Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 24 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajneesh 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Rajneesh was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 18, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 12, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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. India: Maharashtra Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oregon Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Osho deportation

Archived to Talk:Osho/Archive 7.

Troubling passage

This solution could not be intellectually understood, as the mind would only assimilate it as another piece of information: instead, what was needed was meditation.

This passage really bothers me. What solution? When does this "was" apply? Who holds this opinion? "What was needed" and "the mind would assimilate", regardless of being sourced, are still opinions, not verifiable facts. We must convey them as such. ←Spidern→ 16:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

whether or not they are opinions is irrlevant. it's not the purpose of the article to judge whether osho's opinions are verifiable facts. his teaching was that trust and acceptance are not intellectual understandings and cannot be assimilated and the way to understand this is through meditation. i understand that you may personally disagree with this, but that is what he taught. jalal (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, whether a statement is an opinion is quite relevant in writing encyclopedic articles. According to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, we have an obligation to present all significant opinions. Now, it is one thing if we are stating that Osho had an opinion. "Osho said", or "Osho thought" is quite acceptable because it illustrates that Osho is the source of said opinion. However, the above passage cites an opinion and presents it as if the opinion itself were held by Misplaced Pages. The tone of an article must be neutral, or we end up becoming a partisan commentary. So either we reformulate the passage to say who holds the opinion (while citing that opinion), or we should remove it because it displays a certain bias. ←Spidern→ 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the citation clarifies that it is from a secondary source and not the opinion of Misplaced Pages? jalal (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not enough. Misplaced Pages is not a mechanism to pass opinion as fact. Citation provides the location, but we still have to illustrate that the statement is actually an opinion, in order to remain neutral. ←Spidern→ 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was clear from the context that that was his teaching, but I have inserted a "he said" to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding. Jayen466 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it reads much better now. Only thing which is slightly unclear (since the sentence comes directly after the quotation) is which "solution" is he referring to? If he's referring to "trusting and accepting" oneself, then perhaps we could substitute "solution" with "behavior", which draws the connection between the ideas better. ←Spidern→ 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it again, because I think the word "behaviour" did not fit well what was being described. You can find the relevant part of Fox online here; reading it in context may make the meaning clearer than our abridged version here did. We can then revisit it. Cheers, Jayen466 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

speaking of citations, i notice that you have changed quite a few cited passages ('spellbinding' to 'captivating' as one example) and I'm sure the original wording was correct. I don't have Fox to hand, but was it really 'captivating'? I realise that it doesn't change the meaning too much, but it seems that the original source should be kept to as much as possible. Editing just for the sake of editing is not helpful. jalal (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In using third-party reliable sources, we are not obligated to use the same words that they do. Quite the contrary, in fact; as long as the original meaning is conveyed, we are encouraged to paraphrase a used source in order to avoid running into a copyvio situation. And for what it's worth, I edit because I attempt to improve an article. Not just "for the sake of editing". ←Spidern→ 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes

In this edit, Jalal (talk · contribs) restored quotations which I had removed because I believed them to be a bit excessive. I try to avoid direct quotes as much as possible so that I can stick to verifiable facts and not present a primary source's opinion (yes, even if the quote is attributed by a secondary source) in excess. I feel that they do not present any additional reliable information in the discussion of the teachings of Osho. What are some opinions on the necessity to include these quotes? ←Spidern→ 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

in general, i agree. however, that section discusses osho's teaching and it seemed appropriate to use quotes from osho to illuminate it. upon re-reading, i now wonder if such short quotes shed any light on the teachings... maybe one or two larger chunks would suffice. jalal (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The true strength of an article depends on how many reliable secondary sources are used to explain a topic. Although using a direct quotation from a secondary source can be have its merits in the sense that you are able to trust that the attribution of a quote is correct, using direct quotes is tantamount to using a primary source in many cases. We cannot give undue weight by using too many direct quotations from Osho, as his own bias would taint the article in his favor. If it is possible to adequately describe the teachings of Christianity, Islam, or Scientology without quoting direct passages in excess, then surely we can do the same here. ←Spidern→ 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

