Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 23 April 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Osho, or anything not directly related to improving the Misplaced Pages article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Osho, or anything not directly related to improving the Misplaced Pages article at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 6, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 2, 2007.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

off2riorob's ideas to improve the article (sourced ).

I have been looking at improving my editing and I hope to have improved..... in the lede it mentions sheela was osho's luitenant!I'm sure I have seen this too.however it was not true.. but was a title given to her by some portions of the press... it was a kind of nickname given to her by some people at the time... sheela,s official position was Osho's secretary which basically put her in total control of everything.

• this article which is part of the orogon history projects refers to her as ...Ma Anand Sheela (also known as Ambalal Patel Sheela, Sheela Silverman, and Sheela Birnstiel) was the personal assistant to Rajneeshee sect leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the highly visible president of the Rajneesh Foundation International when it was based in Oregon from 1981 to 1985. Here she holds the keys to a gift for Rajneesh, a brand new Rolls Royce. The only person who regularly conversed with the Bhagwan, Sheela directed the commune, operating as its spokesperson to the outside world.
• this articlerefers to her as....Ma Anand Sheela (1952-Alive). Personal Secretary to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho), 1981-1985...and here..
• on page 372 sheela is refered to as..."the now silent guru's secretary " and "that she called all the shots".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

 Done, changed "lieutenant" to "second-in-command", per source United States Department of Justice. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

yes thats all good .however fails to include the title from the three links I have presented.I would prefer to see her official title included as well .. so it could read...ma anand sheela , Osho's personal secretary and ....second in command..... I could go with something like that but in fact the command structure was never like that ..the title second in command implies that osho was in command and therefore also implies that he was included in the crimes on this page and implies that osho was the commander and in command of everything whereas although accusations were levelled nothing was ever proved and osho was never implemented in the crimes refered to on this page...so in the story about this crime and this page it is irrelevent as to osho's situation as he was not involved in the crime at all... and issued no commands about it and was never charged with any conspiring about it... so in relevence to the page osho is not the commander at all sheela was the instigator of the conspiracy and the commander of it!Or a comment could be inserted to clear up the situation that although sheela was osho's personal secretary and second in command Osho himself was never implemented as a conspiritor in these crimes (Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) yes that would clear it up! if you want to leave the comment in that sheela was osho's second in command then a phrase should be inserted that clarifies the situation that although sheela was osho's personal secretary and second in command Osho himself was never implemented as a conspiritor in these crimes...as I read it now it appears that osho was commander in this crime (Off2riorob (talk))

 Done, Added info from 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

well all well and good but does not actually resolve my issues with the lede.this is what I think is beneficial to the page! and this is what I would do to improve it from these issues... The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner, the then-United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram.Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Added the recently added info to the lede as well. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

well thats not my point at all.. you have merely added imformation about the bioterror attack which has its own page! and is also not relevent here unless you want to merge the pages? and you are ignoring my request to add sheela's job description..as per my three cites... of personal secretary... and you have left the inferance that osho was the commander..... here is what I feel would benefit the article ....Bhagwan is not a conspirator here is he? ................ The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner, the then-United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram.Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.... please let me know what you disagree with in this.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Changed "second-in-command" to "second-in-command and personal assistant", per source recommended above on this talk page, Oregon Historical Society. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

the inferance that bhagwan was involved is still there! do you have an objection to clearing that up that by inserting the phrase... Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Well, the article certainly does not say he was involved. Do you have a reliable source that explicitly says something about that? Cirt (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

are you really asking me to find you a source that explicitly says that bhagwan was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

the inferance is there in the lede that osho was involved... Osho is mentioned more than once and his high ranking desciples did this.. and his second in command did that ... would it not be an easy way to clear that up by simply inserting the phrase..bhagwan was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy?(Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Well we don't know that this is true - unless you have a reliable source for it. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

from.... The attorney general said when he was asked why Osho was not accused of the same crimes as Sheela that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes.” And “all we wanted was to dismantle the commune”. And he forgot to add that the complaint that lead to Sheela ´s arrest was filed by Osho himself.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

That certainly is quite interesting - got anything better than a blogspot.com source? Cirt (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

well...when I saw the quote I did remember it and mr thompson is quite a reliable chappie..I'll go and find it...but to be quite honest the phrase I want to insert .."bhagwan was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy" is actually a matter of common knowledge ... do you think that bhagwan was charged with involvment in the conspiracy to murder mr turner?(Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The quote......The attorney general said when he was asked why Osho was not accused of the same crimes as Sheela that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes.” And “all we wanted was to dismantle the commune” is from a press conference given by turner and it is quoted in the book "passage to america" by max brechert.

Brecher, Max (1993), A Passage to America, Bombay: Book Quest Publishers .ISBN ASIN B0000CP5CF.

if you are ok with that....I'll decide what to insert and where to insert it later as I have an apointment. regards.(Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner, the then-United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command , Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram.Osho himself was never accused of any involvement in the conspiricy. Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes” .Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure that this book meets WP:RS - can you tell me anything about this "Book Quest Publishers"? Also, a search of that quote you mentioned above appears to only lead to pro-Osho websites, not sure how reliable that is either. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

well the book is a WP:RS and is quoted on more than one page here ..without dispute...as a reliable source.the ISBN...is there for you to have a look at..so ...there you go.. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

do you have anything to dispute my source? do you have anything that says that Osho was involved or that osho was a conspirator in these crimes? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I am having trouble finding information on the book - you have given what appears to be some other sort of ID, which is not an ISBN number. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have reverted my edits which I have applied with good faithbook referances I have been told are highly valued on wiki! and I have supplied cites which are in use on other wiki pages without any dispute. I would ask you with good faith to revert back to my cited edit untill you have found your information(Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

in my opinion you are attempting to create an edit war as you have no reply to my cited edits..and I ask you again to revert to my sourced edits.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Again: I am having trouble finding any information about this book or its publisher. Can you please provide some information on the talk page supporting your assertion that it should be treated as a reliable source? Cirt (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

this book is quoted without dispute and used as reliable source on two other wikipedia pages. I ask you again unless you have reliable source to dispute my source to please revert to my edit (Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) - There is no need to yell at me in edit summaries using exclamation points. Saying the book is used on other Misplaced Pages pages is circular logic, not the best argument. Has the book been reviewed anywhere by a book review publication (example Publishers Weekly) ? Does the book's publisher have a reputation for editorial review, publishing other noteworthy publications? Cirt (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

how to go forward with this?

