Swami Satya Vedant and many other disciples of Acharya Rajneesh conduct seminars and meditation camps all over India for the benefit of people without any remuneration. It is contended that the activities of the respondent are for the benefit of human beings and not for the profit.

14. Whatever might be the perception of people about Acharya Rajneesh and his teachings in the earlier phase, it must be accepted that in view of the developments pointed out above, the philosophy and teaching of Acharya Rajneesh have become more acceptable to the people during the last few years. Admittedly, main thrust of the respondent is on meditation and nobody can dispute that in India meditation has been very important source for physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the human beings. Cognizance has to be taken that the meditation and Yoga are becoming more and more popular among the Indians who are now becoming conscious about their physical, mental and spiritual health. Not only in India, meditation and Yoga are being accepted in the Western Countries also as a great source for physical and mental health and spiritual attainment. When a large number of people feel that meditation is a great source for physical, mental and spiritual well-being, it must be held to be an activity for the advancement of general public utility. -- Jayen466 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for amusement value, and to demonstrate "notability", this is the cover of a recent India Today edition celebrating 60 years of Indian independence; it shows the 40 or 50 individuals held to have been most influential in India since independence: [2] -- Jayen466 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • yeah whatever, money talks/people walk, Osho International waved some cash in the right direction and some corrupt officials did there bidding, that's how things work in India, still one of the most corrupt place on the planet, who are you trying to fool?

Semitransgenic (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And corruption is all but absent in the West, is that the bottom line here? Since (afaik) wikipedia aims to serve a global audience, and not just the US or Western pov, it makes sense to cover the various periods in this person's life more or less equally, and not just the period when his notability in the US was at a peak.

It is not the job of a biography to express judgments about various levels of corruption in the different countries where a person has spend some of his time.. It is also not the job of general biography to redo a process about certain alleged crimes or reopen the investigations. Giving fair mention to them and links is sufficient. We can trust the reader uses his own intelligence to make such judgments, and employs proper caveat emptor where needed.

A biography only tries to bring together information about the various relevant periods in the person's life, both about his contributions and his crimes if any. It seems to me from your comments, that you think a lot more space and emphasis in his biography should be on the Oregon period. That would make sense from the pov of somebody who followed these events on Western TV media. But it needs to be remembered that Osho was no less notorious and controversial in the 70's, only it was mostly off the Western radar screens. And he was no less controversial after the Oregon episode, but then mostly negated by the Western media.

If we take a global pov, then we have to mention these periods pretty much equally in any biography that wants to be fair. His public and notable speaker period stretches roughly from 1968 till 1990, that's 22 years in which he talked together 600+ books. Then how big a portion of his biography can you reasonably devote to the 1981-1985 period? 4 years out of these 22.

The question of POV is always difficult when it comes to religious or political figures. Their opponents typically want to highlight all the mishaps into disproportion, the fans try to brush any mishaps under the carpet. When it comes to popular artists, we are often a lot more forgiving.

One example that comes to mind is Sofia Loren. She had a controversial episode about tax evasion and she spent almost 3 weeks in jail for it. Yet it is only mentioned in just one line of text in her biography. When it comes to actresses we are much more forgiving, especially if they show a lot of skin...Fourpillars (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sentence on deportation

I have three top-quality sources saying that Osho's agreeing to leave the country was an integral part of his plea bargain arrangement.

1. The first is Carter, p. 237: Under the bargain arrangement, he was ... "allowed" to leave the country voluntarily ...
2. The second is FitzGerald, The New Yorker, 29 9 1986, p. 111: HIs lawyers were already cutting a deal with US Attorney's office ... He (Osho) agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years ...
3. The third is Latkin, Seeing Red, p. 342 in Haveling (ed.): On 14 November, Rajneesh left the United States in accordance with a plea bargain ...

These are among the most reputable sources on this subject.

1. Carter's work is the most highly regarded academic book on Rajneeshpuram. (References stating so can be provided.)
2. FitzGerald's is the most widely cited journalistic account of these events, written, as I stated above, for the publication with the best fact-checking reputation in the world.
3. Latkin is a reputable academic who has written several highly-regarded studies on Osho and his movement.

These sources all agree on the matter. Against this, you would set the "Almanac of famous people", "Contemporary authors online", the "Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology", a government official's 300-word resumé on a website, a reference in the Wasco County records and an entry in the Oregon Blue book? It is not the quantity of sources that counts, but the quality. Which sources are to be preferred in Wikipedia is clearly defined here. Please read it, and let's get this thing right, based on the best sources available. Thank you. -- Jayen466 18:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)#

The sources you discredit include official US government sources. Yours are no more valid than than those. I reagrd any official source as preferential here. You even admitted: "I have since accepted that the wording "deported" is very frequently found in the literature, and even on US government websites, and may, at least as a loose expression, be defensible". However it is not merely defensible but a necessity to accurately represent the facts. (62.47.13.60 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

So, let's look at these "US government sources". Are you really trying to tell me, that these pages here

• http://www.ice.gov/about/leadership/ot_bio/joe_greene.htm
• http://bluebook.state.or.us/cultural/history/chron04.htm
• http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/county/cpwascohome.html

contain more detail on the matter than Carter, FitzGerald and Latkin? And that they are the result of superior scholarly research, making them more reliable than Carter, FitzGerald and Latkin? No, my friend. Your preferences for what sources should say does not override Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable_sources. If you want to place the Oregon Blue Book and government officials' personal website resumés above articles published by University Presses, academic journals or The New Yorker, then I suggest you re-write WP:Sources accordingly and come back when you have done so. Until then I expect you to accept and abide by what WP:Sources says. Thank you. -- Jayen466 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, if I do not hear anything further from you on this, I will revert this section to the more detailed wording based on the best-quality encyclopedic sources – as stated above – once the article becomes open for editing again. Silence on this matter will be interpreted as agreement. I expect that you will not then start another edit war over this. -- Jayen466 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

not a philosopher

The introduction to the article says that Osho was a mystic and philosopher.

Actually, he was not a philosopher and he was adamant about this point. There is a video clip of Osho which is posted in youtube called "Osho: my way of life is not a philosophy" and which begins with the words "I am not a philosopher" spoken by Osho.

He goes on to explain that a philosopher has a "mind approach", and that his approach is a "no mind approach". "It is the very oppostie of philosphizing" he says. "It is not thinking about ideas, but seeing with a clarity that comes when you put the mind aside," he adds.

Truth is not arrived at through logic or thinking, he says, but through silence and seeing.

Thank you.

Dc2277 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, he did have a BA and an MA in philosophy from University of Sagar. So I think it is biographically accurate to say that he was a philosopher. Also, his comments about not being a philosopher were made in the context of Western philosophy, which is 'mind oriented'. In the East 'philosophy' is more mystical and experiential. jalal (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Falsification of sources

Semi, in the lede you state: "He was an Indian philosopher whose entire person is surrounded by controversy", and source this to a statement by Fox on p. 51 that reads "The answer to whether Osho was a manipulator, addicted to power etc., or radically enlightened spiritual master who continues to offer a joyful, authentic and enriching -- if at times turbulent -- path to those who open their hearts to him, seems to rest with the one asking the question, and with posterity." You state, in justification of your edit, "its not a direct quote but refers directly to Foxs conclusion that the answers "rest with the one asking the question"." What you write bears no resemblance whatsoever to the source you quote.

surely it does. Fox describes widely different views and states that the answers which are correct rest with the one asking the question. This substantiates the many controversies (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

When we quote a source, we quote what the source says, rather than a wild extrapolation from it. Anyone checking the source should find a statement there that matches what we have written. That is not the case here. -- Jayen466 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is by no means a wild extrapolation. If you want to remove the quote fine but the statement by itself - that his whole person is surrounded by controversy - is undisputable. Fox describes vastly different perceptions and essentially says that the truth is in the eye of the beholder. You abuse citations by pushing a point accross in exactly the way I descibe in another section. This is a well known strategy often used by politicians. People are not as stupid as you might think. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Your sentence and her statement have a single word in common: "was". But this seems to be your idea of quoting sources. Keep the verb "was" and make up the rest to your liking. Neat. :-) Jayen466 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not know the difference between a citation and a quote it seems. For every quote a reference is needed and this reference should be cited. The extent of the quote should be indicated by quotation marks. However a citation to a reference should also be made in many other cases. For example if information from the source has been used without directly quoting. The second kind is predominantly used in scientific reviews in many fields. Different fields do indeed have different citation cultures. In the field of science I work this type of citations outnumber direct quotes by more than a factor hundred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.23.131 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should not use verbatim quotes unless marked by quotation marks, and with attribution. Otherwise, using chunks of text copied verbatim from a book, journal etc. is a copyright violation.

However, when just the content of a sentence is backed up by a reference, then the cited reference should indeed state something that any intelligent, impartial reader can readily recognise as a paraphrase of what is present in the article. That is the idea of WP:V. Now, here is again 1. what you have inserted and 2. what the source you cite contains:

1. "He was an Indian philosopher whose entire person is surrounded by controversy"
2. ""The answer to whether Osho was a manipulator, addicted to power etc., or radically enlightened spiritual master who continues to offer a joyful, authentic and enriching -- if at times turbulent -- path to those who open their hearts to him, seems to rest with the one asking the question, and with posterity."

Are you still maintaining that the first is a paraphrase of the second, and that the source directly supports the statement you have inserted, as required by WP:V? -- Jayen466 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1) You use verbatim quotes that are not marked by quotation marks on multiple occasions. This is exactly what I criticized and you just criticized yourself.

2) The second is a statement of direct support that "his entire person is surrounded by controversy". How much more controverse than in statement 2 could it get? One could add all the sources cited by other users in this discussion to back this up further. While the souce alone might not justify the word "entire", the cummulated sources do for sure. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Please show me these verbatim quotes. Just to be sure that we agree on the definition of verbatim: A verbatim quote is a quote that quotes a source word by word. You keep making accusations without backing them up. Show me what you mean, and then we can talk about it. -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned yourself that parts of sentences (and a verbatim quote need not be a whole sentence) have been verbatim but not marked as such. I never argued you know the resources better than me. I argue you purposefully cherry pick and assemble them misleading. I do not fall for your smoke bombs. I probably will order some of the books you quote that I do not own but where I have to rely on excerpts. I am sure I will find more cherry picking then.(62.47.2.150 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Can you show me any policy or guideline in Wikipedia that requires the placing of quotation marks around individual words that also occur in the cited reference? Do you honestly suggest that this would make sense? -- Jayen466 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources that he was controversial:

- "One of the most striking features of the whole controversy is that we only know Osho took nitrous oxide because he publicised the fact himself." Osho and Psychadelics, Osho in the Dental Chair, Sannyas News, [3]

- "Ten years after Bhagwan Rajneesh left the earth, the Osho ashram continues to attract devotees and controversies in equal numbers." Osho Dham - Oasis for Spiritual Health, IndiaYogi, (a biased source in his favor) [4]

- Osho's Controversial Discourse Series: From Sex to Superconsciousness, from a biased source in his favor, [5]

" Controversy surrounded him; he was accused of crimes and eventually deported from the United States for violations of immigration law." Osho, Realization, again a biased source in his favor, [6]

I could go on like this quite some time, as there is a voluminous amount of articles about controversies. It is by no means a wild extrapolation to summarize the previous reference. 67.183.235.146 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

I do not object to his being described as controversial. He is already thus described at multiple points in the article. I object to the insertion of your WP:OR wording "He was an Indian philosopher whose entire person is surrounded by controversy" backed up by a fake source. In addition, he did not take the name Osho after his return to India in 1985, but four years later, in 1989. -- Jayen466 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally you reverted the whole thing arguing just with the "wrong source". The source however clearly is not wrong as it illustrates exactly what is claimed. I am aware when he took the name but after his return is just that: "after his return". This does not mean as soon as he returned. You lack basic logic. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

There is no harm in being more precise where we can be and where this avoids ambiguity. -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Palmer quote

SJ Palmer states in her paper , "At this state it appears that his knowledge of going on in the commune was exclusively derived from Sheela". This was used to source the following statement in the article: "It appears that due to his self-imposed isolation, his knowledge of events in the commune was from this point derived exclusively from Sheela's reports." You have turned this into "It is claimed that due to his self-imposed isolation, his knowledge of events in the commune was from this point derived exclusively from Sheela's reports." while retaining the same source reference. Again, this does not match the source quoted. Palmer does not state that anyone has claimed this, she describes how it appears. This is not contradicted by such sources as I have consulted. Here you claimed that FitzGerald stated that she did not regard this as possible. Again, that is not true. On the page in question (109), FitzGerald makes no judgment whatsoever about Osho's sources of information on events on the ranch.

Again if you mean a direct quote you should indicate it with quotation marks. I was only referring to your own sources already referenced elsewhere. In the section "Culpability for crimes committed in Oregon" you wrote "A number of commentators have stated that they consider this not even remotely possible" and give the respective references. All I did is use your source. I did not indicate a direct usage which should allways be indicated by quotation marks. I only used the sources to back up the general statement which is perfectly legitimate. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

You are confounding two separate issues.

• The first issue is that he did not speak to anyone but Sheela in the period in question, thus making her his only source of information. That is uncontested. It is not contested by the authors referred to under "Culpability" either. Therefore it is misleading to insert this quote as a rebuttal to Palmer's assessment.
• The second issue is whether he was aware of everything that Sheela was doing. Given that Sheela bugged his apartment, and tried several times to murder his personal physician, I think we can safely assume that there were a number of things that she did not discuss with him, don't you think? -- Jayen466 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact he did not speak with anyone but her does not infere that she was his only source of information. Under any circumstance Palmers assessment should be inserted in quotation marks to clearly mark that it is a direct quote. Furthermore there is a whole wealth of possibilities between knowing nothing and knowing all. Therefore your second statement is completely pointless. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

"The fact he did not speak with anyone but her does not infere that she was his only source of information." This is more of your WP:OR. The inference Palmer draws is that she was, and to me it seems quite a reasonable inference, given the circumstances. She is a reputable scholar. I don't see why your guesswork should take precedence over the published source we are quoting, and why we should then pass off your guesswork as her opinion. (Btw, the sentence sourced to Palmer was not a word-by-word quote, but a paraphrase, as required by WP:Copyvio. Hence quotation marks would have been quite inappropriate.) Jayen466 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Names/titles

"Acharya" simply means "teacher", a term that according to Carter applied to him by the mere fact that he was a university professor, even though Osho gave it a different emphasis in meaning. Yet you insist on referring to this as a "self-given name". Again: it is simply the Hindi word for teacher.

According to Wikipedias own page it does not simply mean teacher. This has been pointed out before by another use on this discussion page. He should not be called by his self given titles. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a reputable source. Carter's "Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram" (p. 44) is. You could also consult a Hindi dictionary. Or refer to this Times of India article which gives an English translation of the term. -- Jayen466 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a reputable source (maybe it is so cause of people pushing heir point of view no matter how large the opposition ...), why cross link the term? Wikipedia states your translation and alot of additional information. You just refuse to accept that all his titles were essentially self-awarded as this could put him in a bad light. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a reputable source. (quoted from Jayen) Exactly what we've been saying about your article and you keep proving it. At least you admit it. I call on the editors to decide this lack of objectivity and keep you from continually reverting good and unbiased edits.

Oh and by the way, your argument about Wikipedia not being a reputable source is so contradictory (once again) - it was the source you used yourself!67.183.235.146 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia's not being a reputable source is not my opinion, it is Wikipedia's opinion. See WP:SPS: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." -- Jayen466 07:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

However pretty much ALL wikipedia article are cross-referenced. So in fact virtually all wikipedia articles use others as references. If you do not agree with the article on his title just change it! Reducing that article to a sible of many possible meanings would however make your blatant point of view pushing more visible to others. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

The insertion of a wikilink is not the same as the use of a reference. Statements made in articles must be backed up by outside sources. The words used in these statements can be wikilinked for the reader's convenience. It seems you lack basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. Please read up on the relevant policies and guidelines. WP:V and WP:Sources would be a good start. -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit only consistet of the removal of misleading statements. You never refuted that he gave himself that title. It is an example of you purposefully deterring the discussion to not have to make changes. This is exactly the reason why there is a dispute: you push an agenda. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me, I have the impression that your WP:Tendentious editing aims to put him in a bad light for having used titles, when the assumption of such titles is commonplace in India, and indeed expected of spiritual teachers there. Since you speak German, the German religious scholar Joachim Süss states the assumption of such honorifics "also reflects Hindu custom. It follows from the fact of initiating disciples" ("folgt aber auch einer hinduistischen Gepflogenheit. Sie ergibt sich als Konsequenz aus der Einweihung von Jüngern ... Süss, Bhagwans Erbe, p. 30). Note that I have not contested that he assumed those titles (see below). I only object to the inflammatory way you would like to present this information, making something out of nothing. Jayen466 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I edited it was not putting him in a bad light, it was merely part of what is needed for a neutral representation. For a bad light see that amazon book review I described elsewhere. If I wanted to be rigorous the article should even be renamed to his name and all other expressions should just redirect. The expression Osho should be avoided over the less controversial use of his name. You have been accused by at least 5 different users with IP addresses scattered throughout the world of pushing an agenda. Instead of withdrawing somewhat to prove people wrong you vigorously defend even the most ludicrous of claims. I will go to bed now, and leave the field to others.(62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Are you seriously suggesting that amazon book reviews are relevant sources? -- Jayen466 07:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the name, WP:NAME states that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Could we agree that Osho is the name by which he is most commonly known? -- Jayen466 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested the amazon book review as a source for the article. I suggested it as an example of a biased presentation in disfavour of Osho of which you accused me. A neutral account should be in between the biased accounts AND backed up by both diverse and reliable sources.

The name Osho was and is heavily marketed. It indirectly assists financial interests of various individuals. Cause of the popularity of the name Osho I have never tried to change the name. Nevertheless I still beleive this should be done. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

The name Osho was and is heavily marketed. It indirectly assists financial interests of various individuals. It no more assists financial interests than the use of any other author's name, say Bill Bryson. This is hardly a valid argument. -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all it was not his name. Second of all there are multiple trademarks containing this name. This is surely not true for most other cases. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Semitransgenic, do you know how many brand names are based on personal names? And what about Sting, or Bono, or Lemmy, or Pope Benedict XVI for that matter? These arguments are without merit. -- Jayen466 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bhagwan" likewise is not a name, it is a religious title used by a number of Indian teachers. Such titles are never bestowed by any authority, but are chosen by the teacher and/or his disciples. It is a standard element of Indian religious life, and not anything special about Osho.

Note also that Osho is referred to as "Acharya Rajneesh" and "Osho" in the Bombay High Court judgment quoted previously on this page, which reversed the removal of tax-exempt status by Desai's government in the late seventies (that information is currently still missing in the article; we only mention the withdrawal of status and not the restoration). -- Jayen466 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of sex with minors in Osho communes

As for sex with minors on the Ranch: Osho neither encouraged such behaviour (on the contrary, he spoke out against pedophilia), nor did he engage in it, nor was he aware of it. What then is this doing in his biography? I have twice told you that you can stick it into the controversy section of Osho movement, where it may have some justification. I fail to see its significance here.

The section is titled "Reception and controversies". It is both directly related with the reception of his teachings by his followers and deciples and with many controversies surrounding not directly him but his teachings. It is not in the biography section and the article also contains information about his teachings. I agree that it should also be added to the Osho movement and to other language pages about it. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Could you please supply a page reference and a verbatim quote for the allegation in Tim Guest's book? -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Followers being forced to work without pay"

As for "followers being forced to work without pay" etc., this is not borne out by reputable sources such as FitzGerald, who spent months in Rajneeshpuram, observing daily life first hand, nor I believe by Carter, who likewise spent considerable time there. Cheers, -- Jayen466 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when does one person decide what a reputable source is? If so a devotee should be the last one to claim neutrality. As far as children are concerned the forced labour in some Osho communities is more than well documented. A neutral account should present all evidence. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

If this "forced labour of children" is so well documented, then it should be easy for you to provide some sources. So let's have them, including page numbers if you would be so kind. Thank you. -- Jayen466 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FitzGerald and Carter have been quoted innumerable times by academics. Your A-Z of Cults, Sects and whatnot has not. That is how you determine what a reputable source is. -- Jayen466 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not that Fitzgerald and Carter are not reputable, the problem is that you cherry pick on both the references and on the parts you cite. Furthermore you reference sources that earn money with services and products related to the Osho movement. Those have an inherent bias. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Which referenced commercial sources have such bias in your opinion? (You may find it useful to re-review [7] and [8].) Cheers, -- Jayen466 05:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: Which commercial sources are used as references in the article? Which are the biased statements that they are used to back up? -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They were named yesterday in a post by another person who backed up that his entire person was controversial. That person pointed out that the sources he/she drew this information from could all be considered biased as they are maintained by devotees. Devotees are NOT the ones who should push their biased pov on this page. (62.47.2.150 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

If you make such an accusation you will have to do a little better than that, otherwise you are just wasting everybody's time. Do you mean this comment? Do you realise that none of these sources are used in the article? They were researched by the IP who made the post and are not present anywhere else but in his post. I ask you again, which are the specific commercial and/or biased sources, and which are the controversial statements based on them? I expect an answer. -- Jayen466 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer to all sources by devotees. They can safely be asumed to have an inherent bias compared to average sources. The link you give does indeed reference sources with indirect quotes to sources you reference and other sections of the same website than referencd. I will quit this whole discussion. Religious lunatic cultists are not worth sacrifying my weekend for. If I was the only one who raised all those issues I understand it might be just me, but you blatantly and repeatedly ignore valid objections. So far only other devotees have sprung by your side. (62.47.13.60 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

For (at least) the fourth time: Where are the specific statements in the article that are based on such sources? Which of these statements do you object to? -- Jayen466 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a description by FitzGerald:

• The work schedule at the ranch was rigorous one. Sannyasins went to breakfast at the Magdalena canteen between six and seven in the morning; they then went to their workplaces, returning for lunch at midday and for dinner at seven in the evening. In adition to the meal breaks, there were teak breaks, morning and afternoon, during which tea, juice, fruit and cake were served in tents near the work sites. At two in the afternoon, the sannyasins would line up along the roadside to watch the guru drive by in one of his Rolls-Royces. Apart from that they worked all day long, and there were no holidays in the week -- Sunday being the day for meetings. The system was that each person had a job to do, and the commune took care of the rest. A kitchen staff prepared the meals each day, and there were people assigned to clean the A-frames and the trailers, and people who washed and ironed clothes. A farm worker or a posthole digger could thus come back each night to a clean room with clean clothes -- and no errands. Toothpaste, soap, and other toiletries were provided; so, I was told, was clothing -- jeans, T-shirts, and so on -- for those who needed it. Those who went off the ranch on business could pick out clothes from a special public-relations wardrobe and could take a commune car. The fact that each sannyasin had only one job made the work schedule somewhat less onerous than it sounded. ... In the three weeks I spent in Rajneeshpuram, I heard very few cross words exchanged, and very few downbeat remarks. People tended to be positive about everything, including the unpredictable weather, and, hard as they were working, they made the work look like fun. The most obvious explanation for all this good humor was that work on the ranch was fun; it was play in the ordinary sense of the word. Where else, after all, could a professor (or a belly dancer, for that matter) get to tool around on a bulldozer and build a road? Where else could a young architect design a housing project and then get to bang in the nails? Picking lettuce and digging postholes had undeniable satisfactions if you weren't doing it for a living and if you were doing it with a lot of attractive people your own age. The New Yorker, 22 Sept. 1986, p. 60, 65.

This is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter writing for the magazine with the best fact-checking reputation in the world. And against this, you would like to include:

• While Osho surrounded himself with luxury, members of the Oregon commune "were forced to do twelve hours work a day for no pay." and "had to endure unbearable hardships" from a book entitled "The Joy Of Sects: An A-Z of Cults, Cranks and Religious Eccentrics: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sects But Were Afraid to Ask". Are you seriously claiming that this edit of yours is a good-faith edit, and that this distorted description in a third-rate propaganda work should carry more encyclopedic weight than The New Yorker? -- 172.200.165.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, if I do not hear anything further from you on this, I will delete your paragraph referring to "forced labour" and "unbearable conditions" at such time when the article becomes open for editing again, because it is flatly contradicted by more reputable sources. I expect that you will not then start yet another edit war over this. Silence will be interpreted as agreement. And I would like you to ask yourself: Why are you fighting so hard to have information included in the article that is both defamatory and factually wrong? -- Jayen466 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho alleged/said he became spiritually enlightened ... He said he had/claimed to have dropped all effort and hope.

There have been repeated edit wars over this sentence ([9]). Semitransgenic insists that the wording with "alleged/claimed" is neutral, and the wording with "said" is not. I would disagree. "Said" simply means that he said it; it contains no judgment as to whether what he said is true or not. Alleged and claimed do make a judgment, expressing doubt as to the veracity. These wordings are about as POV as it would be to say "Osho revealed he had become spiritually enlightened": this would imply belief in his enlightenment. None of these POV wordings are appropriate. "Said" or "stated" is the neutral wording. I will revert accordingly unless I hear salient objections. -- Jayen466 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On the question of his enlightenment Osho has gone from claiming (and describing) his enlightenment, to saying he is just "an ordinary man" . On another occasion he has talked about having gone "beyond enlightenment", which is also the title of one of his books.

While this could be brought down under the common denominator of what "he said..", this would take away an (important) nuance. So perhaps the sentence can be rephrased in such a way that it improves on the distinction that Semitransgenic has tried to make.Fourpillars (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuances are problematic as they often are the same as PoV, which is something that WP tries to avoid. SemiT wants Osho exposed as a fraud and con-man, so he prefers the words 'alleged' or 'claimed'. I agree with Jayen that in this situation, the simplest is the best solution and contains the least amount of PoV. jalal (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to make a distinction between different nuances that were made by the person himself, as opposed to the biographer making nuances based on his own PoV.

Neutral PoV demands that if the person has made very different statements with regards to a certain question, then the biographer cannot just pick the one statement he thinks to be true, and omit the rest.

Neutral PoV can then either just mention that person made widely differing statements with regard to topic..., or just list them all.

I do agree it will be useless to state things in terms of "alleged/claimed" because it is assumed that reader of a biography has the intelligence to verify and judge for himself whether certain claims are true or false, the biography need not point that out because it is obvious and readers are supposed to have a minimum of intelligence.

The job of the biography is only to "report" all the relevant events and periods, controversies and contributions, anything.., and list the major sources for information for it. It is not the job of the biography to determine if a person was a fraud or con-man, that judgement can be made by the reader himself. Wikipedia guidelines are clear on that point.Fourpillars (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of child abuse

The article at present contains the following two passages, which were also subject to edit wars:

1. There have been two reports of adults in Osho communities engaging in sexual practices with children of varying ages [133] [134]. However neither of these accounts involved Osho himself.
2. Some of the children living in the communes were also not as lucky [134]: Apart from the emotional neglect, some of them had to work in support of their parents lifestyle or were forced by strangers to greet Osho during his "drive-bys" in Rajneeshpuram.

These are sourced to Tim Guest's book and to Maroesja Perizonius' film (available on docsonline.tv, in the Netherlands section). There are several issues with these passages.

"Sexual practices with children of varying ages"

What Tim Guest and Maroesja Perizonius say is something else.

Tim Guest states, on p. 46, speaking of the Poona ashram, "The sexual licentiousness didn't conform to Western boundaries; it was common at the Ashram to see girls in their early teens paired off with bearded Swamis older than their fathers." Note that on the same page, Guest says that Gurdjieff crashed his car into a wall at 100 mph. In fact, this accident happened in 1924, when cars were somewhat slower. According to the accident report cited by Gurdjieff's biographer James Moore, the speed was 55 mph, and Gurdjieff drove into a tree, not a wall (Moore, p. 206). I submit that Guest appears to be no stickler for accuracy. Are there any other references in Guest's book relating to this topic?

What is said in the film by Perizonius is that in the Medina Rajneesh commune, which for a period of time included a boarding school, young teenagers had intercourse with adults. Perizonius says in the film, "One of the teachers said to me: When you’re as tall as this cupboard, you and I should sleep together some time. Other 13-year-old girls there just did it." She relates that later on, she and other girls her age became sexually active in the Amsterdam commune, at age 13 (note that the minimum age of consent in Holland was 12 at the time). Her mum remonstrated with her upon finding her in bed with a lover when she should have been at school. Perizonius yelled at her mother that she should not interfere; she was her own person and it was none of her business. The mother took her daughter and left the commune a few weeks later, against her daughter's will, because she was concerned that her daughter's lifestyle was inappropriate for her age.

The age given does not vary in these sources, it is consistently given as 13 or older. They are talking about young teenagers, not children.

Continued

"Some of the children living in the communes were also not as lucky [134]: Apart from the emotional neglect, some of them had to work in support of their parents lifestyle or were forced by strangers to greet Osho during his "drive-bys" in Rajneeshpuram."

FitzGerald devoted two pages of her article in The New Yorker to the way children were brought up in Rajneeshpuram. She likened the system to a kibbutz and said, "The children spent half of each day in school and the other half playing or working in different parts of the commune. In the afternoon the littlest kids would go to help feed the cows and the chickens, the eight- and nine-year-olds would run messages, paint signs, or help on the construction sites. The older children would spend somewhat more time with the working adults, helping out and learning carpentry, accounting, or whatever interested them. They would also do an hour a day of dance, theater, or mime. They would see their parents at mealtimes and after dinner before bed. The children I met were a pink-cheeked, rambunctious lot, not at all shy of adults." And, "What made their system of education different, they said, was the opportunity children had to work on the ranch with adults, learning sculpture or computer programming by apprenticeship." (Cities on a Hill, p. 272–273.) At no point does FitzGerald mention emotional neglect.

I believe that in response to requests by members of the public in Oregon, the authorities undertook two separate investigations of the children's situation in Rajneeshpuram. Both investigations found that the children were well cared for and doing fine (in fact better than average). The Oregonian reported on the findings.

The phrase "had to work in support of their parents' lifestyle" is unsupported by FitzGerald, or Perizonius and Guest for that matter AFAIK.

Perizonius, reporting on the Medina School in Suffolk, says that in the three months she was in Medina, she worked 12 hours daily in the kitchen, and that there were hardly any lessons. This conflicts with the sociological study of Medina by Mullan. His study, carried out over a period of several months (1982–1983), reports that the Medina school was regularly inspected by HMI, that there was school six days a week, and that children worked three afternoons a week (1983: 114–115). The rest of his account bears considerable resemblance to FitzGerald's account, and none to that of Perizonius.

However, Perizonius appears to have been at Medina at a later time, when the number of children temporarily increased dramatically, with influx of children from various communes all over Europe. The Medina Commune school operated as a boarding school at that time; most children's parents were in another country. There is no doubt that many of the children felt lonely, as is common with new arrivals at boarding schools. However, this is not the same as "emotional neglect". Perizonius' film is a very personal account built around her confrontation of her mother. For imputing systematic neglect, I would expect a more solid source. And the solid sources (Mullan, FitzGerald, Carter, p. 251) mention no such thing – on the contrary, they describe the children as lively and well.

In her film, Perizonius tells her mother that in Rajneeshpuram a guard once pointed a gun at her in the office and told her to attend the drive-by. Her mother, in response, expresses disbelief and states her experience was that going to the drive-bys was voluntary -- if you wanted to go, you went, if you didn't, you didn't go.

I am aware of no source -- not FitzGerald, not Carter -- that states that drive-bys were a compulsory event, let alone that children were forced at the point of a weapon (!) to attend.

As such, the information in this article is unbalanced and at odds with reliable sources. In addition, even if this were not so, I question the relevance of this data in its present form to this article. None of the events described took place in the presence of the subject of this article, who could not possibly have been aware of them. While he is on record as saying that teenagers should be informed about sex, be given access to contraception, and allowed to experiment openly, rather than in secret, with people their own age group once they reach sexual maturity at fourteen, there is nothing in his teaching that encourages sex between adults and underage teenagers, and some definite statements that judge it as inappropriate.

If necessary, we could address this issue by including a paragraph in the "Sex guru" section to the effect that Osho was in favour of

• setting the age of consent at fourteen years, the onset of physical maturity – though note that this is in line with a whole alphabet of European countries, incl. Austria (13/14), Bulgaria (14), Croatia (14), Denmark (15), Estonia (14), France (15), Germany (14), Hungary (14), Italy (14) etc.; so I wonder how controversial it is
• open sex education for teenagers
• sexually active teenagers having free access to contraception.

The last two of these points, again, are standard practice in western countries, see e.g. [10]. -- Jayen466 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of no source -- not FitzGerald, not Carter -- that states that drive-bys were a compulsory event Correction: Jim Gordon (1987: 134), "Everyone on the ranch was now required to line up for Rajneesh's daily drive-by" (chronicling the commune leadership's descent into paranoia and controllism in 1984, emphasis in original). -- Jayen466 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Negotiation?

It is clear that one can cherry-pick from all that has been written about Osho to create anything from a puff-piece to a hatchet job. So who is going to decide? And how can we go beyond the conflict between what are essentially irreconcileable povs to arrive at a reasonable Wiki standard of objectivity? Are the various recourses to Wiki processes working? At least there are fewer personal attacks here on the Talk page, a good start. But that has not yet reduced the edit wars, it seems.

Perhaps there could be some negotiation about more general terms rather than the specific details that are usually focused on. One possibility of general approach might be to agree to use only reputable and established scholarly sources, like Fox, FitzGerald, Mullan, Carter and Palmer. (Any other nominations?) These are, it seems, generally acceptable already to most of the editors and the most suitable by Wiki's standards regarding sources. Biased, media, first-person and other sources always seem to piss someone off.

Another possibility might be that limiting sources in this way could apply just to most of the article, with material from other sources sent to the controversies section. This could be a big section, noting explicitly the disagreement of those working on the article :-) Might there be a Wiki policy against such a public note of editor disagreement?

People could agree to either of these approaches or other approaches as an experiment, without locking it in as policy and surrendering to something that turns out to be intolerable.

The fact is that Osho has become a hugely respected figure in India, where he initially courted and inspired controversy. AND he remains somewhat of a pariah in the US, especially Oregon, for the obvious reasons. There is no reason that both povs cannot be stated / included / implicit / whatever. And there is no reason that editors cannot allow both sides to have their expression. It could be a useful exercise in going beyond bias, which is not limited to the pro-Osho side. The article is not necessarily biased if it fails to portray fully the arch-criminal some editors think he was.

As editors we have to consider the subject's overall import / impact, not just what we see from a limited and local perspective. Szarsz (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dentist

Under the drug abuse section it says Osho "dictated three books while undergoing dental treatment". It is inconcievable that someone could say more than a few muffled words whilst undergoing dental treatment, let alone dictate three books! Could we at least qualify that statement so that it reads something like "claims to have dictated three books while undergoing dental treatment".

I only hesitate to make the change myself because I don't know if Osho made this claim or if someone made it for him. --ChrisSteinbach —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSteinbach (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the referenced source, this was stated by his dentist in the foreword of an 1998 edition of "Books I Have Loved", one of the books concerned (though I don't have that edition and can't verify this; is there anyone else who has it and can quote the relevant passage?). Hugh Milne in his book remembers being asked to come and photograph Osho on the dentist's chair, while NO was administered; I believe the photos were published. The dentist was a disciple; apparently, he had to wait until Osho stopped speaking, or stop when he started. I've added that it was stated by the dentist. Jayen466 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

'Books I Have Loved' (one of the books) has, for example: "Devageet [the dentist], please don't interrupt. Let me finish my work. They call the man in the chair the patient; they should teach the doctors to be patient". Although it says "while undergoing dental treatment", it doesn't mean that it was only dental treatment. jalal (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not me

Jayen, I just wanted to say that I have not looked at/edited this page or the main article since 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) but from reading comments it appears you are under the impression that user 62.47.23.131 is in fact Semi, this is a mistake, so please do not attribute this users comments to me. I'm surprised how much has changed in almost 7 weeks, it is shaping up well. I enjoyed the debates but would like to apologise for any antagonism I displayed, it was misplaced. I no longer have time to spend on this article but I wish you luck with it's progress. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's nice of you to say so. Thanks for the clarification, and best wishes to you, Semi. Jayen466 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Clergy"

I recognize that "clergy" seems an unusual term to use in this case, but per the clergy article: "Clergy is the generic term used to describe the formal religious leadership within a given religion." Osho was widely known as a religious leader in Oregon -- so isn't the category Category:Oregon clergy appropriate? -Pete (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you thought about it. I thought it was a joke. :-) However, as I understand the term, clergy are employed officials within an organisation or religious community inspired by another person's (real or presumed) spiritual revelation. Thus, if you want to extend the term to more recent religious movements, David Miscavige might be described as a cleric, but not L. Ron Hubbard. All the persons included in this category at present appear to be Christian clerics, mostly bishops. From a geographical POV, Osho spent a mere four of his fifty-eight years in Oregon, so again, the category does not fit all that well IMO, even if it were otherwise a good match. Cheers, Jayen466 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just made the category yesterday, and populated it mostly from the list at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, plus a few religious leaders I'm aware of. So that's why it's mostly bishops. I made it "Oregon clergy" to fit with existing categories like Category:American clergy. Now that I look more closely, I see that Category:American religious leaders exists too, so maybe Category:Oregon religious leaders would be a better category to create.

(For what it's worth the Wiktionary def. says "People, such as ministers, priests and rabbis, who are trained to officiate at religious ceremonies and services.")

As to the Oregon connection, the four years he spent in Oregon were very significant to the state. There's nothing preventing him from being also categorized as a religious leader of other places. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fair enough. Jayen466 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great -- sorry for jumping the gun on adding the new category, but I'm glad we've found agreement :) -Pete (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD :-) Cheers, Jayen466 17:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Teaching

I've removed this entire section, as it was terrible. Specifically, it is written in a gushing POV manner which is not appropriate for an encylopedia article. While the rest of the article suffers from this to some extent, this section was particularly bad. Here's the text, which can hopefully be rewritten:

"A true iconoclast, Osho spent a lifetime challenging systems, institutions, and governments that he considered to be atrophied, corrupt, neurotic, or anti-life.[91] His teachings were not static but changed in emphasis over time, forming an enormous body of work that is impossible to cover in full.[91] The fact that he revelled in paradox and inconsistency makes it even more difficult to present more than a flavour of his work.[91]

His teachings were not presented in a dry, academic setting,[91] but were interspersed with jokes[92] and delivered with an oratory that many found spellbinding.[91] He was a genuinely gifted speaker – many have said hypnotic – and extremely well read.[93] Conversant with the whole range of traditional Eastern religious thought – Buddhism, Hassidism, Sufism, Tantrism, Taoism, to name but a few – he also drew on a great number of Western influences in his teaching." - --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing is interesting and engaging. It could use a copyedit and minor rewrite. The lede is a little long, but it serves the purpose of summarizing and introducing well. Also see concerns about presentation below.

2. Factually accurate?: There is a wide variety of sources used, most of which are of excellent reliability. However, the formatting of the references could use some attention. Given the predominant footnote format, I would recommend a References, Notes, Further Reading structure. Respectively, they are a list of references cited (with full information, such as ISBN), the footnotes, and further references not cited. The references and further reading sections should be arranged alphabetically by last name. This will help clarify the referencing to the reader and fellow editors. In general, the article is very well referenced, just lacking in the organization/presentation of the citations. See concerns about presentation below as well.

3. Broad in coverage?: This article seems to cover a lot of bases, presenting many viewpoints and aspects of Osho's life.

4. Neutral point of view?: All the bases seem to covered, generally speaking. However, I am concerned by some of the language used and the construction of some statements. Notably, I must express some discomfort with statements using multiple sources to support multiple segments. (For example, under "Teachings": 'His teachings were not presented in a dry, academic setting,[91] but were interspersed with jokes[92] and delivered with an oratory that many found spellbinding.[93]') I am sure each source gives its particular view a certain context. If the views overlap, it should be fine to cite the entire sentence to multiple sources. If they do not, the views should be presented in distinct statements. See closing comments for related concerns.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: This article seems to make good use of images.

There also seem to be some OR concerns, particularly in those "compound" sentences mentioned under NPOV. For example, one relies on the title of a book for a broad claim (Osho#cite_note-137) and then cites another source as though it clearly is a response to the previous claim. The second source cited does not make such broad interpretations, but instead talks about issues with filming Osho's ashram and about his conflicts and support with individual politicians. It does however mention (on pg 64) that he insisted he was generally against politicians, and therefore could support the first section without extrapolating from a book title. However, in terms the closing portion, it is an inaccurate summary of the complex discourse on his relationship with politicians present in the source. The article needs to be reviewed for this sort of less-than-desirable referencing, and when appropriate rewritten according to the sources.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article and for your assessment, which I find fair and accurate. Armed with your insights, I'll get to work on the points you raised. :-) Jayen466 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for taking my feedback in such good faith and cheer! Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example, I tagged a citation needing clarification/verification and expanded/rewrote a portion based on a source I could access.[11] The article is a bit long and I understand that expanding per sources could easily make the article too long. Don't worry too much about that. You can always split off overgrown pieces into their own articles and just use a referenced summary with a {{main}} or {{seealso}} link. I don't think anyone would be too concerned with new articles coming fully referenced, if needing a bit of work as an article themselves. :) Vassyana (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of references

I have started doing some work offline on reorganising the notes and creating the three sections (References, Notes, Further reading) you suggested. If we have a References section, in which the cited work is included, I suppose it would make sense to remove the ISBN number and publisher's info from the relevant notes and restrict the footnote text to just the author's name, year of publication, and page number (e.g. Carter (1990: 63–64); this would reduce the notes' bulk a bit. I am unclear though whether all referenced works should be in the References section, or only those that support a significant amount of the material in the article. I tend to incline to the latter; however, this would mean that works only cited once or twice should retain the publisher's info and ISBN in the footnote text. What would be best? Jayen466 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You have the right idea on using short-form footnotes. Regarding the latter idea, I would recommend that you keep it uniform, either using a full reference list and short notes or just using long notes. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)