the article doesn't really quote osho "in excess". jalal (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In "Ego and the mind" (443 words), we have 4 direct quotes (115 words) which is 25% of the section. Subsequent sections are better, containing one quote each. Each section should have no more than two quotes at most, or better yet, only one. ←Spidern→ 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

on the other hand, that is one section out of about twenty, so that is 25% of 5%, which is hardly excessive. :-) jalal (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming, of course, that each of the sections have the same number of words. At any rate, the point is that whether excessive in terms of the article, or in terms of the section, direct quotes should be avoided. ←Spidern→ 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a great point. If an article about a teacher actually says what he teaches, that is effectively a bias against sources that represent him as teaching something else. In fact, to give an accurate account of ANY subject runs the risk of making that subject look like what it is, which is a gross violation of neutrality against lies and ignorance. Perhaps it would be best if all the titles of all the articles were changed, so that there is no chance of giving a favourable impression simply because the article is actually about what it is about, and not what somebody might prefer it was about. Redheylin (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the point that you are trying to make. A reliable encyclopedia summarizes reliable secondary and tertiary sources, rather than quoting primary ones. External preferences don't make a difference if content is verifiable and found in reliable sources, in any case. Do you disagree with the premise that primary sources shouldn't be relied upon for an objective summary? ←Spidern→ 03:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where secondary sources quote primary sources in illustration of key ideas, we may quote those secondary sources, even though this seems to amount to quotation of a primary source, providing it is contextualised as per the commentator and referenced accordingly. We are then following the outlines of secondary sources founded in a proper study of the material in question, which is self-evidently preferable to commentators who are NOT fully conversant with the material. Otherwise we end up with "Some people support Einstein's claim to be a mathematician, while others insist he was merely a member of a degenerate race who helped design terrible weapons". But the only people fit to comment on Einstein are those who recognise he IS a mathematician of stature and can prove it by referring to his own work. To say "Einstein developed a special theory of relativity which stated that E=mc2" can only be justified by reference to Einstein's own work, while to say that this reference constitutes a quotation of primary sources which leads to bias in Einstein's favour would be fatuous. It is fine to bring forward refutations of those teachings, but those teachings should in the first place be represented according to serious studies that draw upon and illustrate the ideas that were actually propounded, for which the only ultimate source is the teachings themselves. Then it follows that the refutations will also be apposite and important, since they are linked to a proper exposition of the material they intend to refute. Redheylin (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why "Osho" and not "Rajneesh"?

Throughout the majority of his public life, the subject of this biography was known as Rajneesh. The majority of his media coverage comes from the 1980s when he tried to set up a commune in Oregon, and he is therein referred to as Rajneesh. According to the article, he took the name "Osho" in 1989, and died in 1990. Shouldn't the article title reflect the name by which he is most commonly known? *** Crotalus *** 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See #Name. Jayen466 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That link doeesn't work for me -- do you have another one? I agree with Crotalus here. Msalt (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I changed my name would you also insist in calling me by my previous name? try googling rajneesh and see how few hits you get compared to googling osho! there are many many people who only know him as Osho.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Of course, there are also a lot of people who know him only as Rajneesh. And it breaks down along people who know him as a public figure(he was Rajneesh for the vast majority of his public notability) vs. people who are interested in his teachings. Google is not a good test because Rajneesh was best known before Google and the internet were active. A similar example is the Grateful Dead rock band; since Jerry Garcia died, remnants of the band have toured as "The Dead" and many people only know them by the last name, but I don't think it was be appropriate to call them "The Dead" except putting in the lede of that article "formerly known as" The Grateful Dead. Again, their main notability came under the earlier name. Another similar case is Guru Maharaji Ji (Prem Rawat), though that one is a bit different because Prem Rawat was his birth name which he is returning to. Rawat is in a category closer to John Cougar Mellencamp. Msalt (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

well I have to disagree with you there as I think google is a good test .. take jesus .. like what was his birth name? .. no one cares .. occasionally you see jesus of nazareth but mostly he is known by a name that was given to him by other people after he was killed /rose to heaven ..jesus christ. take your other example the grateful dead.. they are actually most famous with gerry and in the past ..the remnants go around a bit these days but they are mostly irrelevant and so what ever you call them they will still be remembered as the old band with gerry gacia..and anyone who knows them or wants to know them gets that .... but with Osho he is more famous today than ever before ... much more famous as Osho than he ever was as Rajneesh ..(Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

That's where I'm not sure you are right. I don't know how old you are, but in the 1980s Rajneesh was headline news in newspapers all over the world. Neither Osho (55 hits) nor Rajneesh (22) gets many hits on Google news today, to follow your method, and most of those are actually about Andi Osho, a comedian in Britain. Msalt (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

from google..

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,270,000 for osho.
Results 1 - 10 of about 551,000 for rajneesh

I'm not sure where you are coming from? if your talking about the bio terror then that has a page and is well linked ...I'm older than the mountains but younger than the trees.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Results 1 - 10 of about 196,000 for andi osho. not bad for a comedian with a funny name .. you and Osho and andi osho have something in common in that you are all comedians .. so heres my best guru joke of the day.... Why did the guru refuse Novacaine when he went to his dentist? ....He wanted to transcend dental medication. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

pretty funny though the laughing gas books put a funny spin on it. Best joke remains guru & hot dog vendor . ("Make me one with everything"/"change comes from within") but eternity is young. BTW, my stats come from a Google News search, not main google. "Results 1 – 10 of about 59 for osho. (0.33 seconds)" Up four in a few hours! Msalt (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

yes the laughing gas makes the joke even funnier..ah google news .. well imo with osho he might not appear on news as much as say a comedian that was alive and working and creating "news"..

Results 1 - 10 of about 353,000 for j krishnamurti... not a very popular chappie is he!
david beckham 16,000,000 ..five times more popular than osho  (on the internet)

I think a general search is more reflective of the name he is "known by"..and a general search is more reflective of his current popularity than what "news" is being created in the moment. enough of this .. did you look back at the history of this page to see the previous comments?(Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

A previous discussion about this is at Talk:Osho/Archive 10#Name. I was personally surprised at the redirect to Osho as I only heard about him as Rajneesh. FWIW, the place in Oregon was called Rajneeshpuram. A thought that comes to mind is that while he alive he was most notable to English speaking people as Rajneesh or perhaps the sex guru or Rolls Royce Guru. A year prior to his death he took on the name Osho and today his group uses the name Osho International Foundation. I'd go for Osho pointing at the article about the group rather than the person and that this article be moved to either Rajneesh or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Rich Man’s Guru still gets a fair number of hits.

It'll be hard to construct a Google test current popularity as both Rajneesh and Osho are common names unrelated to the religious/spiritual movement or its founder. FWIW, the current www.osho.com site does not seem to mention the founder at all unless you look hard for it. Checking the osho.com site for Rajneesh finds that they have scrubbed the name Rajneesh entirely other than it's used on the old books and apparently was the title of either a book or series of lectures known as The Rajneesh Bible. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support moving this article to "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", which is the title used in other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO the redirect from Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh to here is enough. As demonstrated in the earlier discussion, use of Osho predominates in scholarly sources today and is standard in the Indian press, which regularly features excerpts from his books under the author name "Osho". Jayen466 18:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the page "Osho" should redirect to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, as other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica use the term "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" to refer to Rajneesh, and we should follow their model. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the name Rajneesh is used more in the world of anti-cult activists, but most people know about him (these days) from the books and meditations, which go under the name Osho. Is it possible to check the Misplaced Pages logs and see how many searches there are for Osho and how many for Rajneesh? Definitely in the 'meat world' Osho is the more common usage. jalal (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