{{RFCpolicy| section=how to go forward with this? !! reason=a cited book is disputed.!! time= 01:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) }}

I have cited a book that is also cited elsewhere on wikipedia as a reliable source and here cirt is resisting the reliability of the book .. what can I do ? .. the book is there the isn no is there?? only cirt refuses to accept it .. ? what more can I do?(Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

here is the book..Brecher, Max (1993), A Passage to America, Bombay: Book Quest Publishers .ISBN ASIN B0000CP5CF.

and here are the other Misplaced Pages pages where it is quoted as a RS.. Ma Anand Sheela and Osho

(Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

There is no need to start an RFC about this. I would suggest WP:RSN, if you are agreeable to it I will open a thread there. Okay? Cirt (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Has this book been reviewed anywhere by a reliable source?
2. Is there any information about the book's publisher "Book Quest Publishers"?

Cirt (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And as for the argument by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) that this source is used in other wiki articles, please see our verifiability policy, specifically Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_cite_Wikipedia: "the Misplaced Pages article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used" - note "can be checked and used". Read: has not been checked. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am quite new here and have been told that book cites are very valued here on wiki ..so..cirt was asking me to find a quote and when I found one he is only saying it's no good!what is that all about?(Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

and I thought from reading what wiki was about .. that you should never remove cite only add to them and cite is good! I read that somewhere here ! and if it is cited I agree with it. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

the quote I want to add is a real quote from a real book and is only one opinion that I want to insert ..verified..and any one else can also insert the other opinion as long as it is a verifyable comment...the more comments the better..or have I got it wrong? (Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Please see WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. - Please answer my questions above about this source. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No feedback from RFC .....so I have put a request for comment on WP:RSN I am not shouting at you by putting a exclamation mark in my comments ..but perhaps no exclamation marks is a wp policy guidline that I have not yet come across yet.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

meanwhile I am researching the book and writing to people to discover more.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Please answer my above specific questions about the source. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Update from RSN

Consensus at RSN is that this is not a reliable source, but instead a fringe conspiracy theory POV type source. Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#1985Rajneeshee_assassination_plot.. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the page title.

I was looking at the page title and it would be better if the title was a reflection of the crime so it would be better if "plot" was removed and replaced with "conspiracy".Plot reminds me of guy falkes and the gunpowder plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This information and wording is as per WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

reliable source.

here I have found the same quotes from the same guy in another book.have a look and let me know if you are happy with it. ....regarding that there was no evidence to link Bhagwan to the crime. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) specifically page 17.(Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Osho himself was never accused of any involvement in the conspiracy. Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes” (Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Osho Rajaneesh and His Disciples - I question whether this source meets WP:RS. Here are some questions - who is the author? Where did he get his information? Was the book ever reviewed by any book review publications? Does the book's publisher have editorial review? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

wp:rsAveling, Harry (ed.) (1999), Osho Rajneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-1599-8 . (Includes studies by Susan J. Palmer, Lewis F. Carter, Roy Wallis, Carl Latkin, Ronald O. Clarke and others previously published in various academic journals.)(Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

You have not answered my above questions. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The section in page 17 is written by a "Charles Newman (Swami Devageet)". Does not sound like a neutral or reliable source. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

this.. is a totally reliable and verifyable {{WP:RS]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Let's take a look at the first paragraph of this essay written by this "Charles Newman (Swami Devageet)":

Chapter Two - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: A New Man for All Seasons - Charles Newman (Swami Devageet)

---

Religion is a neglected phenomenon for most people today. Our experience of the organised religions show them to be political organisations using theological language, and as such, to be hollow shams, riddled with lies and hypocrisy. Their terrible emptiness has so conditioned us that to even mention words like God, Truth, and Grace, is enough to make us yawn and turn to the other channel. If we are really pushed, then we will defend the beliefs of our parents, calling them 'our religion', but knowing them to be an embarassing collection of superstitious nonsense utterly out of place in any modern society.

Reads like a POV essay from a follower of the movement (which it is). No footnotes. No end of Chapter notes or sources. Not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

a group of high ranking followers.....

I was wondering about this "group". how big was it? was it a big group or a small group? compared to the number of people attending rajneeshpuram. what percentage of the rajneeshees actually knew anything about the conspiracy?(Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

I would say ...( I am looking for cites) that it was a small isolated group of rajneeshees..some of which held positions of power in rajneeshpuram ( headed by sheela ) but that the vast majority of rajneeshees (99%)had no involvment at all in this conspiracy.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

in the lede... (i'm looking for sites for this .. although it is a matter of common knowledge) the small isolated group was led by ma anand sheela.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

This information and wording is as per WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the name given to the disiples of Osho..

from the Rajneeshee page..the wording rajneeshee for disiples seems to be under question? lots of citations needed....

"Rajneeshee" refers to the disciples of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, popularized by the United States press during the 1980s. Disciples prefer to use the traditional Indian word sannyasin.

In 1984, a bioterrorist attack involving salmonella typhimurium contamination in the salad bars of 10 restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon, was traced to a few members of the group. This was a trial run for a planned bioterrorism attack via contaminating the municipal water supply on local election day. The Rajneeshee had put up their own local candidates for the election, intending to seize control of the county and local communities. They had previously succeeded in dominating the city council of Antelope, Oregon (Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

This information and wording is as per WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

disputed press conference...searching for WP:RS about this....

On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.

Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh".

" We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after".(Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

is this a [[WP:RS}} On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh".(Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) can I use this comment from Turner yet? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

what have I got to do to use this quote.. ? if I say it myself in front of the Queen of england and god and Brian Clough and my great great great grandfather. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Source please? It appears you are quoting something out of one of these non-reliable books mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the source is .. On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal.I will verify this ..in time .. I am gonna look for whatever is required. deeper and deeper .(Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

if I say it myself in front of the Queen of england and god and Brian Clough and my great great great grandfather. - this language is not helpful or constructive. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

The following passage in the "Mercy for expat in US kill plot" article appears to have the timeline back to front:

Prosecutors alleged the group planned to gun down Mr Turner after he was appointed to head an investigation of the cult's activities on its 26000ha ranch near Antelope, in Oregon. The probe focused on sham marriages intended to circumvent immigration requirements on foreigners within the 7000-strong flock, wiretapping and an intentional salmonella poisoning of a nearby town.

Our article dates the origin of the plot to May 1985. The investigation of wiretapping in the commune and its involvement in the salmonella outbreak only began in September 1985, after the authorities gained access to Rajneeshpuram. (They had no evidence or reason to suspect wiretapping prior to the September press conferences.)

Of course, Turner had been investigating Rajneeshpuram for some time, trying to find evidence of illegality. He focused on immigration-related matters (Gordon, p. 209). The May 1985 murder plot was a response to these prior investigations (cf. FitzGerald, Cites on a Hill, p. 373). The 35-count grand jury indictment that Turner issued in October 1985 was all about immigration (ibid., p. 364).

The passages in our article affected by this are these:

Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command , Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.

Prosecutors in the case stated that the perpetrators had planned to murder Turner after he was appointed to head an investigation into the group's activities in Rajneeshpuram, Oregon. Turner's investigation focused on sham marriages organized by the group, as well as other illegal activities including wiretapping, immigration fraud, and the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon.

I propose we drop the explicit mention of wiretapping and the bioterror attack in describing the illegal activities Turner was investigating at the time the plot was hatched and reflect that these investigations were focused on immigration matters. Thoughts? Jayen466 12:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The investigation focused on multiple different aspects of illegal activities at the ranch, including wiretapping, sham marriages, illegal immigration offenses, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder of public officials and law enforcement, and the planning and carrying out of bioterror attacks. These all deserve at the least a mention in the article. Please do not remove sourced information from this article. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

the investigation was not into anything specific was it..the investigation was described as an investigation into illegal activities on the ranch ....the other crimes were discovered during the investigation..in fact they had no idea what was happening ..as I have quoted from turner the objective was the closure of the rajneeshpuram.All the evidence was gathered by offering of immunity against prosecution.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

The current wording is appropriate and backed up to multiple reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the wiretapping was only discovered after mid-September, when the perpetrators had already left. Turner was not investigating the bioterror attack before September (investigations had concluded earlier that year that food handlers were to blame, as reported in the NYT), he was investigating immigration offences for the grand jury indictment. It does not matter an awful lot, because certainly all these things were investigated eventually. Just a timeline thing. When I get some spare time I'll check through the relevant sources and report back to you. Cheers, Jayen466 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, note that I did not remove the mention of the bioterror investigation. It needs to be mentioned, because it was in the course of that investigation that this present plot was discovered. But that is the correct place to mention it, not in the description of what Turner was doing at the time the plot was hatched against him in spring '85. Jayen466 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here some quick press sources: New York Times: "plotting to kill Charles Turner, who had led a grand jury investigation that brought charges of widespread immigration fraud against a commune in Oregon."

New York Times: "Mr. Turner, who since has retired, led a grand jury investigation that resulted in charges of widespread immigration fraud at the Bhagwan's commune in central Oregon."

New York Times: "The evesdropping scheme, uncovered after the departure Sept. 15 of the Indian guru's former personal secretary, Ma Anand Sheela, was "without precedent in the District of Oregon," United States Attorney Charles H. Turner, said in announcing the five-count conspiracy indictment.

Trust me, I am not trying to have you remove references to the wiretapping and bioterror from this article. They can all be mentioned in their appropriate place, and it's perfectly proper to mention them. It's just about getting the facts and the timeline right. Jayen466 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Added info, cites, The New York Times . Cirt (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. And thanks for the changes. I think there is still a problem with this passage in the lede: "... assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages." At the time when the assassination plot was hatched (spring 85), Turner was investigating immigration-related matters only. The investigations concerning the bioterror attack and wiretapping only began after the group's departure in September (see e.g. the third NY Times quote above). Those are the facts as I see them, based on my reading of the sources. Do you agree, or did your reading of the sources lead you to different conclusions? Jayen466 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages." -- Yes, this sentence is factually accurate and supported by multiple sources. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is factually correct when viewed by itself. But look at it again in context:

"Rajneesh's personal secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.

I think most readers will come away from this thinking that Turner was investigating the bioterror attack and the charges of wiretapping at the time the assassination was planned, and that his investigation of these matters was the main reason for the planned assassination. That is all I am saying. In spring 85, Turner was not investigating the bioterror attack, nor the wiretapping. Jayen466 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reordered sentence structure . Cirt (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

biographies of involved parties.verification of sources.

hi there jayen .perhaps you could assist me in getting this quote accepted here. .do you know of any more sources for these quotes so I can get them accepted as reliable here? these...I have written to the original sources asking for confirmation ..and am awaiting replies.. On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh"." We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after"

or also do you know if Frohnmayer or turner or meese who I have found some stuff about have written biographies perhaps revealing intimacies around this conspiracy.especially turner...meese had to resign in the end over corruption charges... (Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

As I pointed out at RS/N, there are sources like this one which say that Osho was not charged in relation to this crime, or the bioterror attack. As for the other stuff, can you really blame the US government for wishing to destroy the commune? People in that commune poisoned 750 people, nearly killing a newborn baby in the process, and poisoned and plotted to kill several US government officials. Thanks, I wouldn't want such people in my neighbourhood either. At any rate, all of that is a wider topic that does not belong in this article. Jayen466 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this book mentioned by jayen a WP:RS. a reliable source ? this one. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Added info, cite, 2006 book: Terrorism on American Soil: A Concise History of Plots and Perpetrators from the Famous to the Forgotten . Cirt (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

dear cirt.please allow me to insert my edits that I have spent time on and searched around for and worked on .. you seem to think that you are the only person able to edit this page. this source was presented to the page by jayen in reference to a comment that I wanted to insert in the lede to remove the inferance in the lede that Osho was behind this crime.You disputed that undeniable fact and now when I ask about the WP;RS status of the book you realise the game is up and to further control the article insert the fact lower down the page.I still want the comment inserted in the lede ..this .."Osho himself was never charged with any involvent with the conspiracy to murder Turner". and I also want to further cite the book to remove the inferance in the lede that it was Osho's sannyasin in general that were involved in this crime ..to explain that I want to insert ..." a small isolated group of disiples". I want to insert it ..I don't want you to insert it . Or shall we just remove the inferance? I think that you disputing the undeniable fact that Osho was not involved in this crime and now a couple of days later inserting it is a reflection of the energy you are editing this page with.(Off2riorob (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Added the info from source Terrorism on American Soil to the lede as well . Cirt (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

you are not listening to me at all are you .I find your attitude personally upsetting. I have spent a lot of time searching for cites to edit the article and I have been told it best to discuss my proposed changes on the talk page and you are not allowing me the respect of editing the page ..you even have the gall to insert comments worked on by me after you recently disputed an undeniable fact and removed my edits , if you want to improve the article then spend some of your own time researching ..how would you feel if you spent time researching and writing to people and then you discussed the cites on the talk page ..as requested.. and then I jumped up and used your hard work to gazump your edit..after I had repeatedly disputed and denied your undeniable fact..you would think I was having a laugh .wouldn't you(Off2riorob (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC). (Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Your comments are not constructive or conducive to a positive discussion. Please focus on discussing the article's content, not individual contributors. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding the extradions from uk of hagan and croft...

have you seen this ..a letter from uk regarding issues regarding these parties being unable to get a fair trial in orogan and regarding the reservations regarding the evidence against them being all from offering plea immunities... ](Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

whole story is ...page is from here ] could I insert this regarding doubts about chances of a fair trial in orogon and would it be a WP:RS if it was written by the british goverment? (Off2riorob (talk))

This certainly is most interesting, the other is a primary source document, not sure about that one. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

does anyone dispute this statement?

I am harping on about this as I feel it would be a benefit to the page...so ..In the lede Osho is mentioned more than once and I feel that this creates an inferance that he was involved ... in the lede it mentions that the conspiritors were all high ranking disciples of the guru ..and so on .. infering guilt by association so to clarify this I want to insert in the lede..this ...Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy charges. ....using this as a general guideline........if you want to add information, and the info is debatable, then you should (and could be required to), include a reference to verify that claim.. this information is in my opinion not debatable.....so..does anyone dispute the comment ..Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

This continued posting of this exact same point by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is disruptive and in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. He has posted this comment:

1. Here on this talk page, multiple times , , , , , ,
2. At Misplaced Pages:Help desk , where he got a very clear answer from User:Ched Davis
3. At WP:RSN , consensus was against User:Off2riorob and the poor unreliable sources he cited

Please stop this disruptive behavior and violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont mean to be disruptive ..to explain myself ..I did ask a question on help as I felt I needed it and User:Ched Davis.commented and I have quoted him here and I have used his advice and I am not citing anything at all ..this is a new stance ...completely new and I have just asked you the question ..do you dispute the statement? ...Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy! and you haven't answered me ? it's not a cite ..it's an indisputable comment that as I understand from what Ched said doesnt need a cite ..if you dont dispute it..As a relatively new editorI would appreciate it if you would rather assist me than see my good faith /stumbling as disruptive.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

You are distorting the advice that was given to you. You were instructed that if the info is debatable it does need a cite. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a comment about your behavior by an admin on your talk page. Please read WP:FORUMSHOP, and stop this disruption and repeating this (asked and answered) argument again and again and again. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

yes if it is debatable it needs a cite..that is what User:Chzz Ched Davis said ...and you have not answered that question... do you dispute this statement?..Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy. I promise if you answer I will never mention the subject again.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes. Now please keep your word. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rajneeshee linked in article

moving forward.. I read on wikipedia that one link per paragraph is fine. as rajneeshee is in the title then once in the article is not over-linked so my linking to the rajneeshee page is o.k.and you did not need to revert it ..my edit adding the link was beneficial to the article.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

There is no need to have something in the See also section that is linked to higher above in the article. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh

We mention in the very first sentence of the article that Rajneesh is now referred to as "Osho" - let's keep the rest of the nomenclature uniform as Rajneesh throughout the article. Cirt (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not good English

this;" Rajneesh was himself not prosecuted in relation to this conspiracy," is not good English and is confusing as to who the person actually is . (Off2riorob (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)0

Rajneesh needs to be linked as it is confusing as to whois actualy rajneesh . (Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually it is grammatically correct wording. Cirt (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh is already linked in the first instance of the appearance in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking every instance of a word in an article would definitely be WP:OVERLINKING. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The lede is quite long ,there are three paragraphs in the lede and it is confusing as to who all the people are , you have rajneesh and rajneeshees and bhagwan sree rajneesh and it helps to clarify who rajneesh is if that name is also linked .For clarity in the lede Rajneesh should also be linked to Osho.

This phrase is not written well " Rajneesh was himself not prosecuted in relation to this conspiracy," and reads better as I have changed it too this " was never prosecuted in relation to this conspiracy". (Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

No, the phrase is fine as is. It is especially good keeping in mind the prior sentence which describes that perpetrators were prosecuted in the conspiracy. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed "himself". Cirt (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to make the article clearer and easier to understand and you revert and resist any changes. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Incorrect, for example . Cirt (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

this ..Rajneesh is already linked in the first instance of the appearance in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) is incorrect and the first time rajneesh is refered to is in the lede . so to clarify whois rajneesh it needs to be linked to Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

The term is linked already in the first paragraph, so there is no need to link to it, again, in the third paragraph. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion As I understand it, there are two points at dispute here. First is the phrasing of the final sentence of the lead. It seems to me that "Rajneesh himself was not..." flows better than "Rajneesh was himself not...", but I really can't see it as that big a deal, and the "himself" has been removed altogether now anyway (were both of you happy with that change?) The second matter is whether the name "Rajneesh" should be linked in this sentence. I can see no reason to do this, as the name is already linked elsewhere in the lead section, and the guidelines on linking are quite clear that you should not do that. It seems clear to me from reading it who is being referred to here, but, if there is any doubt, I would suggest that that should be fixed by rephrasing the sentence, not by adding a link. Anaxial (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done , thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Followers

Verifiable, reliable sources refer to the perpetrators in the assassination plot as "followers" of Rajneesh. Thus, this wording is appropriate for usage in this article, as opposed to jargon internal to the Rajneesh organization that the reader will not understand, and that is not used by reliable sources to refer to the perpetrators. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean the reader will not understand ..we have a page with the title Neo sannyasin and I linked it to that page .Do we have a page with the title Follower.Your editing here and the article (your article) is nothing more than a reflection of your personal point of view expressed here through your chosen reliable anti sources.Have a look yourself and see which word better explains these people Follower is a rubbish word to define these people , a weasle word used to add weight to your personal point of view I would like to see your sources and I wll go find some sources that refer to them as Neo sannyasin their real definition . I expect nothing more of you when only recently you replied with a outright falsehood when I asked you this question :- do you dispute this statement?..Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy. You replied :- Yes. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) This is an example of your personal point of view , you vigorously resisted me inserting this fact as you vigorously resist the insertion of any facts that distract from you personal point of view.(Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

The fact remains that reliable sources describing the assassination plot and the perpetrators refer to the conspirators and criminals as "followers" of Rajneesh, and we should follow the model used in these reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh ultimately pleaded guilty to immigration fraud

• McCann, Joseph T. (2006). Terrorism on American Soil: A Concise History of Plots and Perpetrators from the Famous to the Forgotten. Sentient Publications. p. 157. ISBN 1591810493. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh ultimately pleaded guilty to immigration fraud and agreed to pay a $400,000 fine. He left the United States and agreed not to re-enter the country without the permission of the U.S. Attorney General. For a period of time after leaving the United States, the Bhagwan had considerable difficulty finding a country that would accept him. Nevertheless, he was never prosecuted for any of the more serious crimes perpetrated by cult members, including the salmonella poisoning.

Cirt (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecstasy - the forgotten language

Stalin is death, and your priests have been death, representatives of death not of God.

I represent life. Your priests have been in conspiracy with death and they have crippled life. Your priests talk about God, but it seems they are partners with the devil. A great conspiracy.... And they have destroyed the whole human mind. They have uprooted you from your feeling part; they have made you hang in your head. Now you don't know how you feel; that's why you cannot trust your feeling and you have always to look to somebody to tell you what to do. In the childhood the parents go on telling you do this and don't do that. Then in the school, the teacher; then in the university, the professor; then in the society, the boss, the politician, the leader. Everywhere you are being told what to do and what not to do. And you are always seeking somebody to dominate you so that you can become dependent. Because you don't know how to get commandments from your own heart, from your own being, you always depend on some authority outside.

This is ugly, this is miserable, this should not be.

I am not an authority here. At the most a midwife, but not an authority. I can help you to be reborn, but I cannot dominate you, I cannot dictate things to you. You hanker for it. People come to me and they say, "Osho, tell us exactly what we have to do." But why can't you listen to your own heart? You have life bubbling inside you. The spring is there, the source is there. Go in. I can tell you how to go in, I can teach you the devices for how to go in, but take your commandments from there. There is the Bible inside you -- the REAL book, the Veda, the real knowledge. Get your instructions from there, and once you start getting your instructions from your innermost core, you will be a free man and a happy man. A free man is happy; an unfree man is never happy. You are not meant to be slaves. You are meant to be masters. That's why I call my sannyasins "swami"; swami means a master, one who has taken his reins in his own hands. (Osho, Ecstasy, the Forgotten Language, Chapter 6 16 December 1976)

This is your "leader", Cirt, Rob.... Love, Laughter and Liberty to all ! Redheylin (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM. 2nd notice about these inappropriate sorts of comments. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this quotation is not included here as an advocacy but as a primary source demonstration of the faultiness of other sources which assume an overall religious command-structure. Please ensure that sources state clearly that any position of charge was not simply in relation to the particular commune at Oregon. It is not disputed that these people were executives of the commune - in fact, I pointed out that one cannot be a director and a "second in command", so the article is self-contradictory. The latter also requires some statement that "Osho was in command" to back it - it implies it without stating. In fact it is merely a wrong statement backed with a falsified reference that actually gives a correct account. Cirt has inserted the misleading statements and it is up to him to cite and to admit counterstatements. Redheylin (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the above quote does indeed seem like advocacy. It is not directly relevant to this article, and is not a WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It can stand as a source when self-reporting, but it is better to find similar material third party. This is just so you get the idea how easy this will be. Redheylin (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again: Not relevant, and not really a reliable source for anything. Per WP:SELFPUB, it may be something that could be quoted at the page about the individual himself, Osho. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note: all sources for "high-ranking" appear to be rewrites of the AP release, which in turn will be trumped by an academic source. Why are you bothering with this duplication when you have been notified that your present sources fail to back your POV?Redheylin (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

all sources for "high-ranking" appear to be rewrites of the AP release - says who? Cirt (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

me Redheylin (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Statements by Redheylin on Misplaced Pages = not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are contending that editors have no right to question sources? That sources are required for sources? And I am speaking to an editor who is reverting others to maintain that his sources say what they do not say? You have 24hrs.Redheylin (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited for "high-ranking followers" are all from different years, and include books, and different news publications. Not the same Associated Press release. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

High-ranking followers

1. Associated Press (December 17, 2000). "Ex-Cult Members Plead To Charges". The Columbian. The Columbian Publishing Co. p. C5. By pleading guilty Friday, Sally-Anne Croft and Susan Hagan canceled international warrants for their arrest that effectively confined them to Great Britain. ... U.S. District Judge Malcolm F. Marsh gave the women both previously high-ranking cult officials suspended probationary sentences Friday. Marsh said the women had led meaningful lives since they were released from federal prison in April 1998 after serving time for conspiring to kill the former U.S. attorney for Oregon, Charles Turner.
2. Painter Jr., John (July 29, 1994). "Years Later, Wasco Still Sees Red". The Oregonian. Oregonian Publishing Co. p. A1. The 'they' Morgan refers to are Sally Ann Croft, 44, and Susan Hagan, 46, two former high-ranking disciples of the late Indian guru. They arrived Thursday morning in Portland to face a federal conspiracy charge that they schemed to kill the U.S. attorney in Portland almost a decade ago.
3. The Dallas Morning News staff (November 12, 1988). "Guru's Ranch To Be Sold At Auction". The Dallas Morning News. The Dallas Morning News Company. p. 42A. The controversial commune collapsed in late 1985 amid revelations that the guru and some high-ranking disciples were involved in criminal acts, including attempted murder and arson. Rajneesh was subsequently deported, and several members of his inner circle were convicted and sent to prison. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Hogan, Dave (July 11, 1995). "Follower Testifies She Would Do Anything For Rajneesh". The Oregonian. Oregonian Publishing Co. p. B03. Ava Avalos was willing to do anything for Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Anything included plotting to kill people, she testified Monday. Avalos told a federal court jury that she was part of a hit team that was assigned to kill then-U.S. Attorney Charles Turner in 1985. ...She testified all day Monday during the trial of Sally-Anne Croft and Susan Hagan, two high-ranking Rajneeshee followers charged with conspiring to kill Turner.
5. Crutchfield, James A. (2007). It Happened in Oregon: From the birth of Crater Lake to the gruesome Kalawatset massacre, thirty-four events that shaped the history of the Beaver State. Globe Pequot. p. 113. ISBN 0762744812. ...high-ranking Rajneeshee officials were also indicted on various charges including attempted murder.
6. The Spokesman-Review staff (July 11, 1995). "ajneeshees' Plot To Kill Detailed". The Spokesman-Review. p. B3. Two former high-ranking Rajneeshees, Sally-Anne Croft and Susan Hagan, are on trial in U.S. District Court on charges of conspiring to kill Turner.

Please do not post in this subsection, this is just for listing the sources. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: High-ranking followers

Template:RFChist

Use of phrase "High-ranking followers" to describe conspirators of 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Off2riorob

Regarding this statement from the lede.... The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner,

It s my opinion that here the reality is not portrayed . There were thousands of followers and many followers were in positions of rank .. to use this phrase in the article without numbers portrays a falsehood ..There were six or eight people involved in this conspiracy to commit a crime . There is no evidence at all that any of the other thousands of people were involved . The comment that I have quoted here portays an untruth and is not reflected as a factual reality. Numbers should be inserted to portray the reality that only 6 to 8 people were charged in this crime and thousands were not accused or charged or involved. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

this as I have previously requested should be honestly portrayed as what it was .. A small isolated group of..... was a conspiracy of a small isolated group of followers of Bhagwan shree rajneesh now known as Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

I request the insertion of the expression of " a small isolated group" to portray the facts and to remove the pov portraying statement that is without any figures .. ( how many high ranking followers! and what percentage of followers was this .. basically its facts and figures that are missing here ) . (Off2riorob (talk))

Reply to comments

I imagine the issue was never considered in the review only the sources . Reliable sources is important however we are still responsible to portray thr facts honestly. Looking at the lede and reading it , it is impossible to know if the conspiracy involved all the rajneesheees or 100 or ten , there requires some clarification of this matter. I feel the lede has been left vague and this vagueness is unnessesary . The figures are I think that cirt has here are 8 otr 7 one was not charged , so a figure should be inserted . Many people only read the lede and never get any further. This for me is actually less about the fact that they were high ranking followers and more about the fact that if you read the lede you have no idea about the numbers at all. It is possible to read the lede and conclude that every rajneeshee was involved. (Off2riorob (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by Jayen466

I can't honestly say I find the sentence misleading. The people involved were the most high-ranking followers of Rajneesh at the time. If there are sources available, I would not be averse to adding how many exactly were part of the conspiracy (I think it was 6 or 8), but I think it is implicit in the phrase "high-ranking followers" that the number was small. It's also problematic to describe the followers in question as an isolated group, much as it would be problematic to describe any nation's government as an "isolated group" within the body of its people whenever such a government commits criminal acts without the knowledge of its constituency. The fact is that sannyasins accepted criminal people – or at least people who turned into criminals – as their leaders. While these leaders clearly had secrets which they kept from others, they were not "isolated" in any meaningful sense of the word. Jayen466 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

they were isolated in the fact of this consiracy. They commited this crime in isolation. did they not? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict.) No jayen that is not the point. Are you accusing the people here of having a responsability in in its undemocrativly appointed representatives?

In that all the people of a democatly elected goverment are responsible for it's actions...In a court of law ? This is your opinion and not backed up by any facts.. You cannot do this . You cannot hold any of them responsible in any way.... There were 6 to 8 people involved in this crime out of thousands that had no idea about it at all .. and these people had not voted for anybody at all .. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by Cirt

Support using the phrase "high-ranking followers" to describe the perpetrators that conspired in the 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. Please see above source list, Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#High-ranking_followers. This phrase is highly supported by its usage in multiple reliable verifiable sources independent of the article's subject. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by Peteforsyth

I would first note that this article has been through a Good article evaluation, indicating that an independent editor has endorsed a version of this article. While it's possible this issue was not considered, it's safe to assume that the article lead was read carefully in the process; so I believe that adds some weight to maintaining the status quo.

Apart from that, I agree with Jayen and Cirt that I simply can't understand how the current phrasing gives any false impression (either that the group was bigger than it was, or that it was representative of the whole Rajneeshee population). I don't see any problem with leaving the text as is; I also don't see any problem with adding more specific numbers, if they can be established through reliable sources. (I don't think using a vague or subjective word like "small" group would be a good idea, though.) -Pete (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) - The very first subsection of the article already included the number of perpetrators convicted of the conspiracy to commit assassination. I have included this in the lede as well . Cirt (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Momoricks

The truth or falseness of the term "high-ranking followers" (or the rest of the article, for that matter) is irrelevant per the verifiability policy. The article exceeds the policy requirements by providing several reliable sources that use the term "high-ranking". As Peteforsyth stated above, a version of the article that includes the term met the good article criteria. I support keeping the wording as is. momoricks (make my day) 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit by Off2riorob not supported by sources

- this edit by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) changes the article's meaning, and is not supported by sources. The sources state that seven followers of Rajneesh were convicted, but refers to the perpetrators as "high-ranking followers". There may have been other followers involved in the plot that were not convicted in the end of the actual charge of conspiracy to assassinate a United States Attorney, so best to leave the wording as is, as supported by existing sources. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is more appropriate for the lede to flow chronologically, and list the number of those convicted in the paragraph discussing the convictions. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're correct about the edits, but I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that they were POV-pushing. Please, let's focus on the quality of the content of the article, and avoid speculating about one another's motives. -Pete (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

this section is not about the high ranking followers

the original title of the request for assistance . has been changed . this heading is my point not "high ranking" altering this has altered the emphasis of this discussion . Regarding the comments by cirt , your attacks are totally unfounded , please stop now. and rather than refracting an apology would be in order. My wanting to insert a simple fact can not be described as pov pushing . Cirt has reverted my edit and the edit was so simple and so easy and so correct ....here it is and youll see it is imformative clear and correct and removes any vagueness.......

The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by eight high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner,

cirt if as you claim that other rajneeshees were also involved then you should find some reliable sources if not it should be made clear. I can only think by resisting the insertion of a simple truth that you don't want to clear the issue you actually as you have said want to infer that other rajneeshees were involved .. as is your pov you have stated , you should provide reliable sources to insert this and not rather as you are doing now which is delibrately leaving the issue without clarification , in a desire to have the article express you pov which you have stated today is that you believe that other rajneeshees were involved but not charged . You also stated to me that Rajneesh was involved and after a lot of resistance from you I managed to insert the clarification that rajneesh was never charged with any involvment in this crime. You resisted that insertion as you resist this one as it is against you stated opinion.

The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by eight high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner,

this is all I want inserted to clarify ..one little word and it is clear..eight. The facts are clear and their imo is no excuse not to do it.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

to quote cirt "There may have been other followers involved in the plot that were not convicted in the end of the actual charge of conspiracy to assassinate a United States Attorney, so best to leave the wording as is, as supported by existing sources". this statement here from cirt .. is this something that you believe cirt or do you have reliable sources citing this? Are you resisting the insertion of simple clarifying facts to help portray your opinion or belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

The lede states clearly in the paragraph about the prosecution that eight members were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. As the amount of other high-ranking Rajneeshees is unclear, it is best to leave the wording in this section of the lede. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, the 2nd paragraph also lists out some of those Rajneeshees involved in the murder conspiracy. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...where are your cites to back up your opinion that other rajneeshees were involved. Either insert them or allow me to simply clear up the vagueness by adding facts and figures. You can't delibrately leave the lede vague in the desire to portray your stated opinion. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

The article itself describes how other members were involved, and yet some were convicted of other crimes though not directly convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

where are your cites then cirt to back up your declared opinion . who are these other conspiritors in this conspiracy? and how many of them were they and why weren't they charged.? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Have you read the entirety of this article itself? Cirt (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, might there be merit in referring to a "group" of high-ranking followers? References to such a group can be found in Latkin ("a secretive group had masterminded a series of criminal activities"), FitzGerald ("she and her group planned ...") and Carter ("This group was later linked by testimony to a variety of plans which were never completely executed") for example, and I believe there are other sources. Carter and FitzGerald also refer to a "dirty tricks" unit/squad set up by Sheela. Jayen466 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done . Cirt (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromise. great. how big was this "group" are there any names of this "group" that are not already listed here? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Cirt. please don't do that until concensus has been seen. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob, we do have a reference to "prosecution of the conspirators", they are listed by name, we refer to eight of them being convicted, all of that in the lede. I don't think the lede creates an impression that a very much greater number was involved. As for the group's secretive nature, see – again, this states that the wiretapping and poisonings had remained uninvestigated until after the group left (see #Timeline discussion above), and were not general knowledge in Rajneeshpuram. Jayen466 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jayen466 (talk · contribs), that source you link to fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a scholarly paper, originally published here: . Jayen466 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, well that book you had linked to certainly fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest we lose "of conspirators" in the following sentence ("assembled the group of conspirators"), for brevity's sake. Jayen466 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done . Cirt (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) - please stop these attempts to de-emphasize the nature of this conspiracy, thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

- This edit by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is inappropriate - as there were others involved in the murder conspiracy that did not receive convictions, but the edit made by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) implies only "the eight" were ever involved, which is factually inaccurate as per the sources already cited in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cirt is correct; a number of other people, listed at the end of the article, testified and were not indicted, even though they had some sort of involvement (at the very least knowledge of the plan, combined with a failure to alert authorities). Jayen466 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...: I would call eight rajneeshees out of thousands "small" Have you got any cites to qualify that it was anything other than a small isolated group. ? Please stop attacking me with your unfounded allegations (Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree with this comment above comment by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), indeed multiple others were involved in the assassination plot in varying ways, which is also described in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

right! so there is a cite ..multiple others? what does that mean? are there any names? were they interviewed and cautioned ? revealing details of all involved . so let us insert the details in the lede ... this was by all definitions a small group of rajneeshees .. or was it a big group? or was it 100 people.. imo the facts are being left out of the lede to delibrately allow confusion as to the facts .. so lets insert the facts.. if it was a large group then lets insert that for clarity if it was a small group lets insert that. but we are doing the encycopedia and all the totally inocent rajneeshees a disservice and implying their guilt by association. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob (talk · contribs), you have not answered my question, above, when I asked you if you had read this entire article, or just the lede? Cirt (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated here I saw a report that most people never get past the lede and as I have been as yet unable to sort out my issues within the lede , such as so far I have fought tooth and nail to remove inferences in the lede . I have read the entire article although I can't see this comment and cite that your talking about about the multiple others, could I have a link to it. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

do you mean the other three ..? that gave evidence and in the list at the end? If you want to credit those 3 then that counts as 11 . where is the reliable source to the term "multiple others" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

If you had read the entire article, as you say, you would be aware that in multiple different instances in the article multiple others are stated (and sourced) as having been involved in the murder conspiracy, though some were convicted of other charges, and some accepted plea deals on condition to testify in cases of the others that were convicted of the more serious charges. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

so "multiple others" is your opinion and your expression and is uncited? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

No. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No! is hardly debate cirt! How many is multiple others?How many others are cited here in total? What is the whole total of others that can be cited as involved ? Multiple others is a totally delibrately vague expression .(Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

It is getting tiring to debate things here on the talk page that are readily apparent by reading the sourced material in the article itself. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yes it must be tiring trying all the time to have your article reflect your stated ( here today) opinion. ::(edit conflict) I am right. You have left the figures out of the lede in an attempt to allow speculation to portray your stated (today , here) opinion that "multiple others" were involved . This does a disservice to yourself and the encyclopdia and the vast number of innocent rajneeshees. So lets clarify the facts in the lede. It was a small group of rajneeshee that were involved ..I am also tired of this , I have been working for 16 hours(Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

The facts and figures are already in the lede. See also this comment by Jayen466 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No they are not. Be specific cirt , facts and figures , this vagueness is not helpful. Who are you talking about? and how many rajneeshees are you refering to? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

I want this "group" identifying by its general size compared to the number of rajneeshees there.. was it most of them or just a few or was it a small (isolated group)group ? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

The names of those convicted of conspiracy to commit murder are listed in the lede, but there were others involved in the conspiracy, so the best, most factually accurate way to represent that is to use the current wording in the lede. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's not , what kind of group was it? a big group a small group? would you like to insert multiple others? Look at it like this cirt... I went to the pub today and there was a group of my friends there! Please from this work out how many of them or what percentage of my friends were there? its not possible is it? and this is what I want clearing up , clarifying. if you asked me how many? friends and I replied .. oh multiple! you would still be non the wiser and you may well be thinking that I was trying to hide the imformation. Even including the people named here that were not charged but with some involvment you still have only about 12 or 13 and this is clearly compared to the number of rajneeshees there ... a small group of rajneeshee involved in this conspiricy. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

In my research I have come across multiple WP:RS sources that use the phrase "high-ranking followers" to refer to the murder conspiracy perpetrators, but not "small group". Unless you have come across different sources? Cirt (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not all about cites cirt , we are still responsible to use those cites to reflect an honest unbiased article. You are unable to look objectivly at this .. its about facts and figures and "high ranking followers" is a meaningless phrase . All of your sources put together amount to a tiny percentage of the total number of rajneeshees that were there being involved. Why will you not allow this simple statement be inserted to clarify thr facts.. there are quotes to the number of rajneeshees there and there is the total number of real time people that you can cite as being involved.. divide them and see if you get a small percentage. you will be down near one percent .. so 99 rajneeshees out of 100 were not involved in this conspiracy.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Again, the relevant facts and figures are already in the lede. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No they are not. there is no relevant fact or figure about the size of the "group" and your stated "multiple others".

I want to insert in the lede that it was a small group of followers of rajneesh.

have you got any facts and figures that dissagree with this simple fact? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Sources do not use such phrasing, and the lede already states the relevant facts and figures. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I will use the same technique when someone asks me ..how many pints have you had.. reply..all the facts have already been stated.. I have had a "group" of beers....... yes but how many multiple pints.... for... sake how many .. pints have you had? well... there was 4000 pints on the table and I drank a group of them!. this cirt is the reality of the disimformation that you "facts" are portraying. Why are you resisting the simple insertion of simple truths to clarify the percentage of followers that were involved in this conspiracy. ? You have stated here today that you "believe" that multiple others were involved but you have no cite to back up your opinion , so why are you resisting this simple insertion to clarify the facts?(Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

I have not come across reliable sources using such phrasing to refer to the perpetrators of the murder conspiracy, have you? Cirt (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UT

You are using the sources In a delibrate way to detract from the reality of the facts to portray your stated (here) opinions.

It would be quite reasonable to insert the word small group into the lede using the facts and figures that we have irrespective of the fact that the word was never used in reportings at the time.. Its simple facts and figures and attempting to reflect an honest reality.

So when I am asked .. don't give me that multiple pints ,,how many have you had...well there was 4000 pints on the table and I only had a small group of them...(this is clearer but still not specific... so exactly how many have you had ...Ihave had only a small percentage of these pints ...eleven pints...there I have spat it out .. the truth.. and that is all I am asking the article to portray .. not to leave loose expressions that don't reflect the reality of the facts but portray someones opinion.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Do you know of any WP:RS sources that use such phrasing to refer to the perpetrators of the murder conspiracy? Cirt (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied many times here today about this and you keep up with this resistance. did you even read this... You are using the sources In a delibrate way to detract from the reality of the facts to portray your stated (here) opinions.

It would be quite reasonable to insert the word small group into the lede using the facts and figures that we have irrespective of the fact that the word was never used in reportings at the time.. Its simple facts and figures and attempting to reflect an honest reality.What do you dissagree with about this?(Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Can you answer my question? Cirt (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cirt's question is perfectly on point. Please answer it or quit arguing that synthesized words should be added. —EncMstr (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Aveling 1994, p. 17 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAveling1994 (help)
2. Aveling, Harry (1999). Osho Rajneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. Page 17. ISBN 81-208-1599-8.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles