Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Image captions decreased to small size

The main reason for decreasing the size of image captions is so that they don't interfere with article text. When captions are the same size as article text, I often find myself reading part of the caption along with the article text and then scratching my head because the text makes no sense. Decreasing the size of caption text helps readers by avoiding this possibility. I myself have failing near vision due to advanced age, so I constantly keep my browser text size to "Larger", and I wear computer reading glasses when necessary. I think we can accept that others who have the same problem are fully capable of taking the same steps I have taken to be able to better read the articles and the image captions.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... on my screen the captions are naturally smaller than the article text. Now the font is tiny. Shouldn't we go by the WP:MOS on such things? JN466 11:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, Jayen ... on my screen, if the Small html tag isn't used, then the image caption font is the same size as the article font. Truly very confusing at times, when the words of the article "run into" the words of an image caption. Anyway, all I could find in the MoS was MOS:CAPTIONS and a link to WP:CAP. These two can be contradictory, as in the case of the usage of an alt text. And I couldn't find anything related to image caption font size. Can you focus me?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  12:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive irrelevant criticism

During the early 1980s, a number of commentators in the popular press were dismissive of Osho.[200] The Australian critic and cynic Clive James scornfully referred to him as "Bagwash", likening the experience of listening to one of his discourses to sitting in a laundrette and watching "your underwear revolve soggily for hours while exuding grey suds. The Bagwash talks the way that looks."[200] James finished by saying that Osho was just a "rebarbative dingbat who manipulates the manipulatable".[200] Responding to an enthusiastic review of Osho's talks by Bernard Levin in The Times, Dominik Wujastyk, also writing in The Times, similarly expressed his opinion that the talk he heard while visiting the Pune ashram was of a very low standard, wearyingly repetitive and often factually wrong, and stated that he felt disturbed by the personality cult surrounding Osho.[200][201

this is worthless derogatory comments from people that have no experience in mystics at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clive james, called him bagwash, did he?really? Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) removed, worthless unqualified criticism...and name calling dingbat? Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material was discussed some time please view talk archives thanks.No concensus for your edits Semitransgenic (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Concensus is not needed to make an edit, and refering to a previous concensus also carries little weight. So what don't you like about my removing this, as I see it, completely worthless criticism from an unqualified person? Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Of what value do you think this childish name calling is to the article, there is plenty of qualified criticism in the article without this poor quality criticism. Clive James's comments are of no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob I find the deletion of the paragraph in question unjustified and will now revert. Item is properely sourced and correctly cited.

To quote Jayen466:

"I am not endorsing these cynical statements, but there was a lot of cynicism about Osho in the press, and that section is there to ensure that POV is reflected." And: "While Clive James is not a notable commentator on religious matters per se, he is quoted in an academic work as exemplary of the kind of reception Osho received in wider society. As such, his comments have relevance, as much as the more positive comments of Bernard Levin or the former president of India. It is part of an WP:NPOV presentation."

I am disputing your edits and will move to WP:3O should you continue editing in this manner. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

the fact that you dispute my edit is no reason to revert it. I have replaced it and am available to discuss. Saying that the material is properly sourced and properly cited does not make it worth an entry to the article, it is worthless criticism from a person that is not qualified in any way to criticise anything in this field, it is random worthless criticism and please don't put it back unlerss you can show me what benefit it is and what value it has. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that you want to remove the comment from someone that has a lot of indepth knowledge about osho and then you are insisting on keeping this rubbish unqualified in any way, name calling derogatory rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Clive james has no qualification or any knowledge in this field whatsoever, and you are here insisting on keeping a derogatory name called piece from him about osho, james calls him bagwash...ho ho ho,, and a dingbat...ho ho ho..worthless derogatory name calling from a completely unqualified person. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I believe the content you removed has merrit and I endorse the following: "that section is there to ensure that POV is reflected...While Clive James is not a notable commentator on religious matters per se, he is quoted in an academic work as exemplary of the kind of reception Osho received in wider society. As such, his comments have relevance, as much as the more positive comments of Bernard Levin or the former president of India. It is part of an WP:NPOV presentation." this is a content dispute, let's deal with it that way. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

His comments have no value at all except derogatory name calling. There is plenty of comments saying that they don't agree with Osho , more than enough and this comment from a tv talk person is of no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the guy that bought like 95 Rolls Royces for himself? That fact by itself is hard to top by any external criticism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict, I respectfully find it hard to believe that you are here resisting my removal of this worthless material. It is of no value at all to the article, it is derogatory name calling from a completely unqualified person. This article benefits from the removal of Clive James name calling. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi bugs. Yes, there is plenty of decent stuff to comment on without this unqualified opinion from James.Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the comment I am objecting to...

The Australian critic and cynic Clive James scornfully referred to him as "Bagwash", likening the experience of listening to one of his discourses to sitting in a laundrette and watching "your underwear revolve soggily for hours while exuding grey suds. The Bagwash talks the way that looks."[200] James finished by saying that Osho was just a "rebarbative dingbat who manipulates the manipulatable" 16:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is worthless criticism from a tv talk person who has no opinions about osho that are of any value at all, unless of course you just want to ridicule him and call him names. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Clive James is a noteworthy commentator, and his comments are well sourced. Anthony Thomas is ... who? His comments are posted on a blog, almost never an acceptable source. It is inappropriate to say that only experts on sprituality can express noteworthy views of the subject. WP:NPOV says we should include all significant points of view, in rough proportion to their prominence. James probably represents a signficant view, regardless of his academic background. (I'm not sure why he's described as a "cynic" - original research?.) The views of followers and appreciators of the subject have to be included too, of course, but they should not be represented as the majority view unless we can show that most people think that way.   Will Beback  talk  16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless James has some actual connection with Bagwan, then it's just a random editorial comment, and does not belong here; any more than comments by Jay Leno, or any other comedian who might ever have said something about this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, blogs are not valid sources, unless it's a blog written by Bagwan himself, in which case it's a valid source for what his opinions are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the thompson quote with this edit summary... removed as disputed non notable/wiki reliable source..we can have a look at that slowly slowly, I would request that James comments stay out at least while we have a wider discussion about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, follow the context, a notable NRM scholar discussed the relevance of James's comments in his academic work Life as Laughter:following Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh , it is exemplary of the kind of reception Osho received in wider society. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That is totally untrue, there is no way that you could claim that James unqualified opinionated derogatory name calling is typical of the way he was refered to in general society.Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob, it's quite clear you haven't read the source then. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotation by itself is sufficient to indicate it doesn't belong. It's just some guy shooting off his mouth. It's funny, but it's irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; in the context of popular reception in the early to mid 80s (as the paragraph clearly stated):

"Unfortunately the tone of the debate [Wujastyk v Levin] subsequently dropped, and now [early to mid 1980s] it is hardly possible to read anything about the movement which is simply not dismissive. Two cases in point - included for amusement value - are Clive James, the well known Australian critic and cynic, and the satirical magazine Private Eye." Mullan p.8

Semitransgenic (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, in the interest of fairness, you could also include the point that this guy James sounds like a guy who's in love with sound of his own voice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

James is well known for his rhetoric in the UK, being a smart ass is his job. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make his opinion of this guy relevant. You could quote any' comedian and post it here, and it would be equally irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to use Mullan to frame James? Something like, "Bob Mullan, in his review of popular commentary about Osho, quotes columnist Clive James' statements that listening to Osho's lectures is like..."   Will Beback  talk  18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very opinionated commentary from a tv critic with no in depth knowledge or understanding about osho, and saying that in general this is the kind of unworthy, unqualified name calling derogatory criticism is not a reason for inclusion, the comment from James adds nothing but unqualified worthless crticism of the subject. It is derogatory name calling, there is plenty of worthwhile criticism of osho but this is not reflective of that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I couldn't care less about this Bagwan guy, as I always assumed him to be a con artist. But the purpose of these quotes seem to be to argue that he's boring. But that's just some guy's personal opinion. Someone else might find him interesting. Citing an opinion like that is just a sneaky way for an editor to try to get around the NPOV rules by quoting a supposed "reliable source" and basically letting that "reliable source" speak for the editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, of what value is it really to the article that Clive James called osho a dingbat Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

E/C 2x - Worthless according to whom? If James has been quoted by a scholar as an example of popular views of the subject then that establishes the relevance and the worth. There's nothing wrong with "opinionated commentary" so long as it is presented as an opinion and given suitable weight. On that point, I'd say that the current quotation from James is probably too long. I'd trim it down to a single phrase.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it worthless and I would argue that any uninvolved editor would accept that, however I would also be more than prepared to look at and agree to a comment of reduced size and weight. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "dingbat" is hardly a useful piece of criticism. Maybe he thinks James is also a "dingbat". Now there would be some enlightening dialogue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "dingbat" doesn't convey any useful meaning. But "who manipulates the manipulatable" is a relevent criticism to a spiritual leader.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Agreed that comment is fine. I am looking for a solution here, be my guest, add the worthy and remove the worthless. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose (minus relevant cites):

During the early 1980s, it was difficult to find opinion in the popular press that was not dismissive of Osho. A case in point was the Australian critic and cynic Clive James who viewed Osho as an individual who manipulated the manipulatable. He also likened the experience of listening to one of his discourses to sitting in a laundrette while watching underwear exude grey suds and scornfully suggested that "the Bagwash [Bhagwan]talks the way that looks." Responding to an enthusiastic review of Osho's talks by Bernard Levin in The Times, Dominik Wujastyk, also writing in The Times, similarly expressed his opinion that the talk he heard while visiting the Pune ashram was of a very low standard, wearyingly repetitive and often factually wrong, and stated that he felt disturbed by the personality cult surrounding Osho.

Semitransgenic (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We are looking for a solution not a continuation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ST, instead of giving the quote, how about summarizing the laundy part. Something like "As quoted by Mullan, James compares listening to Osho's discources to watching laundry in a washing machine, and described Osho as someone who "manipulates the manipulatable". That's the pith of his argument. "Dingbat" and "Bagwash" aren't really criticisms.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict..Something like, the australian tv presenter, Clive James accused Osho of manipulating the manipulatable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And the washing machine is ok, as per will Beback's suggestion, no bagwash and no dingbat, keep the rest. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, Please don't alter your previous posts after they have been replied to. I would prefer it if you reverted your last edit. 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept this edit from will Beback,

"As quoted by Mullan, James compares listening to Osho's discources to watching laundry in a washing machine, and described Osho as someone who "manipulates the manipulatable" Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The mere fact that the information does not reflect well on the subject does not mean it should be excluded. Wikipedia is here to deal exhaustively with the subject, so long as a living subject is not libeled. Not including information critical of the subject would make the article biased in favour of the subject, which violates WP:NPOV. I once again suggest you Wikipedia policy before continuing to attempt to remove well-sourced information from Wikipedia. The passage above does not put Wikipedia in that position. Contrary to your assertion, the prior discussion does matter. Consensus can change, but that discussion is the jumping off point. In other words, it is the consensus until you convince enough people to form a new consensus. The information is well-cited, so there is no reason for it not to be included. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Material that is cited whatever bias is not enough to warrant addition to an article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that is even a sentence. Whatever the case, you are not the final arbiter of what material is included and what is not. There is currently a consensus in favour of this version, developed through discussion on this page. That consensus is the default position until a new consensus emerges. If you have a case to make, try to make it here, but the current version must stand until you do so. Your reverts are, at this point, simple edit warring. If you do not stop, some editor is eventually going to either block you or block all editing at this article, which is quite disruptive. The proper course is to discuss the matter here, not through reverts to the article with arguments through edit summaries. -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say having read the comment above "I think it worthless and I would argue that any uninvolved editor would accept that", as an uninvolved editor without any reason for bias in this discussion that I can say you are wrong because I disagree with your position. The reasons for the relevance of the disputed content has been clearly laid out here and references for it's relevance cited, continually repeating the word 'unqualified' as though that meant anything at all is not a winning argument. It doesn't really matter if you think it's worthless, your opinion really is not relevant, not to disparage you, merely not relevant in the sense of it not having any particular weight by itself, that's the whole point of NPOV policies. The only relevant thing to this discussion should be whether or not there is referenceable evidence, from an appropriate source, for it having worth, or relevance, in the context of the article. And there does appear to be. Also attempting to control an article through edit warring gives the appearance of not having confidence that your arguments are strong enough to convince on their own merits.Number36 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Clive James quote is representative because, like most of the stuff published against Osho, it is ignorant. But it probably would help readers around the globe if they knew that James is a guy who is basically paid to be an aresehole;

“In the Bob Hope Golf Classic, the participation of President Gerald Ford was more than enough to remind you that the nuclear button was at one stage at the disposal of a man who might have either pressed it by mistake or else pressed it deliberately in order to obtain room service.”

“Everyone has a right to a university degree in America, even if it's in Hamburger Technology.”

“Disco dancing is just the steady thump of a giant moron knocking in an endless nail.”

It's the only kind of funny he does - nasty. He smirks while he says it, and you are supposed to agree with him that he is really clever. An excellent example of the kind of person. Redheylin (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Appraisal section we need a balance of appraisals. We have K. Singh, Sloterdijk, Barks and Robbins with positive appraisals. If the only balance we can get is an Australian cynic, then we have to go with that. It speaks volumes in itself. Maybe if something better comes up we can go with that? 206.48.0.60 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Beg to differ but, the way I see it, our responsibility is to report what is notably said about the subject in secondary and tertiary sources in a neutral and dispassionate manner. If nobody who meets reference criteria is saying good stuff about the guy and lots of people who meet reference criteria is saying bad stuff this does not mean that we relax reference criteria to balance the article. It means we report the tendency of these secondary and tertiary sources to criticize him in a neutral manner.Simonm223 (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is true. But, if we follow that through, then we end up with only positive assessments and no negative ones, and that would appear horribly biased. Then we would have to drop the appraisals section altogether and that would give the impression that there were no appraisals about the subject, which is clearly innacurate. So, if the only 'critical' (as much as a professional cynic can be considered critical) appraisal is from Clive James, then we have to allow it, even if it means relaxing WP reference criteria. 204.236.78.254 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance IS important....[1] ! Redheylin (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Thompson quote

I see that the Thompson quotation has been removed again. Discussion both here and on the Noticeboard did not indicate a final decision from anyone as to the reliability of any of the three sources I suggested for this quote. To reiterate...

1. a burgeoning news source for followers of Osho
2. an official Osho website
3. a website with essays on religious subjects by Timothy Conway

Would someone please explain why none of these sources are considered "reliable" in this context? It would be appreciated if more detail would be given besides "They're not WP:RS." Why aren't they reliable in this context?
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As my ol' pal Emily Litella used to say... Never mind.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

It is quite peculiar for a phrase to redirect to a title where that phrase is then disambiguated, as Osho is here. Is there anyone who defends the use of what appears to be superfluous disambiguation?  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Redirected Osho to Osho (disambiguation). :) Cirt (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mugshot

I uploaded and added this mugshot of Osho in the article but Off2riorob (talk · contribs) removed it saying "This has been in previously and removed, if you want to add it, please use the talkpage to determine consensus for addition..". He told me another editor had been involved in the discussion and he would let me know whats going on. I checked the talk page archives (1-10) and did not find any discussion on the mugshot or the image itself so I'm assuming there was no discussion.

I've seen there was a lot of opposition to even mention that Osho was deported from the United States inspite of there being 30 citations including Osho's own book that used the word "deport". I hope there's no one here who is actively resisting any addition to the article that could put Osho in a negative light. The fact is that the crimes that Osho was involved in were immensely notable. I dont see any reason why the mugshot should not be there. We might as well start removing all the mugshots from Wikipedia citing whatever policy we want to cite to further our POV. Note that a similiar mugshot of Ma Anand Sheela exists in her article as well.

So if you're opposed to the mugshot, please explain (1) why we should not have a mugshot here and (2) why other articles on Wikipedia (Koren Robinson, Bill Ayers, Yasmine Bleeth and countless others) are fine to have mugshots. Thank you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, well just to start the situation with Sheela is not comparable, we don't have a free picture of her but we do of Osho, this picture is not free and we have free pics of him, so there is no need to use it, the non free rationale that the picture is needed to represent him is also false as in regards to the convictions as he was simply deported and was not found guilty of the charges so to show the mugshot in excessive in regards to the charges. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Off,

1) Sorry this is not true: "was not found guilty of the charges "

He was convicted and pled guilty to immigration fraud. How can you then say he was not found guilty?

2) Free-use rationale is fine. We have other articles that use mugshots all the time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt - Koren Robinson is a good case in point. Looking at his page I was surprised to see a large paragraph detailing how he was NOT involved in a sex scandal! To me this is "undue weight". There've been similar instances here. Everybody knows that Osho was deported from America, but;

1. This is not the reason for his notability.
2. Even less so in other places but America.
3. The deportation was accompanied by disinformation that was widely reported in America.

These circumstances require that the article be maintained to prevent the introduction of undue weight. As with Robinson, some folk try hard to make mud stick and it has to be removed with care. Note the caption of the above pic correctly lists the charges against Osho - but not that he was not convicted of these charges. Redheylin (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh was deported and pled guilty to convictions of immigration fraud. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Red, in the case of Koren Robinson the whole section describes the crime(s) he was involved in and he pled guilty to one count of DUI, fleeing policy (felony) and so on. There is nothing undue in that article. What "large" paragraph are you talking about? I didnt notice it. The whole section is sourced and correct as far as I can see.

That Osho's deportation was not his reason for his notability is fine however its a large article. I never said we should replace the whole article with that picture or something like that. The picture belongs in the section where his crimes are mentioned (just like the other mugshot examples I gave). What was he notable for? For being a controversial guru, e.g. the article says:

His movement was widely feared and loathed as a cult, in much the same way as Scientology or the Unification Church.

So its not like he was free of controversy. The whole article is full of controversy. The sections Oregon commune: 1981–1985 and Arrest: 1985 are solely dedicated to the controversy leading up to his arrest and the 35 count indictment that this man received. Would you say we should remove these sections too because these are not the reasons for his notability? As you can see you too have incorrectly said he was not convicted of these charges. How can you say that when he pled guilty? Undue weight would be to have the whole article say positive things and subdue anything factually negative about him. That would be undue weight. The picture goes perfectly well with the section that is dedicated to explaining his arrest and conviction. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

He was deported: he did not "plead guilty" since he entered a plea on legal advice while maintaining his innocence. I recall from before that you have sought to remove this information. I was just explaining to Matt what this kind of editing leads to. I recall also that you have sought to synthesise a scenario, out of poor research, that represents Osho's organisation as a quasi-militaristic power-structure in which all wrongs were commandments from on high. Here's the actuality: Osho taught against marriage and nationhood, but many of his disciples were married, worked for govts, armies etc. Many others had drug habits, were criminals.... Their actions were in no way ordained or approved, neither were they required to alter. Sheela tried to start telling people what to do: Sheela went. Osho was in no way involved in organising marriages but was advised that he would be held in jail, where there were concerns for his health, until he pled guilty to a charge that would allow his deportation. He chose the "marriage" charge, while maintaining, correctly, that he had no involvement - could not have had since, as the article says, he did not communicate with disciples while in America. BTW, one does not "plead to a conviction". Redheylin (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt: "During the 2005 Minnesota Vikings boat cruise scandal, Robinson was angry the Star Tribune associated him with the incident saying "I wasn't there...." - and he was not. You are correct that the denial is referenced. I said "undue weight". One can easily find such stuff; "XXX today denied that he was an idiot and a pervert" - but it is trash journalism. Some folks on wiki decide they do not like someone and seek to build on this stuff. I say it's undue weight. Redheylin (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"His movement was widely feared and loathed as a cult, in much the same way as Scientology or the Unification Church." So its not like he was free of controversy. The whole article is full of controversy. The sections Oregon commune: 1981–1985 and Arrest: 1985 are solely dedicated to the controversy leading up to his arrest and the 35 count indictment that this man received. Would you say we should remove these sections too because these are not the reasons for his notability?"

That's right; there's a huge section dealing with a short spell and this is purely because he was in the USA. Many people have heard of this and will expect and look for details. I was saying "due weight". Take Michael Jackson - everybody knows about surgery, llamas and painkillers, but we only know because he was notable for another reason. In the case of Osho it's easy to give and get the impression that surgery and llamas was all he did. That's not the case. Ed Meese said "all we wanted was to close him down" and that's how it was done. Redheylin (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep on topic the moonie article and the Scientology article are that way, and as far as being widely loathed goes..I would say that this issue was local and perhaps there was local loathing, please keep comment to this issue, all of this..it is like that at this article does not seem relevant to me, what is the link..otherstuffexists. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Red, you are still saying he didnt plead guilty and that he maintained his innocence. From the article:

After initially pleading not guilty to all charges and being released on bail, Osho, on the advice of his lawyers, entered an "Alford plea" – a type of guilty plea through which a suspect does not admit guilt, but does concede there is enough evidence to convict him.

According to the page of the Alford plea "An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea", so why are you guys saying he didnt plead guilty or that he maintained his innocence? The source that I linked said clearly that "he pled guilty". Here are some examples of people who entered Alford pleas:

• Jesse Tafero - convicted rapist and drug dealer
• Darren Mack - murder, attempted murder (stabbing death of his 39 year old estranged wife)
• Lee Boyd Malvo - no explanation needed (the DC sniper "student"; his teacher John Allen Muhammad was executed only a few days ago)

All these criminals entered Alford pleas like Osho did. If Osho was completely innocent, why would he have entered the plea and given $400,000 in fines? Still you keep repeating that he maitained his innocence.

You wrote:

Some folks on wiki decide they do not like someone and seek to build on this stuff. I say it's undue weight.

I knew someone would say that, thats why I said: please tell me why mugshots in all other cases are correct and in this case they are not. Its undue weight if someone has committed a significant crime and its not properly covered. And it wasnt a "short spell". He was in America from 1981 to 1985 while having made false statements on his visa application so that is a crime that had been going on for 4 years. Please dont tell me this wasnt a crime either. He did additional things for which he pled guilty such as: "one count of conspiracy to have followers stay in the country illegally by having them enter into sham marriages.". So he was a criminal for those 4 years. He made false statements on his visa and then kept committing crimes while he was here (sham marriages e.g.). For you to be trying to subdue the photo is undue weight. Regarding Michael Jackson "Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence". In contrast, Osho entered the Alford plea which by definition is a guilty plea and which by definition says "there's enough evidence", so please - dont talk about Michael Jackson and even if you do, two wrongs dont make right so if you have issues with the Jackson article you can try to fix that article if you think it needs it. My point is: we have mugshots all over Wikipedia. Why there and why not here? The picture belongs in the section. If you guys dont change your stance next, I will bring in uninvolved editors and ask their opinion or whatever the process is. I have experience in this kind of image censorship where editors dont want to see an image for some reason or the other. There's an image on the Kaaba (which I just put back for the 300th time) that is frequently removed by some editors who find it offensive. We had tonnes of discussion on it and came to the obvious conclusion that Wikipedia doesnt censor images because of religious sensititives. I took part in that discussion and even dealt with an admin who (surprisingly) proposed the censorship to remain sensitive to people's beliefs but eventually policy won: images are not censored like that and it would just be wrong if they were. You've not claimed religious sensitivity but the same resistance to the insertion of the image is present because you revere the guy (your repeated claims of him not being guilty of anything serious is one reason why I say that).

"all we wanted was to close him down"

For one that line is not present in the article. 2), may I remind you again that Osho admitted that there was enough evidence to convict him (Alford plea). Osho (we should call him by his less holy and more real name "Rajneesh") entered the same plea as murderers, rapists and drug dealers. You still think he wasnt guilty of anything?

Once again its completely wrong to say that image should stay out. Two whole sections of the articles are dedicated to the controversy and his arrest and the crimes that led to the 35 count indictment and you say all kinds of things like "He wasnt known for this". Well he was partly known for this right? Like I said its not like the whole article is going to be taken over by that picture. So whats the next step now? Its been a while since I dealt with the image on the Kaaba. We have to get more involvement on this issue from other uninvolved editors.

Cirt, any suggestions? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Matt57 (talk · contribs) that it certainly is relevant as a significant event in the individual's biography. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The events surrounding the arrest are significant, as matt says the 35 indictments but an alford plea for immigration issues was the outcome, as there is clearly a lack of a clear conviction regarding the arrest the booking photo is excessive, it is simply not free either, it is not needed to represent the subject as we have other free pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources clearly state that the plea, regardless of what it was, led to an entry of a guilty conviction. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also the wording on the bottom of the box detailing that there were 35 indictments is excessive, the rational for the picture that we need it as a non free picture to represent the subject is false as we have free pictures of the subject already. I also think using the booking shot is undue weight to the outcome of the arrest Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be almost verbatim the exact same comment as given previously on this page by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the picture goes in or not, it is not the end of the world (or the article). Personally, I don't like using mugshots in articles very much. It often comes across as a cheap shot and is somehow not very aesthetic. On the other hand, this is a widely publicised arrest and a well-known photo that has also been used to illustrate material sympathetic to the subject, e.g. [2] (not a RS, but clearly sympathetic). I personally wouldn't insert the photograph, but I wouldn't take it out either.
• Technicalities: An Alford plea is indeed a guilty plea that allows the one making it to maintain their innocence. See [3] for an explanation. The case never went to trial. Osho left the country within hours of the plea bargain agreement being struck.
• Hope this helps. If not, there is the NPOV noticeboard. --JN466 14:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "It often comes across as a cheap shot". Ok so you're saying that this is true for all mug hots then? Does that mean all mugshots on Wikipedia should be removed? If its ok in some cases, why not here?
  • "On the other hand, this is a widely publicized arrest" - correct. All those years leading up to the arrest were controversial and widely publicized.
  • "An Alford plea is indeed a guilty plea that allows the one making it to maintain their innocence" -- I'm not sure how that comment is going to help when I've said that drug dealers, rapists and serial killers have made this same type of plea.
  • Off2riorob, you've said nothing new and I've responded to those statements before.
  • Lets go to the POV noticeboard then. I will make a post there shortly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a section there now: POV notice board. If you'd like to edit the "against" arguments I've made in the table, you can edit that table I made but please, keep it as short as possible. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Matt - thanks for your answers and sorry for the delay. You have written;

"why are you guys saying.....that he maintained his innocence?"

I cannot speak for anyone else. I am saying the above because it is true. My aim was to inform you that frequent "attacks", history and differences over due weight, world-wide view, among other things, may cause edits that look, as you complained, one-sided, and to explain some of the background. As I explained at the top, I said these things with a view to mediation. But you have represented me as "you guys..... who are against" - you have done this on the POV page. But I am neutral with respect to the image. I object to your representation and I'd like you to take steps to change and correct it. Also, you have quoted me:

Some folks on wiki decide they do not like someone and seek to build on this stuff. I say it's undue weight.

and replied:

I knew someone would say that, thats why I said: please tell me why mugshots in all other cases are correct and in this case they are not.

But my remark was about Koren Robinson! So obviously I cannot respond to your above plea since, once again, you are reporting me wrongly.

The contention that "such a plea was also used by bad men" is not a serious argument. This is like saying "he spoke English, like the Boston Strangler". As far as I know, the "visa" charge was of having a concealed intent to remain permanently rather than of a false statement. Likewise, the indictment did not specify the time over which "sham" marriages were held to have been arranged, so it is incorrect to contend that he was convicted of four years of continuous crimes. As I also pointed out, he was not in contact with many people during that time - I do not know exactly whose marriages he is meant to have arranged, though, I do not think evidence was produced.

"the same resistance to the insertion of the image is present because you revere the guy (your repeated claims of him not being guilty of anything serious is one reason why I say that)." This is of course an allegation of bad faith. Please put all this right. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I cant see any argument from your comment about why the picture doesnt belong here. And no, the stuff on Koren Robinson is not undue weight. Its all sourced and it came in the news and was significant and hence, worthy of being mentioned here; just like in the case of Osho. I'm going to withdraw myself from this issue now. Good luck to everyone. Anyone else may continue the topic if they want to. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now no problem with the license of the picture. If anyone doesnt think the picture is appropriate, please feel free to explain. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alford Plea

In the course of the above it has been contended that Osho conceded there was enough evidence to convict on two charges: the information on the page Alford plea has been cited in support. However the page North Carolina v. Alford has:

"North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed on a 5-3 vote that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence."

and this does not confirm the definition as necessarily admitting strong evidence. In the present case, I see that the former definition has been included in the article, yet I cannot find any confirmation of Osho having seen and admitted evidence. Rather he said that the lawyer Peter Schey reported to him;

"The proposal was: "We know that Rajneesh will say he is not guilty, that perhaps finally he will win the case, but we are not going to give him bail; the whole government is bent upon not giving him bail. If he says he is not guilty then we will not give him bail. And you can understand that if the government wants, it can prolong the trial for ten years, and he will have to remain in jail for ten years.

"He may win, but then you have to understand that it can take any amount of time. We will go on changing courts, we will go on postponing, we will go on changing judges. We can do anything" -- they said it clearly. "The only way is for Rajneesh to agree to plead guilty. Then we will not go for a trial, we will release him.""

and later:

"The whole thing was so absurd. First you ask me to take the oath that I will not speak anything but the truth. Then you force me to lie and say that I am guilty."

In these circumstances, seeing that Osho did not admit compelling evidence but asserted he pleaded guilty for another reason so, in the light of the definition posted above, and given that the Alford plea definition is tagged as unsourced, I'd like to question whether the insertion of the above definition is justifiable in this case. Redheylin (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole Alford debacle has been teased over here in the past.

First off, should we presume the quoted material above is from Osho? a primary source? so are we now to take Osho on his word? should we suddenly view him as the sole arbiter of truth? I think that would be a ludicrous diversion.

Take a look online you'll very quickly confirm that there are three types of guilt admissions in America: guilty, Alford, and no contest. "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?"

As far as the authorities were concerned, he was guilty, and the plea bargain resulted from an acknowledgement of the fact that there was enough evidence to convict Osho. You need to accept this and move on, instead of waving a conspiracy flag here. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. The judge does not ask "do you accept there is evidence against you?" There's no source for the assertion or implication in the article that, in saying "I plead guilty although I am innocent" there was some admission of the existence of evidence. This is clearly needed if the assertion is to stand. Please, if you wish to do this, add a source for that assertion in the Alford plea article. Then add to this article sources for your assertion "the plea bargain resulted from an acknowledgement of the fact that there was enough evidence to convict Osho". By the way, I said that the above were Osho's words - no need to "presume". He does not at that stage appear to accept there was evidence but presents the plea as having been in his best interests. Redheylin (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To make it more clear, one does not say to the judge "Alford". This is a term applied to such pleas, and sources are needed 1) in the Alford article to establish the definition and 2) showing that the definition necessarily or as a matter of record applied in this particular case. (Any well-sourced detail of the actual evidence ought to suffice) Meanwhile the following line is unsourced: "Osho, on the advice of his lawyers ... does concede there is enough evidence to convict him" Redheylin (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

you are suggesting that the sentence reaches a conclusion using synthesis, but it doesn't, it states he made a plea, then explains the nature of the plea, don't see the issue with this. Please review the list of sources below if you have doubts about the explicit relationship between an Alford Plea and the matter of sufficient evidence to convict.

p.319

Title: Plea bargaining's triumph: a history of plea bargaining in America

Author: George Fisher

Edition: illustrated

Publisher: Stanford University Press, 2004

ISBN: 0804751358, 9780804751353

Length: 416 pages

p.50

Title: Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases

Authors: Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson

Edition: 7, revised

Publisher: Cengage Learning, 2009

ISBN: 0495599247, 9780495599241

Length: 458 pages

p.178

Title: The Crime Junkie's Guide to Criminal Law: From Law and Order to Laci Peterson

Author: Jim Silver

Publisher: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007

ISBN: 0275994147, 9780275994143

Length: 198 pages

p.124

Title: Sex Offenders: Management, Treatment, and Bibliography

Author: J. V. Fenner

Editor: J. V. Fenner

Edition: illustrated

Publisher: Nova Publishers, 2008

ISBN: 1600217370, 9781600217371

Length: 203 pages

p.153

Title: Deadly lessons: understanding lethal school violence : case studies of School Violence Committee

Editor: Mark Harrison Moore

Edition: illustrated

Publisher: National Academies Press, 2003

ISBN: 0309084121, 9780309084123

Length: 386 pages

Semitransgenic (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We need conventional citations in all three articles to support the contention. None of the books you present here is cited in any of the three articles. The two "alford" articles continue to contradict one another. Please refrain from telling me what I am doing and why. The article asserts Osho accepted there was enough evidence to convict - he says he did not. The alford articles give no sources and contradict one another on the point. Therefore please cite. Redheylin (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged and commented the two Alford pages, but will have to remove sentences implying admission of evidence if remains unsourced.Redheylin (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources (listed above) quite consistently support a standard definition.

It is you who needs to supply sources to support your claim.

Please show us a source that clearly demonstrates that the Rajneesh case was an atypical application of the Alford Plea.

Can I also suggest that you please establish consensus before removing any content. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As explained none of the articles establishes a "standard definition": they do not agree. If you have access to authoritative sources to support one or another definition, please modify the "Alford" pages and remove the tags, then support your statement above that "the plea bargain resulted from an acknowledgement of the fact that there was enough evidence to convict Osho" . I am not making any "claim": "unsourced statements may be challenged and removed". Redheylin (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here[4] is a request submitted to the Law Project on this question. I am unable to verify from the web since there's poor typical differentiation between "Alford" and nolo contendere pleas. Redheylin (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the citation needed tag, here is the wording of the cited source: "Six days later, he pleaded guilty to intending to remain in the US when he applied for his visa and conspiring to have followers illegally stay in the country. According to a peculiar legal precedent created in the Alford case, Rajneesh, who had to admit that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict him, was allowed to maintain his innocence. Under the terms of the agreement he made with the US attorney, he received a ten-year suspended prison sentence and paid a fine of $400,000, including $160,000 in court costs. He agreed to leave the country within five days and not to return for five years without written permission from the US Attorney General. In addition the sannyasins agreed to drop their suits against Meese, Shultz, and the INS." (Gordon, p. 201) --JN466 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jayen. The question is; now I have tagged up the Alford pages, does Gordon stand as a reliable authority upon the plea itself - is he saying "Rajneesh, who had to admit that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict him" on the basis of his own general understanding of the Alford plea, or is there rather some evidence that such an admission was in fact made in this case? Because I do not think Gordon will stand as a source for the Alford pages, and Osho himself denied he had made such an admission, so I think the source cannot be taken as reliable in the former case but must be qualified, say "Gordon believed that Rajneesh must have admitted" and c., while in the latter case reasons can be given. Since the article ventures a general definition of the "Alford" plea itself, I think it requires either legal authority or rewording. BTW I also note another discrepancy with the first hand account - Osho denied that the 400 000 dollar fine was part of the bargain. So what ARE Gordon's sources? (many web sources consider him wholly unreliable, others say he interviewed those involved in the case.) I think it's in everyone's interests if we go to the real sources. Redheylin (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon interviewed those involved in the case; Turner, Frohnmayer, and others on the side of law enforcement, as well as Osho himself (twice, though not on the specific facts of his plea bargain) and many sannyasins. Gordon mentions reading the indictment papers (p. 199); he mentions visiting Frohnmayer and Turner after the case and explains that they were very generous with their time and wanted him to understand very clearly what the facts of the various cases were (p. 209). Gordon later ran a White House Commission for President Clinton, and his work is well cited. I can think of few sources that were closer to events (he spent considerable amounts of time on the Ranch) or tried harder to be even-handed in their coverage. Hope that helps. Cheers, --JN466 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Osho did say several times in his discourses that the precise amount of the fine was not negotiated beforehand. However, I don't think that what the article says (and Gordon says) necessarily contradicts even Osho's own account. The following is from the Osho discourse archive:

Sometimes I look at this world -- it is so hilarious. The government attorney has placed thirty-four crimes that they say I have committed and they ask my attorneys to negotiate and not to go for a trial. And the negotiation was: "If you accept any two crimes, then Shree Rajneesh can be released from the jail. If you don't accept then you are putting his life in danger because the case could go on for twenty years, thirty years..." This is sheer blackmail. My attorneys were at a loss what to do, because I have not committed those crimes. But to save me they accepted the two crimes, such petty crimes that generally in America the punishment would be twenty-five dollars or fifty dollars at the most. And that's what my attorneys were thinking: get finished with fifty dollars. But when those two crimes were accepted, the punishment was four hundred thousand dollars, nearabout six million rupees. And now, there was no way for my attorneys to do anything; they had accepted and the judge had given the judgment. [...] All that I had done, that they had accepted, was so tiny, so meaningless. First, they said that I had the intention of staying in America and I had deceived the immigration department. For "the intention," the simple way is not to give me residence. Secondly, they said that I had arranged a marriage for the purpose of getting residence. That is sheer stupidity. If I had wanted to be a resident, rather than persuading others to get married, I myself should have married -- as many American women as they required.

--JN466 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thinking this over, I have made a small change which I think addresses your concern. The article gave the impression that the figure of $400,000 was agreed beforehand, but the cited source (Gordon, above) did not actually say that. (Our article said "he agreed to pay", and Gordon simply said "he paid".) Thanks for your scrutiny of this passage. Cheers, --JN466 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary press accounts don't mention the "Alford plea" by name, though one mentions it in the context of Swami Prem Niren's 1988 effort to overturn the plea. Unfortunately, I can't see the text of that article. The closest I can find is this, from the AP:

• One of Rajneesh's lawyers, Brian O'Neill, said the guru still "asserts his innocence" but changed his plea because of his concern about "possible danger or possible harassment were he to remain" in the United States.
  • Guru leaves U.S. for India after pleading guilty to charges; The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Nov 15, 1985. pg. B.14

Perhaps "Alford plea" was to obscure a term to be discussed in the press at the time. They mention that the plea agreement included a promise to drop lawsuits against the government - should that be included here?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • The dropping of lawsuits is mentioned by Gordon as well (p. 201, quoted above). I guess it could go in. --JN466 00:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The small changes are quite significant, thanks. But if there's no record that this was an "Alford", then the reasoning that "therefore there must have been admitted strong evidence we never saw" is doubly inadmissible since, even if it was, this has not been established as a legal requirement. I accept that Gordon said something similar, but does he give no citation for it, no context that enables us to tell why he said it? Otherwise, it seems, the lawyers deserve their say, that, as Will said, "concern about possible danger" from pleading innocent, which is the actual origin of the Alford plea, was the only reason, alongside Gordon and stated as two views with two sources. Redheylin (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info by Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) removed sourced info [5]. Not only is this material noteworthy, but it is cited to WP:RS sources Associated Press and Chicago Tribune. It should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion section which Off2 did not open before reverting my sourced additions from newspapers.

Off2, in future please use the talk page and give specific details before doing a revert that is not plain vandalism. In the edit summary you said "Edits seem to be adding undue weight to a position". This is not a reason for reverting because it can be used for any edit. Please provide details here as to why this is undue weight while keeping the current state of the article in mind. The additions are minor by the way, only 2 kilobytes and a few lines. I can make bullet points for the additions I made but I encourage you to do the same and point out any specific problems. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think these additions add value. The book burning and the burning of Sheela's robe were very notable events in the movement; I am surprised we had failed to mention them before. --JN466 15:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Thanks a lot. I'm glad to have made the contributions. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable events in the movement perhaps, but were they notable events in the life of the subject of this biography??? 84.159.50.218 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I've read some of the archive of discussions, and this thing needs a lot more structured criticism of someone who persistently changed his name and his teaching, and produced a (quote from the current article) "contradictory" legacy of content. Somehow, the acolytes have won, and that's no good for anyone. Wiki Editors, congrats again for killing a piece of your own project.

jmanooch 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanooch (talk • contribs)

This entry is too long

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. You'd think he was the Einstein of consciousness. (No wait, that's Ken Wilber. Whose page is also way too long.) You could lose the entire middle two thirds with no real loss, and a great gain in readability. As it is, it seems entirely too credulous.Tao2911 (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but it reads like a defense brief. Neutrality, anyone? Gtcaz (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, the more detail the better IMO. "Wiki is not paper" and a need for comprehensiveness ought to trump Summary style the way I see it.

But you're right that it could use some editing for neutrality. -- œ^™ 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

While I side with the need for as much detail as possible, this need not be wordy and certainly should not read like a hagiography. I have made a few cosmetic changes to earlier sections just to see what happens. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Spammers

One of your editors keeps spamming my inbox with letters like this:

From: [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Subject: I'm responsible for making Osho's mugshot more famous
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:36:11 -0700

I am the person who was responsible for inserting Osho's mugshot in his
English Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29#Arrest:_1985
for the picture itself, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29_-_Mug_shot_Multnomah_County,_Oregon,_USA_1985.jpg

Now this picture has started to be used in other multi-lingual Wikipedia
pages too such as Arabic, Dutch, Italian and so on.

To those now who are making money off him: This bastard was a crook and
you guys KNOW it or refuse to acknowledge it because he's your
livelihood now.

My actions will cause more and more people to learn the truth about this
clever bastard and the stupid gullible westerners who worship him.

-Matt

what is the proper channel to deal with freaks like him? -rudy 58.7.182.176 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is Criticism of Osho

Not that I am in favor of pointing out real or perceived flaws of Beloved Bhagwan I am just expressing wonder that Wiki does not criticize the greatest critic in recorded history ! Perhaps it is simply not possible to criticize Him.

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is spread throughout the article in various places where appropriate, relevant and sourced e.g. in the reception section if you had read the article in its entirety. Currently its not collected together in one section. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that and saw that before commenting. Please try to catch the deeper meaning of my reflection. What I am saying is a single pointed body of text is not there and that says something about the general feeling Osho is gaining over people in west. Understood ?

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It would take a source of considerable authority to identify some body of text as typifying such a general feeling: would you like to suggest something? Redheylin (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jon Ascton, my "reflection" is that all of us here are busy doing our own stuff. If you think an article should contain something, then you're the one who has to do that. If Osho is gaining popularity in the west, you would have to have a reliable source say that (as you probably already know since you've been around for a while). I would also suggest you improve your signature and take out that extra line break which causes your signature to go over to a new line. As you can see everyone's signature stays on the same line. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The user Redheylin has deleted all critizism of osho and replaced it with things that are not controversial at all, i will now undo most of his edits. I have to say that all things that where posted previously where in proper english, and now some are not, and the quotations where changed to be not antisemitic, or racist comments. The Information about the Hitler Salute was deleted, i could go on and on. The Edits either changed the english into ingrisch, or omitted the controversial part of the text. I propose to disenable Redheylin from editing this article for now, since Wikipedia isn´t a progaganda site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.214.74 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

link to...

maybe see also : eckhart tolle and the primacy of consciousness?

just a thought as some of the essentials are the same (living in the now is the key to bypassing the ego mind blah blah blah)

throwing it out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.197.186 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitiled

As the most magnanimous incarnation of Sri Krishna, the Personality of Sri Krishna Caitanya has made the path of going "Back to Godhead" so easy for every one that even a boy of the world can swim across the ocean of religiosity, although it is injected with so many dangerous animals ready to devour up a fallen person in that great massive water. Letter to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of Indian Union -- Delhi 21 November, 1956: In the Bhagavad-gita it is said very clearly that whosoever may adopt the specific principle of accepting Sri Krishna the Personality of Godhead, he will be able to achieve the highest transcendental goal of life,—never mind what he is either a born untouchable, a fallen woman, a laborer or a man dealing in rupees annas pies. His being so, what is there difficulty for a pious "Brahmin" and devoted king for going "Back to Godhead"? Everyone should therefore adopt this principle of going "Back to Godhead" in order to get released from the world of miseries, with temporary existence.

This fact is corroborated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the practical demonstrator of Bhagavad-gita and as the most magnanimous incarnation of Sri Krishna—the Personality of Sri Krishna Caitanya has made the path of going "Back to Godhead" so easy for every one that even a boy of the world can swim across the ocean of religiosity, although it is injected with so many dangerous animals ready to devour up a fallen person in that great massive water.

Considering the position of the people of this age, the chanting of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's name is more essential than the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the most magnanimous incarnation and His mercy is very easily achieved. CC Adi 8.31, Purport: It should be noted in this connection that the holy names of Lord Kṛṣṇa and Gaurasundara are both identical with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore one should not consider one name to be more potent than the other. Considering the position of the people of this age, however, the chanting of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's name is more essential than the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the most magnanimous incarnation and His mercy is very easily achieved. Therefore one must first take shelter of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by chanting śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda. By serving Gaura-Nityānanda one is freed from the entanglements of material existence and thus becomes qualified to worship the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Deity.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the mercy incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is addressed by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī as mahā-vadānyāvatāra, or the most magnanimous incarnation. CC Adi 7.150, Purport: Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the mercy incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is addressed by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī as mahā-vadānyāvatāra, or the most magnanimous incarnation. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī also says, karuṇayāvatīrṇaḥ kalau: it is only by His mercy that He has descended in this Age of Kali. Here this is exemplified. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not like to see Māyāvādī sannyāsīs because He thought of them as offenders to the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, but here He excuses them (tāṅ-sabāra kṣami' aparādha). This is an example in preaching. Āpani ācari' bhakti śikhāimu sabāre. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu teaches us that those whom preachers meet are almost all offenders who are opposed to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but it is a preacher's duty to convince them of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement and then induce them to chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. Our propagation of the saṅkīrtana movement is continuing, despite many opponents, and people are taking up this chanting process even in remote parts of the world like Africa. By inducing the offenders to chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu exemplified the success of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We should follow very respectfully in the footsteps of Lord Caitanya, and there is no doubt that we shall be successful in our attempts.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is known as mahā-vadānyāvatāra, the most magnanimous incarnation, for He does not consider the offenses of the fallen souls. CC Adi 7.4, Purport: As preachers of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we first offer our obeisances to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by chanting this Pañca-tattva mantra; then we say Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. There are ten offenses in the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, but these are not considered in the chanting of the Pañca-tattva mantra, namely, śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is known as mahā-vadānyāvatāra, the most magnanimous incarnation, for He does not consider the offenses of the fallen souls. Thus to derive the full benefit of the chanting of the mahā-mantra (Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare), we must first take shelter of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, learn the Pañca-tattva mahā-mantra, and then chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. That will be very effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.97.81 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? -- œ^™ 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a copy paste from somewhere. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is: "no!" Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Title - "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)"

Title of this article page should remain at "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". This has been discussed at great length on the talk page archives. Please do not arbitrarily move it without discussion and consensus. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) → Osho, nee Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh — Previous discussions about this article's title have demonstrated that there are compelling reasons why both "Osho" and "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" should be the title of this article. The compromise, heretofore, has been to include both. While I do not contest the validity of including both names in the title, the current format that combines the two names is contrary to guidelines. In Wikipedia article titles, bracketed terms included at the end of the title are disambiguators. The natural conclusion for a reader who is familiar with these disambiguators is that "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)" means that Osho is a type of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or else a concept within the broader study of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The natural conclusion for a reader who is unfamiliar with these disambiguators is to recognize that these are two names for the same person and therefore other articles should be created that do the same (ie. such a user might rename the Student article "Student (pupil)", for example). In order to maintain both names in the title and also conform to guidelines, I recommend the title Osho, nee Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh as "nee" means "formerly known as". Neelix (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Nee means "born", not "formerly" - this is also the feminine form: correct is "né".

2) Da man was born "Rajneesh Chandra Mohan". He was also formerly known as "Acharya Rajneesh", an epithet still in use in India, among other soubriquets.

(A) Suggestion inadmissible. Redheylin (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, "nee" can either mean "originally" or "formerly called". In this case, the latter definition fits quite well. As for the spelling, Merriam-Webster lists both "née" and "nee" as correct forms. Please see the following link for verification: [6] Neelix (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Chambers has "born - used in stating a woman's maiden name". Webster's gives the same. Wordnet gives the same. Other dictionaries give "formerly known as" as a subsidiary or explanatory meaning which is, however, entirely derived from the first and therefore remains feminine. Merriam does not say that the word can "either mean "originally" or "formerly called"" but rather gives "originally or formerly called" as a single definition, again secondary and dependent upon the first meaning. You'd therefore be more or less reinventing the word against the rules of grammar - using a French word meaning "born (feminine)" to denote a man who was not so born. Redheylin (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This usage would not be a reinvention of the word. Check out The Free Dictionary here: [7] The definition "formerly known as" is an entry unto itself. This word is used to mean "formerly" as separate from providing maiden names. Neelix (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per archived discussions from April 2009, June 2009, and additional discussion at Talk:Rajneesh movement in April 2009. -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - What in these discussions argues against renaming this article Osho, nee Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? I don't see that this suggestion has ever been made before. Neelix (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Response: The WP:RS sources presented. Absolutely nowhere has this individual ever been referred to as "Osho, nee Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", in any WP:RS secondary source. "Osho, nee Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" is a construction, totally made up by Neelix (talk · contribs), and it is a violation of WP:NOR. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed unwieldy title is a neologism, while the current unwieldy title is not. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per prior discussions, and per comments above. Née is a feminine form, refers to a birth name, and besides there are simply no precedents in reliable sources. --JN466 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've just added info to this article

Info added: the film "Guru - Bhagwan, His Secretary & His Bodyguard" (documentary) is now in theaters. I've seen it, so I know it's real, but I don't know how to add a reference (first time on Wiki) Sorry Reut Barak —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReutBarak (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've removed the following recently-introduced section:

Some of his followers had to engange in prositution in order to pay the tuition fees. In some of his speeches and books he made jokes about ethnic and religious groups. He wrote that Jesus was a "crackpot" because he was "trying to save the world but couldn't even save himself". It was his belief that Jesus was a psychiatric case, because he believed that he was the son of god He called Mother Teresa senile, and said that she is creating problems because the orphans she helps will create children themselves. In his opinion she creates more poor people and more orphans, in order to gain more converts. He also said about her that she should "jump in a lake " During a Worldpressconverence in 1985 he said that humans should be only born in vitro, because only then it is possible to choose. There he also said that people who abort should be awarded. According to Christopher Calder followers where advised by him to undergo sexual reproduction sterilization procedures, because he was concerned about worldwide overpopulation. He told his followers to use the drug MDMA in their meditations, they used it as their sacrament. It is told that his followers put MDMA in drinks of other people in order to convert them. He told the Newspaper Der Spiegel his opinion of Adolf Hitler stating "I love the man. He was crazy. But i am even crazier" and compared Hitler to Mahatma Gandhi. In 1985 he called Hitler a holy man who loved honesty, integrity and directness, he also said that he is the better Hitler, without all the errors that Hitler did. He said that Hitler was worthy of admiration because of his will to accomplish his ideas. He said that Hitler was a Genius, who made the mistake of attacking Russia. Germs: biological weapons and America's secret war, by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, William Broad, William J. Broad, page 30</ref> Sheela said in 1985 that Osho had learned some of his propaganda tactics when he studied Hitler. In his book Zen: Zest, Zip, Zap and Zing he wrote that Hitler tortured others because he had as he called it " the Mohammedan characteristic" and that the only difference between Gandhi and Hitler was that Gandhi was allegedly 70 % Jaina He stated in one of his talks that the Jainas are the Jews of India and goes on to say that they are greedy and that there are no Jainist Beggars to be found in India In his book Zen: the special transmission he wrote that "there are Jews everywhere, in Hindus, in Mohammedans, in Christians." and that being a Jew is psychological. In his text "Why are the Jews hated everywhere in the world" he states that Jews have been hoarding money through the ages, that they are manipulating politics, and that they should accept Jesus as one of their own. He goes on to say that Jews reduce everything to a commodity, and that this creates an "ugly world". During an interview he said that the Jews were telling jokes to each other while they went into the gas chambers and that they where laughing while going in. It is reported that once when he was lecturing he gave the Nazi salute to the listeners and afterwards said "As far as I am concerned there are many kinds of greetings…". He said that Jews where prosecuted and killed because they said to be the choosen race, and because of this we should not feel pitiful for them Because of such statements his organisation was labeled a destructive cult in Münster, Germany. He said about he Oregon commune " Our commune was a kind of small Nazi-Germany, but everything was stopped earlier. Dave Frohnmayer saw in the teachings of Osho similarities to Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, for him Osho's teachings were a disengagement from ethics. Werner Höbsch, a german expert in religous ideology, said that Oshos ideology is a ideology of winners, where loosers are left behind. Former Osho follower Hugh Milne wrote about the inhumane conditions in the ashrams in India and in Oregon, he said that there where deaths from suicide and diseases like hepatitis and the people did not receive proper medical attention. Some former followers compared the experience of the ashrams to the Eastern Bloc. Julian Lee wrote that for him Osho was like a "pimp" that built his financial empire on the base desires of average people. Krishnamurti called Osho a criminal and Rajneeshpuram "a concentration camp under the dictatorship of enlightenment." He also called him "worlds biggest pimp" because "He made money from the boys and the girls and he kept it for himself." Osho replied to a question concering the legal battle in Oregon, that would like to fight legal, but if it is not possible he and his followers would also resort to other means. He said that then it would be " A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" It was reported by Hinduism Today in 1985 that he said about Sheela " I have been preparing her like a sword. I told her to go out and cut as many heads as possible." Later he said about her that she was the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler. Osho was classified by Anthony Storr as a narcissist.

Some of this could be integrated elsewhere; some of it duplicates material that is already in the article (prostitution, Nietzsche); some of it is poorly sourced (primary sources, private websites) or unsourced; and almost all of it is poorly written. --JN466 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also have problems with sentences like "Some of his followers engaged in prostitution...". The sentence doesn't even state how many, whether or not he encouraged them, the extent, etc. So why is some vague sentence about the purported actions of some of his followers relevant to this article? After all, the article is about him, not about some of his unnamed followers. The sentence that reads "In some of his speeches and books he made jokes about..." doesn't supply any references. The sentence therefore is a summary (non-neutral) of non-sourced material. Without page numbers and references, the average wikipedia reader has no way of evaluating the accuracy of the sentence (were they jokes or did the editor who provided the sentence simply decide that they were). At best the sentence appears to be original material.TheRingess (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sorts of problems I had in mind. Note though that the comparison to other feared and loathed groups you removed here was not actually OR, but sourced: see page 96 and page 102 in the indicated source. It may be a useful comparison to have, as the controversy surrounding Scientology and the Unification Church has remained more present in the public consciousness than that surrounding his movement (which was quite as controversial as those in its day). As for the "by whom" tags, please have a look at the source; I am not sure we can extract anything too definite from it. --JN466 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything was sourced, just look at the moment when the entries where first made, and not the moment when they where already altered - The sentence about the prostitution is important simply because it is sourced, and after all there is no page about his followers. Secondly, maybe it is possible to classify some sources as "non-neutral" but after all, tell me what would constitute a "neutral" source ? His writings ? The "personal" homepages where all pages from former members, they only voice their opinion about him, and in the article it was written like "former follower XY said this". Specially the part about the racialist comments and jokes quoted his writings, so why omit them, i can think that this edit was made to discard the material, thus making this whole article "non neutral". Maybe there is a certain agenda behind this edits that is not "neutral"86.32.109.14 (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by Moderators that work for their own agenda, and not for the good of Wikipedia. Sadly there is no way to say to Wikipedia that a moderator is doing something for his or her own good. Sadly.62.99.214.74 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not everything you added was bad. I suggest you get a username and then address the points raised here (which I havent gone through) - it will be more effective than doing all this with an IP address. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Appraisal as a thinker and speaker

Describing Clive James as 'the... cynic' I think is not right. It amounts to saying his opinions are typically negative, and so devalues this quotation. We have a link to his own, very full, entry, and people can read about him there. For the other authorities in this article we are not mentioning their cast of mind, nor should we. Spicemix (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --JN466 08:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --JN466 08:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Crazy things

I was reading some articles external to wikipedia and I was informed by Osho's life. What I found on wikipedia is a total bullshit (excuse the word, but this is it). This article is a fight between believers and haters. Some facts are pure inventions. Here is a better one: http://truthaboutosho.blogspot.com/

The Christopher Calder's page is no more accessible, at least here. Don't let Wikipedia became a war field.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.104 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New sources for use

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

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

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

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

• Rajneesh story archive
• Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: Enlightenment was lure for many of his followers
• Ma Anand Sheela: Rajneeshees' public face left Oregon but holds onto blame, bitterness
• The Oregonian's Les Zaitz on investigating the Rajneeshees (personal essay)

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/rajneesh

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Signature

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

• http://www.oshoworld.com/images/oshosign.gif

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• • No, I believe they're copyrighted by his estate. --JN466 00:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, it could be used under the same license used for Nehru's signature. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 00:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Osho's signatures were very involved, sometimes coloured, and are marketed as "signature art". OIF has registered the "Osho signature design", and its use is not allowed without their written permission. Some people have contested their right to claim ownership of the signature design, but unless there has been a definite court ruling, Wikipedia tends to stay on the safe side to protect commercial downstream users of its content. User:Moonriddengirl is one of the main copyright experts here; you might be best off asking her, with a link to this conversation. --JN466 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) From a copyright standpoint, this is a tricky issue; see Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Looking at the supposed signature, it certainly seems complex in design; it may well be creative enough to warrant copyright protection. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

From a non-copyright standpoint, if Osho changed his signature every once in a while I doubt a single signature could truly be representative. Copyright-wise, I agree that it seems like there is enough creativity and complexity to warrant a copyright. It looks like three jet trails are passing through his signature, with the eensy-teensy plane visible on the middle one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rolls Royces, edited.

Edit

His large collection (of rolls royces)...

The Rolls-Royce automobiles in appearance...

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

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

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

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

Cult

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

I agree completely. This article has a clear "pro osho" stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.228.177 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While I wouldn't have worded it like you did, I agree that there is a significant lack of criticism. Look at the "reception" section of the article, there are 3 different points that contain the word "appraisal" and none that are critical.--moeburn (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term "leitmotif"

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

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

to

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

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

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

• [8] [9] [10] --JN466 22:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your point. The word "motif" has a specific nuance that wouldn't always be covered in a one-sentence summarization of the term; a motif is an element that is repeated, such as a phrase, image, etc, and a leitmotif is a symbolic motif. That's the definition in the Wikipedia page, so that's the one we should use. Anyone who has studied art, especially music, will be thrown off by misuse of the term. "Leitmotif" as it's used here is a secondary or tertiary definition at best. Even if it were an appropriate word, why link it to the Wikipedia page? After all, the Wikipedia page only discusses the term in the Wagnerian context. Read the leitmotif page and tell me why reading it would help anyone reading about the Commandments. At least remove the link; it's superfluous.

Plus, there isn't one reason why "leitmotif" is a superior term to "theme".

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Macfluffers (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Lietmotif" is a more accurate term. These recurring themes are associated with Osho, after all. I don't think that the link should be removed. Those unfamiliar with musical terminology would not comprehend it's meaning. Any third opinions? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The article Leitmotif does state, "By extension, the word has also been used to mean any sort of recurring theme, (whether or not subject to developmental transformation) in music, literature, or (metaphorically) the life of a fictional character or a real person." The article also states that the German word Leitmotiv literally means "guiding motif". I think this corresponds quite well to the use of the word here.

The use of the English word in this extended meaning is exceedingly common, with lots of uses in this week's press: [16] ("the leitmotif of Maddow's argument in the following segment: that a critical look at the conservative rhetoric belies the actual facts"; "I wish I had added what was the leitmotif of my school re Policing is becoming increasingly complex, facing new technological developments and new risks"; "Underlining the party's differences with their Conservative coalition colleagues has been the leitmotif of this year's Liberal Democrat conference"; "Today this government aggrandisement has rekindled the struggle of government against localism, a leitmotif of English politics"; "Legislation has become the leitmotif of civic Scotland since the birth of devolution"; etc.).

So I just don't see a problem with it, and find the added connotation of "guiding principle" makes it the best word in the context of the "commandments". I am sorry we seem to be disagreeing here; I accept that everyone uses words differently. Hopefully I have shown though that the use of the word in this meaning is by no means as unusual as you thought. Cheers, --JN466 16:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? I had never heard the term used outside of a musical context before. I still hold that the nuance should be taken into account, that it's not superior to "theme", and we shouldn't use a term that needs to be linked to be understood. I guess it doesn't really matter, if I'm out voted. Macfluffers (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:BhagwanShreeRajneeshOsho.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BhagwanShreeRajneeshOsho.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

• Oppose we don't use "aka" (which actually means "also know as") in titles either. The article title should just be Osho with Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh being a redirect as it is now - standard practice for situations like this. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that the present title is Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), not Osho (Osho redirects here, as does Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). I'd be fine with Osho, or with keeping the present arrangement. I'd oppose the "Osho aka" proposal. --JN466 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Neither: the article naming policy supports neither. Unless some unusual notability occurred in the years before his death and using his new name, I believe he was best known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and that's what the article should be named. —EncMstr (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This "aka" is unnecessary and undesirable, setting a dreadful precedent. Whatever title might be chosen as an alternative to the present one (which works for me, let me say), it should not include "aka". To EncMstr: arguably there is some "unusual notability" of the sort you mention, in this case. Noetica^Tea? 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Osho is an acceptable title for this article, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is an acceptable title for this article, and Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is an acceptable title for this article. The only title that is not acceptable is the current one, Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), because it is the only one that clashes with the guidelines. I have no preference among the first three article titles, but we cannot use the fourth. Neelix (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. the historical context of the name change is notable, it relates directly to events that took place while he was known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The bulk of this article deals with his life as BSR. --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does that fact prevent the article from being moved to Osho, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? Neelix (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Osho vid

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

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

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

• An OIF video of Osho during an interview with Jeff McMullen at Rajneeshpuram in 1985

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

Oppose wikipedia articles should not serve as a platform for proselytisation, nor should this article function as an advertising vehicle for OIF. Such an edit would also border on infringing WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you haven't bothered to watch the video. It's actually an interview, rather than an edited propaganda vid. So, the prosletyzation claim does not hold ground. Furthermore, i do not care for OIF's objectives at all, let alone more than those of Wikipedia. As such in the future, when you are discussing on a talk page, either be civil, refrain from putting allegations against editors, and focus solely on the content; or just get lost! Understood? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure your claim of incivility is accurate. I did watch the video, it consists almost entirely of Rajneesh philosophising, it's largely primary, and is not an "interview" in the typical sense. It is not objective enough for the purposes of the article. Furthermore, you state above that you have communicated with an OIF representative, who has stated explicitly what the terms for inclusion are, and you have then expressed an interest in adding said content - that they have endorsed - I don't therefore don't believe it is uncivil to suggest that this perhaps borders on COI. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't state Perhaps! You said it did. Unless you have sure proof that i am a shill of OIF and care about their interests more than Wikipedia's, then i suggest you better keep quiet! Doing so based on mere speculation with insufficient evidence is both uncivil and disingenuous. Furthermore, just because Osho does most of the talking and Jeff McMullen is just limited to asking a few questions, that does not make it an interview? I fail to see the logic in that. I also don't see a guideline which states that videos of one philosophizing violates wikipedia guidelines (you didn't specify, but i take it you mean NPOV). You would have had a point if it was an edited propaganda vid, with subliminal messages. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

in essence, what is stated above is that any edit that has the appearance of providing advertising for OIF - following direct communication with the organisation - would be an infringement of COI; you can choose to take that personally if you wish, but that was not the purpose of raising the issue. Put simply, I watched the video, and do not believe it is appropriate for our purposes, so i therefore oppose its inclusion. Apologise if I caused you any offence in the way this was initially expressed. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you opposing it at all. I don't take disagreements personally. You may have a point that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a platform for advertisement. However, you used a quote to imply directly that i cared about OIF's goals more than Wikipedia's, which i did take as a personal insult. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and similar recordings have been broadcast in multiple TV documentaries, news programmes etc., creating precedent in reputable sources. If you can get the file with an appropriate license, go for it. :) --JN466 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

do OFI own the rights? if not, you don't need their permission, you can simply try and source this video elsewhere, ideally the full version, and not just the OFI choice edits, then there's a better case for inclusion. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, they do. They have obtained copyrights over Osho's works. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

not so sure about that, it's from a 60 Minute AUS item called The Orange people, it happened because of public perception issues in Australia at the time, their commune there (Pemberton) was getting a lot of flak, none of this has been touched upon in the article yet, so perhaps it's time to elaborate. Showing only the clip of this program that OIF have approved, if there is an entire program to consider, is problematic because the context is lost. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have watched many Osho interview clips. In each and every one of them, there are two people videotaping the event—one Rajneeshee and one media person. In most cases, the media persons can be seen in the video. Furthermore, the video has already been copyrighted by OIF. It has been on youtube for 5 years, and 60 Minutes has not taken them to court. So, we have no reason to reason that they are not the rightful copyright holder. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

that may be so, but again, showing only the clips that OIF have approved, if there is an entire program to consider, and additional context to explore, is not something I support, and I especially do not support the inclusion of video that serves to advertise OIF.--Semitransgenic (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be dozens of interviews with OSHO hosted on YouTube. Perhaps it'd be simpler to just link to the OSHOInternational channel and let readers decide which ones they want to watch. It isn't clear to me why we'd pick one over others.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (attempt 2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, as an alternative introduced below. Extra precision is not retained in a qualifier for a primary topic, but the Scholar searches do seem to indicate to me that the previous name is still in more common use there than the "Osho" name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) → Osho – After recent discussion at Talk:Osho and reviewing the previous move request here, it appears that moving this article to Osho is the best solution. It would conform to WP:TITLE, and seemed to be supported by the most editors during the previous proposed move. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and other redirects would be re-pointed there, and Osho would be made the primary topic at Osho (disambiguation). Nick Number (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Addendum: as ‎JHunterJ has just undone a previous cut-and-paste move, the present Osho (disambiguation) should be deleted and the present Osho should be moved there, prior to the move proposed above. Nick Number (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No harm is done by retaining some extra precision. I would be happy also with Osho (Rajneesh), or various other titles. But "Osho" by itself is too unhelpful, too cliquey, too sparse and inhuman as a title for a varied readership looking for quick information, efficiently given. Noetica^Tea? 23:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Osho" is the name the man last chose to go by, and from my admittedly-limited work disambiguating links, it seems to be the most common name in English per WP:UCN. A couple of Google Books searches seem to support this - Osho meditation -"Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" -wikipedia gets 32,500 hits, vs. 19,200 for "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" -wikipedia -Osho. The difference is even more pronounced in a straight web search - 3.5 million hits vs. 120,000. Given these facts, I continue to contend that Osho is the best title for the article. If one of the other names is actually more common then the title should be changed to it. Putting an alternate name in parentheses is redundant rather than precise. Nick Number (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On further review, I neglected to put all the search terms in quotes, and the hit counts are slightly lower for "Osho" "meditation" -"Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" -wikipedia - 29,400 on Books and 3.2 million on Web. These numbers still support the same conclusion, however. Nick Number (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

this is not a reliable method, the guideline you citing clearly states the following: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."

We generally refer to the best secondary sources and those sources in this instance are mostly academic publications: most of which use Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or some variation.

case in point, Google Scholar Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh usage 1993-2012 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=Bhagwan+Shree+Rajneesh&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=1993&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

clearly Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is still widely used, as recently as last year.

"Osho Rajneesh" usage 1993-2012 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&num=100&q=%22osho+rajneesh%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=1993&as_vis=0

Marion Goldman (a notable authority who was also a follower) interchanges Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh with Osho Rajneesh in an Oxford University Press book published last year (2011). Semitransgenic _talk. 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't contest that Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is widely used, but it seems like Osho is significantly more common. Your first Scholar search finds 993 hits, but a similar one for "Osho" "meditation" -"Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" gets 1,170 hits, and there are likely distinguishing keywords other than meditation which could be used to add to the total. Nick Number (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are using "meditation" as a search term.

Your search is returning a lot of random material that could not be considered reliable for this article, it also returns any instance of "Osho Foundation International" and similar such configurations.

Clearly the common usage across a wide range of academic sources is a version that includes the name Rajneesh.

The title should reflect the consensus of accepted mainstream scholarship, it should not be determined by a random selection of publications that have nothing to do with the article as it is currently presented in wikipedia. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I added "meditation" in order to limit the results to items about this person rather than other meanings of Osho. I don't see how that is any less discriminate than your search against "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" in the same Scholar database. What terms would you suggest in order to find articles referring to this person as Osho, without including the phrase Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? Nick Number (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nick, compare the hits, for instance the first 100 of each search term, for "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" they are virtually all academic sources published between 2004 and 2012 that clearly mention Rajneesh using this title. With the first 100 hundred hits for "Osho" "meditation" - "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" there does not seem to be a similar trend; in terms of evidencing a clearly contextualised usage pattern for the title "Osho". Can I ask if you are disputing that "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" is the most commonly used title found in the majority of scholarly secondary sources that refer to this individual? Do you feel also that mainstream scholarship on the matter of Rajneesh and his movement is best represented if we use the title Osho for the article? Based on the content I am seeing I do not think it is the most appropriate title.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 00:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been out of town and right now I'm not somewhere where I can look at all these Scholar results. It's probably going to take a while to evaluate large numbers of them. In the meantime, I'll ask you this - if we do end up agreeing that "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" is the most commonly-used name in reliable sources, would you support changing the article title to that, and having Osho and all of the other terms redirect to it? Nick Number (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

sure, "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" is an appropriate title, failing that "Osho Rajneesh" would be an acceptable compromise. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the Japanese terms seems to also be widely used. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Which term would you suggest is the most common name per WP:UCN? Nick Number (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you not confusing WP:UCN and WP:PT ? UCN says what name to use, plus you can add disambiguation on top of it. PT determines which UCN named article gets the base name. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I misread your first comment to be regarding the title of this article, when you were actually suggesting that this article is not in fact the primary topic on the Osho disambiguation page. In response to that, I'd point out that I didn't find any references to the Japanese terms while disambiguating. Here are the figures for the extant incoming article links: Osho (shogi) - 11, Oshō - 12, Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) - 631. I think it's pretty clear that this is the primary topic. Nick Number (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose not a solution to the disambiguation matter. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was his title for the majority of his career. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As you've reversed your stance a couple of times, I'm unclear - what solution do you support? If the subject was primarily known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh then that should be the article's title and Osho (and all of the other alternate names) should redirect to it. If he was primarily known as Osho then that should be the article's title and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh should redirect to it. As Youreallycan pointed out, the present title is way out of line with usual practices, and it would be much better to pick a single name. Nick Number (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In error, Osho to disam page is my preference. Additionally, the vast majority of scholarly sources have used, and still include, 'Rajneesh' in the title. The name change itself, if you look at certain sources, relates directly to a public relations exercise to distance the guru from the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack (an attempt at historical revisionism). Those involved with the movement, or fans more generally, use Osho, but NRM scholars who study the movement include, at least, Rajneesh in the title. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - being a spiritual person is not a career. The subject is known as, and is increasing in notability under the name Osho and has been known as Osho for the last quarter century - a note in the lede in regard to previous names is more than enough - the current title is like this - Madonna (Ciccone) - Youreallycan 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Every Google search result on the first page is for the mystic. Nick reviewed 43 incoming links to Osho. All of them were referring to Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), except for one which was a "See also" link to the dab. Osho should be about the mystic, with the disambig page on the disambig page. --TheTruthiness (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nick has the numbers right, Youreallycan see that the present title is against normal practice, and TheTruthiness of incoming links is persuasive. ;) --JN466 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where is the consensus in this??? The way you changed it violated several WPs. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree. While there is a lot of legacy literature from the 1970s and 1980s that uses the old name, present-day writing does not. If you look at the Times of India, the ratio is something like 1000 to 1. 26,600 for Osho 9 for Shree Rajneesh. Article naming guidelines ask us to use current names, not former ones. Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid. --JN466 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth? I don't see that any consensus was reached here. It was a draw. The present title is ridiculous. While it's true that he was known as Bhagwan Rajneesh for most of his career, he is more commonly known as Osho. So as per WP:COMMONNAME, the title of this article ought to be Osho. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 06:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in your circles, not in mine. I checked among my family and friends. All of them remember 'Bhagwan' or 'Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh'. None of them has any recollection of any 'Osho', let alone of this man changing his name into 'Osho'. 77.250.202.97 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of this article ought to be "Osho"

I completely agree that the title of this article ought to be "Osho". It took me a long time searching for him in wikipedia under his famous name "Osho". Please change the title of this article to "Osho", or at least include it in the title. -- 178.61.139.162 (talk · contribs) on 14 July 2012‎ at 20:44, 20:46 and 20:47 (UTC)

The redirect called Osho has been there for two months, so it's clear you didn't actually spend any time searching here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have the right to respond in an objective manner, but to claim (indirectly)that I lied is outside the boundaries of an objective response and it is unethical. It is sad that someone like you with such qualities writes in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.139.162 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you lied, I'm saying you didn't bother to look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being too snippy. It's just that you said, "It took me a long time searching for him in wikipedia under his famous name 'Osho'." I don't understand why that would be. If you type "Osho" into the search box, you should find it immediately. In any case, I think the primary name issue has been debated at length, and you should check the archives to see the reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, you do a search for "Osho" and come to some guy called Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, which at first glance is something completely different... you know they are the same person, but most of the world has no idea. jalal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete information about works of Osho

Osho is the most prolific author having written more than 650 books on various subjects. selected works section is missing critical informations, like his most famous books From sex to superconsiousnessItalic text, The Inner Journey, The New Alchemy, To Turn You On--Karsolene (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Free downloadable ebooks are available in www.oshoworld.com and Messagefrommasters.com, which are copyright free and fall under wiki commons policy, providing those links are helpful for readers.--Karsolene (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) this is Where I am providing links for those who say that my claim is unsourced

• http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Beloved_Osho_Books/Meditation/The_Inner_Journey.pdf
• http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/Osho_Books.htm

Regarding copyrights of osho's works, one may check this link http://oshorajneesh.net/osho-copyrights-information.pdf --Karsolene (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User Yworo's deletion from this article

Yworo (talk · contribs) has deleted the category Dharmic writers from this article. First of all he shouldn't be doing this during the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_1#Template:Modern_Dharmic_writers , since removing links to the deletion discussion may have skewed it. Secondly, he should not base his decision on categories on the content of a wikipedia article, but on the life and writings of the person under question. --Trphierth (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CAT: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." In this case, a source should be provide that shows that the subject is generally considered a "Dharmic writer" by reliable sources. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You should by now have learned the difference between wikipedia guidelines and wikipedia policies. The guidelines must be followed by common sense and by consensus.

I can find many Hindu writers who are not explicitly named and sourced as Hindu writers but who nevertheless are Hindu writers. For example, the article on Yogananda does not say and source that he is a Hindu writer, but he is in the category. --Trphierth (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)