; . Jayen466 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stats: Osho movement = 96 hits in Google Books, while Rajneesh movement = 361 hits in Google Books. Quite a big difference. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho = 1,776 hits in Google Books, while Rajneesh = 2,038 hits in Google Books. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"followers of osho" = 19 hits in Google Books, while "followers of Rajneesh" = 59 hits in Google Books. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely doing searches in google books is skewing the results towards books that are out of date/out of print/out of copyright. It would be better to base the stats on something more up-to-date. If I search an acedemic library and limit the search to books published before 1995 I can come up with even more dramatic results, but I'm not sure they are relevant to this discussion. The trend to the future is that more and more references will be to Osho, and fewer (proportionately) to Rajneesh. jalal (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree - he is more commonly known as Rajneesh in WP:RS books and biographical encyclopedia entries, such as Encyclopedia Britannica (which I might add is written by friend of new religious movements, J. Gordon Melton...), etc. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to Britannica's approach is duly noted. I still think we have to stick with Osho as the name for this article, for various complementary reasons, Britannica's present preference for the older, historical title notwithstanding:

1. Our naming policy is based on the principle of least surprise, and a preference for the most easily recognized name. Article traffic statistics currently point to an overwhelming user preference for "Osho" over "Rajneesh" or "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" , indicating that Osho is the most common and easily recognized name among Misplaced Pages users.
2. Applying the Google test recommended in WP:Naming conflicts shows that over 3.2 million web pages mention Osho, but not Rajneesh, vs. 382,000 web pages mentioning Rajneesh, but not Osho. This 9:1 ratio is in the same order of magnitude as the preference ratio among Misplaced Pages users for Osho over Rajneesh. I see no good reason to alter the article title in favour of a name that is ten times less common in practice.
3. Our naming conventions express a clear preference for self-identifying names, as well as current official names. The subject of this article discarded the title Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the late eighties, some time before his death in 1990. Since then, all publications authored by him have been published under the name "Osho". This has been the case for over 20 years. Osho is both the self-identifying and current official name.
4. While Britannica have opted for the older, historical name, it's easy to find other reputable reference publishers who have not. Examples:
   – Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge;
   – Encyclopedia of Community, SAGE Publications;
   – Historical dictionary of New Age movements, Scarecrow Press;
   – Holy people of the world, ABC-CLIO;
   – Exploring New Religions by Continuum International Publishing Group leads with Rajneesh/Osho and then points out in the first sentence that Osho is the present name, and uses it predominantly throughout the remainder of the article;
   – Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis.

Following WP naming conventions, as well as current user preference, we are still in very reputable published company, even if we differ from Britannica's approach in this regard. Jayen466 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Material added

Re this revert, while there is a lot of red in the diff, all that is actually different is that I added a paragraph mentioning that (1) followers entered into marriages of convenience to circumvent immigration restrictions, (2) Osho was declared the leader of "Rajneeshism" to facilitate his stay in the country, (3) his application for leave to stay as a religious worker was first rejected and later granted. Jayen466 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osho on Homosexuality

It should be inserted, but how best? Embedded in his teaching on energies?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.72 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

what exactly do you want to insert? (not three pages I assume). Osho talked on many subjects, they can't all be covered in a Misplaced Pages biography. he also contradicted himself on many subjects, making a summary very difficult. jalal (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles use "Rajneesh" in title

1. Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", ], retrieved 2009-04-23 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
2. Kushner, Harvey W. (2002), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Encyclopedia of Terrorism, SAGE, pp. 306–307, ISBN 0761924086
3. Fahlbusch, Erwin (1999), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", The encyclopedia of Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, p. 233, ISBN 0802824137 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Doniger, Wendy (2006), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 902, ISBN 1593394918
5. Houghton Mifflin Company (2003), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 1261, ISBN 9780618252107
6. Joseph, Bea (1986), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Biography index, vol. 14, H.W. Wilson Company, p. 566
7. Parry, Melanie (1997), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Chambers, p. 1529, ISBN 0550160604

Please keep this subsection for listing such references only and not for discussion, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference JMF4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Maharashtra articles
• Unknown-importance Maharashtra articles
• B-Class Maharashtra articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Maharashtra articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Oregon articles
• Mid-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles