Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:18, 9 December 2008

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.

Only confirmed act of biological terrorism in the US

The article, the section on Oregon: "The salmonella attack has been described as the only confirmed instance of chemical or biological terrorism to have occurred in the United States." I think this is outdated, as the US experienced the anthrax events following 9-11-2001. Amnion (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be right. The source quoted was published in 2002. I am not sure off-hand when the Anthrax attacks were. Jayen466 20:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

2001, but only recently concluded. See 2001 anthrax attacks for more info. It's not even the earliest occurrence as smallpox infected blankets were used to reduce Native American populations in 1763 (see Siege of Fort Pitt for example) although this is arguably not in the United States (although it was in North America). jalal (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

this 'only' is outdated. so we could just remove the 'only' and just say that an act of biological terrorism was commited by a few of the sannyasins. the names of the sannyasins that were convicted of the crimes could also be inserted. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Review of sources covering the move to America

I'm looking at the sources. So far I've found the following descriptions of events around the move to America. (I hope to add more sources when I can sit down to work on this again.) Jayen466 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Milne and Meredith

These may be viewed as sources that have strong biases, in opposite directions; so it will be interesting to see what they agree on. According to Meredith (p. 285), Osho had had trouble with a prolapsed disk from end of January 1981 onwards. He was treated by James Cyriax, a leading orthopedic surgeon who was flown in from England, some time in April 1981, around the time of the April 10 announcement that Osho would henceforth be in silence (Milne p. 184, Meredith p. 295 are in agreement here). Cyriax said no operation should be performed at the moment, but that an operation might well become necessary, in which case it would be better to have it done in the West (Meredith, p. 302). Osho resumed his morning appearances for satsang a few weeks later, on May 1st 1981. Meredith mentions a medical crisis occurring in mid-May, which raised the spectre of emergency surgery in India, following which it was decided to go to the US. Milne (p. 184) indicates that he was first approached by Sheela about going to the US some time after Osho resumed his morning appearances for satsang (i.e. after 1 May 1981). That is compatible with Meredith, who dates the decision to go to the US to following the mid-May crisis. Meredith adds that Osho was reluctant to go, having commented in the days before, to Vivek, that it would not be good for him to go abroad for treatment, and especially not to America, but Meredith adds that Sheela was adamant, and that the best medical advice was to go. At the time, Laxmi was still in Kashmir in final negotiations for a new site (Milne p. 185, Meredith p. 309 are in agreement). When Meredith left with Osho, he assumed they would be returning to India; in fact, even after he had begun preparing for the journey to the US, he was still doing research on a site in Northern India in late May (Meredith, p. 308–309). Milne on the other hand assumes that Osho and Sheela had planned the move to the US several months in advance, and had kept it secret (Milne p. 183). Osho departed Poona on Sunday 31 May 1981, and left India on 1 June after spending a night in Bombay at the house of a follower; Milne and Meredith are agreed on this. Having lived in America and being married to an American, Sheela thought "everything American was best" (Meredith p. 309), and "Sheela was obviously far better equipped than Laxmi" to handle things in the US (Milne p. 191). Jayen466 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On the subject's illness, Milne notes (p. 184) that

In February 1981, Bhagwan hurt his back badly. Lectures were cancelled, and instead sannyasis were invited to attend silent 'satsangs', where they simply sat in the presence of their master's empty chair. Two ashram Rolfing experts were called in to see if they could rectify Bhagwan's problem, but they could not help. I was asked to treat him as a 'last resort', but Bhagwan had never been a believer in alternative medicine, and the manipulation I gave had little effect. Eventually, and at vast expense, a leading British orthopaedic surgeon, James Cyriax, was flown out from Harley Street to look at Bhagwan's back. Somendra, living in London at the time, paid his first class fare. He administered more manipulation and gave epidural injections which, Bhagwan later claimed, only gave temporary relief. "It was Valium that cured me" was his final verdict. While he was confined to his room, Sheela, now his mouthpiece, announced to a meeting of group leaders, therapists and heads of department that Bhagwan had 'retired', and would not be speaking in public again . After about a month of immobility, Bhagwan emerged from his room to resume his seat in the silent satsangs . He was very shaky, and was sitting now in a specially-made chair.

This does not sound to me like there was no health issue at all, as some of the other sources are alleging. Jayen466 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FitzGerald

FitzGerald (1986a) mentions that Osho was in severe pain from his prolapsed disk in spring 1981, that Indian doctors as well as "one of the world's leading orthopedic surgeons, brought in from England to treat him" testified to his condition (p. 86). She also discusses the question whether there was a preconceived intent on the part of Sheela and Osho to stay in the US. She says that the INS never proved this case (they didn't have to), but that they did have some evidence supporting this assumption. Rajneeshee envoys had begun to search for land in the US in April 1981, and ashram property had begun to be shipped to the US two weeks prior to Osho's departure, i.e. from mid-May.

FitzGerald describes speaking to Laxmi in Woodstock NY some time after these events. Laxmi, she says, blamed herself

"... for the guru's removal to the US. She said she had failed to find a property in India adequate to his needs, and thus, when the medical emergency came, the initiative had passed to Sheela. According to ex-sannyasins, Sheela, who had become Laxmi's first assistant in 1975 and director of the business arm of the ashram in 1978, had moved to center stage while Laxmi was away looking for a commune site. Having been married to an American for many years, and being a frequent traveller to the United States, she had proposed that the guru move to America."

FitzGerald adds that Sheela bought the Montclair castle (where Osho stayed after his flight to the US) some time in April 1981, around the time she took over from Laxmi as Osho's secretary. (FitzGerald then goes into a lengthy and rather curious exposition detailing that Osho had had visits to death's door at 7-year intervals throughout his life, citing incidents in 1939, 1946, 1953, as well as a similar crisis in March 1974, i.e. exactly seven years before the one in March 1981, when "four specialists pronounced him very ill" (p. 87).) Jayen466 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The information you provide from Fitzgerald omits some useful information. In context, the back injury quote you provide further down reads somewhat differently. The entire paragraph actually reads:

Just why the guru came to the United States became a matter of pressing interest to the Portland bureau of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalisation Service a year and a half later when he applied for permanent residency. His application for a tourist visa in Bombay stated that he required medical treatment in the United States. Laxmi had written the American consul that he required an operation on his back, and Sheela in conversation with the consul had stressed the emergency nature of the request: the man, she said, was about to croak. It is true that Rajneesh had fallen ill in the spring of 1981. His allergies, his asthma, and his diabetes had worsened and sapped his energies; finally, persistent coughing began to affect an old back injury – a prolapsed disk – and this caused him severe pain. Indian doctors and one of the world's leading orthopedic surgeons, brought in from England to treat him, testified to his condition. However, on arrival in the United States, Rajneesh did not go to a hospital or seek any outside medical treatment - and at no time was he seen by any but sannyasin doctors. Rajneeshee lawyers later explained this apparent discrepancy by the fact that his doctors had determined that there was a significant risk that he might require surgery - though this would be dangerous - but that in the United States his condition had improved so much that he did not. The INS, however contended that the guru had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States, and that false statements had been made on his application.

From my reading of Fitzgerald, information relating to his medical history may be dervived from Johsi (1982). Semitransgenic (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note also, in Gordon, below, that Sheela claimed that In America, he would find the specialist treatment he needed, but Fitzgerald states that no specialist treatment - a kind available only in the United States - was sought. This adds support to Milnes' observations as presented in Carter, regarding Osho's physical condition. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rajneeshee doctors an lawyers later testified that the guru had recovered slowly in the salubrious air of America. An ex-sannyasin who had accompanied him, however, told the INS that he had insisted on taking a limousinse rather than an ambulance from Kennedy airport and a week after his arrival was walking around the garden at the Chidvilas center and driving his Rolls-Royce. This testimony - combined with the fact that the guru never consulted an outside doctor in the United States - quite understandably caused INS officials to suspect that Rajneesh had never been all that sick and was certainly not at deaths door.

Semitransgenic (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with going with this.

It could read something like.. although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert. there is nothing out of sync with this . Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Gordon

Gordon says Sheela had apparently been "urging" Osho to move to America, and also refers to the secret meeting mentioned by Milne – called while Laxmi was away looking at a site in Kashmir – at which Sheela told those present that "Bhagwan wants to go to America" (Gordon, p. 93). Privately, Sheela explained that "the real reasons for leaving India were far more complex than Rajneesh's health", reminding her listeners of the dangers to Osho in India, the government harassment, the murder attempt, etc. (p. 94). Gordon cites testimony from sannyasins that Sheela and Osho "had been discussing a new commune in the US – not just a visit for medical purposes – as early as late 1980" (p. 94). Jayen466 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordon (1987) p. 93-94 also notes the following:

" The official word was that Sheela wanted Rajneesh to come to America for his health. His diabetes and asthma and allergies were out of control. His coughing supposedly aggravated his back condition, perhaps causing a disc to herniate. Several specialists had attended Rajneesh in India including Dr. James Cyriax, whom Devaraj had flown form London. Sannyasins were told publicly by Sheela, not Cyriax, that Rajneesh might have died if he had stayed in India. In America, he would find the specialist treatment he needed. Rajneesh would, sannyasins were told, return to Poona after four months, perhaps after he had undergone an operation."

"The ahsram was in chaos. Some had known, others suspected, that the move would happen, but most of the six thousand sannyasins jammed into Poona were taken by suprise. There were tears and anger and bewilderment. Some believed that Rajneesh, who had only been granted a temporary visa - for reasons of health - would return as soon as his back was better. Most were skeptical. They had heard the rumours that "Bhagwan has said, 'India is finished.'"

Gordon (p. 94-95) then details the various concerns, expressed by Sheela, relating to increasing pressure from the Indian government and states that: before and after her departure Sheela had explained that the real reasons for leaving India were far more complex than Rajneesh's health. The paragraph closes with: Finally, Sheela confided information that the Poona police were preparing to arrest Rajneesh for "inciting religious rioting". This would appear to add support to Milnes claim. Gordon mentions other activities that support the notion that the move to America, and the intention to build a new commune, was premeditated and considered well in advance. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The concealment of the move to America from the majority of sannyasins, as well as from the Indian and US authorities, created a sense that deception and betrayal within the movement were possible. The potential danger of being arrested or deported for the illegal transfer of money and goods to America, for the marriages of convenience, and for the concealed plan to relocate Rajneesh permanently, changed the structure of the community: the benign dictatorship cum anarchy of Poona was replaced by by a more tightly knit authoritarian structure, capable of acting swiftly, decisively, and secretly. Gordon (1987) p.152

Palmer

Palmer says "the move to America seems to have been a unilateral decision on the part of Sheela, who claimed it was for medical reasons" (in Aveling, p. 377). Jayen466 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox

Fox says that at Sheela's instigation, the house in Montclair was purchased in April 1981. By the end of June, Sheela had discovered the Big Muddy Ranch and

"Sheela set about persuading Bhagwan to stay rather than return to India, thereby also consolidating her position as his new personal secretary."

— Fox, p. 23.

Jayen466 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for the outline, there are a couple of more I can provide, will do so in the next couple of days, I would also like to review a number of the publications mentioned but this will take time. Will respond with any conclusions here.Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Carter

pp 131-134. Seems there are two main accounts referred to by Carter, Sheela's (from Braun) and Milne's. Section entitled "Fleeing Pune" details that Poona Ashram residents were not informed and dismantlement of Ashram property commenced immediately. Sheela claims everything was official and above board, emphasizes gravity of physical condition. Milne mentions tip off about an arrest warrant for Rajneesh (the morning of the day of the departure), comments on Bombay as an initial hideout, states that aside from the the $5 million in taxes there were many unpaid supplier bills. Milne also mentions demolition of the Buddha Hall, vast yard sale, abandonment of some property, closing of Rajneesh businesses. Arriving in America Milne maintains Rajneesh proclaimed himself as the messiah America has been waiting for. Notable improvement of Osho's health shortly after arrival. Milne claims that Sheela made an impulse buy but another account alleges months of consideration about a number of sites. Inner circle arranges purchase of Big Muddy Ranch with John Shelfer (Sheela's husband) eventually making a surrogate purchase of the Oregon site. No health impairment is reported noticeable at this time. p.38. Later, after settling in Oregon residency status was applied for but Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) refused to change status from visitors visa (granted for medical reasons). In 1984 Osho granted status as religious worker but INS provides no verdict on residence application. INS raised doubts about legitimacy of initial visa.

Metha & Desai

pp. 99-105 Background to the departure in the form of detailing the various public relations problems associated with the Poone ashram they also note that: Ultimately, by the time Rajneesh left for the US, there were four to six thousand westerners in his audience every day and only a few hundred Indians. Rajneesh himself was responsible for this radical transformation, as not only did he give special attention to Westerners but also appointed them to all top positions on the ashram staff...It is interesting to note that as the ashrams complexion changed, Rajneesh also seemed to change with it. They state that Rajneesh found the situation in Pune growing more tense and unmanageable. Only a handful of the thousands of people in the ashram had known about his departure in advance. Mention of him ceasing his lectures at Pune in March 1981 supposedly becasue of a chicken pox outbreak. Mention of Rajneesh's intention to build a new commune (envisioned as a "liquid family"), declared a number of times before going into silence in May 1981. Observation that the new commune seems to have been inspired by his Western disciples. They state that with his select band of disciples, Rajneesh entered the US on health grounds and on a tourist visa. The Oregon site was selected by Sheela and her second husband, John Shelfer, the ranch was, as Rajneesh had wanted it, large and isolated, they also note that though Osho mantained silence Sheela revealed that he was the guiding force behind all decisions and directions given that she gave, the Bhagwan was telling her "to be more assertive".

Abbot

Given the inherent differences in approach to civic life, it is ironic that Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh came to Oregon essentially by accident. He decided to move his base of operations from Poona, India, to the United States in 1980. Important lieutenants arrived at a Rajneesh-owned estate in New Jersey in 1981. A systematic search for a large property began in May, with attention centered on Colorado and the Southwest. Bhagwan's arrival in New Jersey on June 1, however, pressured Ma Anand Sheela to find an acceptable site for a major settlement. She decided on the Big Muddy Ranch in central Oregon essentially at first sight, completing purchase on July 10, 1981. For $5.75 million the Rajneeshee organization acquired 64,229 acres of hills and streambeds that sloped west to east from a high point of 4,745 feet to a low of 1,400 feet. Several dozen Rajneeshees were soon at work preparing "Rancho Rajneesh" for the arrival of Bhagwan himself on August 19. By their own claim, the Rajneeshees came to central Oregon to be alone. According to Ma Anand Sheela, they were seeking "a desert kind of land, away from the people so people's neuroses did not have to bother Bhagwan's vision or work ... place which was our own." Abbot, Carl. Utopia and Bureaucracy: The Fall of Rajneeshpuram, Oregon, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 1990), pp. 77-103.

Semitransgenic (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Urban

Although the movement in India was, financially, extremely successful, it soon ran into a host of serious legal problems with the Indian government. Not only had his shocking discourses on sexuality and his ruthless satires of famous Indian figures enraged the locals; and not only had his many Western disciples raised controversy because of their practices of drug-dealing and prostitution, but his business dealings had also roused suspicion among the Indian authorities. Finally he was placed under government investigation for unpaid taxes. In 1981, Bhagwan and a small group of his most loyal followers fled Poona, leaving $5 million in debts and a trail of police and tax collectors. The site of their new movement was to be the United States—the land of freedom and capitalism, which Bhagwan believed to be at the forefront of the coming world transformation. After briefly living in a mansion in New Jersey, he decided upon the 64 000 acre Big Muddy Ranch near Antelope, Oregon, as the site of their New Society, the new city called "Rajneeshpuram". What Rajneesh envisioned here was nothing less than a "utopian society of 50 000 sannyasin who would change the world". Urban, H. "Zorba The Buddha: Capitalism, Charisma and the Cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", Religion (1996) 26, Academic Press Limited, (pp. 161–182).

Semitransgenic (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallis

in Aveling (1999), p. 147. Late in May 1981, a warehouse used to store books and another building belonging to the Ahsram were set alight by petrol bombs. Ashram officials blamed their landlord once again, and declared the loss to be some thirty times the amount later set on the damage by a police valuer. A report in India Today (15th June, 1982: 137) alleged that, "A year later both police and CID officials in Pune are unanimous in their charge that the incidents were rigged by Rajneesh followers". In face of mounting tension, criticism and possible punitive action by the authorities in relation to some of these disputes, Rajneesh departed for America, allegedly for treatment of certain health problems. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Goldman

in Lewis & Petersen (2005), pp. 124-125. The first period of extreme controversy, 1976 to 1980, created an impetus for Rajneesh to relocate to the United States...The flight from India represented an attempt to deal with increasing external pressures, as the host society confronted Rajneesh's hostility to traditional rules and values...Rajneesh could have minimized friction and risked losing some of his charismatic appeal. Or he could have held his ground in India and faced painful sanctions against him and his sannyasins. Instead he fled in order to rebuild his movement in North America, where large numbers of sannyasins resided. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mullan

Mullan 1983 pp. 31: Not all was peace and silence though...and various threats to Bhagwans's life were recieved at the ashram. Indeed on 28 May arson destroyed a Rajneesh Foundation book storage warehouse near Poona. At the same time Bhagwan's health was allegedly deteriorating, and on 1 June 1981 Bhagwan's last satsang took place. Later that afternoon a group of rajneeshees accompanied Bhagwan on a Pan Am jet bound for Childvilas Rajmees Meditation Centre Montclair, New Jersey, where 'all the necessary arrangemnts were made for his medical care and rest'.

Mullan 1983 p. 126: Following his 'medical treatment' in New Jersey, Bhagwan moved to a new commune in Oregon...Why did Bhagwan choose - if 'choice' is the right word - America as his new home and headquarters? First of all there were enough American-based rajeesheees who could search for and buy, through the Rajneesh Foundation, enough space. Then there were Bhagwan's politcal views: "We chose America as the loaction for our experiment becasue this is the most open-minded, free and democratic country in the world. The American Constitution's First Amemendment guarantees freedom from religious persecution for people for different faiths."

Mullan 1983 p. 135,136 regarding intital INS investigation, following petition to remain in the USA as a 'third prefernce religious worker': To begin with there is an obvious contradication running through much of it, namely that Bhagwan was too sick to carry out his religious work, and yet he really didn't need medical attention in the USA becasue he wasn't that sick...As for the 'prior intent' reason, the rajneeshes replied as follows: "this commune was founded well before its members knew that Bhagwan would come as a guest to recuperate on its property and long before Bhagwan decided to seek permanent residency in America. That Bhagwan is among us is a blessing for which we are grateful each day. But if he were to move to another part of America or to one of many other Rajneesh communes thoughout the world, this commune would continue to put down roots in Orgeon." I consider the early part of the repsonse to be questionable, and the latter to be an accurate picture of their views and resilience. Ma Anand Sheela, in typical fashion, asked whether Regan was interfering in Bhagwan's case. I somehow doubt it, considering the economic benfits he brings Orgeon, in a country noted for its obsession with material wealth (to the extent of being in the forefront of producing goods with 'built-in obsolescence'). Semitransgenic (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strelly

Strelly (1987) p.320: I'd known for a long time that the move to America was coming: what surprised me most was the speed with which the final move was made. Deeksha had told me before I'd left that they had bought a "castle" in Montclair, New Jersey. It had been purchased toward the end of 1980, while she was on a visit with Shella to "have dental work". p. 328: The ultimate justification of the move was the fact that Bhagwan had said, years before any of this became even a possibility, "The seed will be planted in England, and will flower in America." Before, that had always been taken in a more abstract sense; once the move was in place, however, everybody looked again at those words and said, "Oh sure this is what he meant all along." Sheela certainly found this a convenient quote to hark back in justifying the move to America.

Sheela

Brecher, cited above, may have his own bias against Sheela, but Sheela's own account in her book backs up Brecher's facts regarding the purchase.

"For me, India was not a good choice in order to expand. I had had enough of the dirt and heat of India. Many sannyasins felt the same way. We spent evenings singing and reminiscing nostalgically about America. I often advised Bhagwan's then-secretary, Laxmi, to take Bhagwan out of India. When the opportunity arose, I made the suggestion of going to the US."

— translated from Sheela: Tötet ihn nicht!, 1996, p. 174–176

She dates the decision to go to America to less than ten days before the actual move, which fits with the mid-May statements we have from other sources. Backing up Brecher and Carter, she describes her brother Bipin as the one who found the property ("It is big and expensive", she quotes him as saying, p. 194), and describes the involvement of her husband Jayananda a.k.a. John Shelfer (p. 195–198), whom Carter gives as the original purchaser of the Ranch (Carter, p. 133). Sheela's date for the purchase decision (p. 195: 11 June 1981, the anniversary of her first husband's death, see also Milne) also tallies with the account given by Carter, who dates the purchase of the Ranch by Shelfer to 13 June (p. 133).

In the run-up to the purchase decision, Sheela describes receiving various requirements from Osho that the new site was to fulfil (pp. 196–198); at one point (p. 198), she describes Osho's impatience at the lack of progress, receiving a message from him via his girlfriend/caretaker, Vivek, complaining that she was after all proving unable to find a site, now that she "had brought him to this strange country".

I think, overall, the sources are in good agreement that while the idea of leaving Poona and establishing a new, large commune was clearly Osho's expressed wish, the idea of siting it in America was Sheela's. Jayen466 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I would like to run over a few other sources before reaching a conclusion. And let's be clear, someone having an idea is not the same as making a unilateral decision. As I mentioned earlier, during the period in question, I do not believe Sheela wielded the power required to decide if he should or should not go to America, this account also negates the involvement of the so called inner circle that left Pune with Osho. Also, by his own admission, he appears to have been closely involved in the decision making process, at least according to the statements above: "in coming to Oregon, do you think I have not committed a mistake?", "I have chosen it knowingly, because here is the challenge", "We had chosen a place totally different from Poona", "In America we had chosen Oregon to create an oasis". Surely this is evidence enough to suggest that Osho had more to do with the process than we are being led to believe, and that Sheela et al. were simply facilitators? And there is still the unresolved issue of why they moved. There is clearly conflict between accounts that claim it was for medical reasons and those that maintain the situation with the Indian government, and strife in Pune, forced a sudden departure. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, see what you can find, but bear in mind that it was a complex situation and there may have been multiple circumstances leading to the decision – including the medical situation, Sheela's long insistence on America, the troubles in India – none of which in isolation would have occasioned the move. As for the inner circle, Meredith (who was about as inner as you could get) says the most likely scenario from his perspective as Osho's doctor initially was a return to India after a few months, and he adds that Vivek was "hesitant" about going to the US. Jayen466 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that there were multiple parameters, but I would like to see this reflected in the article, currently it offers one perspective and presents it as the de facto account of what took place. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done some more work on the section, based mostly on Gordon and Carter. Long-term, we should perhaps look at expanding the Rajneeshpuram article to fill in further detail. Jayen466 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel the wording is still somewhat ambiguous and it labours the back pain issue, potentially, undue justification is being provided for the move. I suggest something akin to the following (references not included yet):

It is alleged that issues with Osho's health, and increasing tension between the Pune ashram and the Indian government, led to a decision to leave India. The move was seemingly abrupt with few informed in advance of the departure from Pune. On 1 June 1981, Osho obtained a US visitors visa, for medical purposes (category B2), and flew to New York, United States, where he took up temporary residence in Montclair, New Jersey. Osho's move to America appears to have been made following suggestions by his secratary, Ma Anand Sheela, as she felt it would be benefical both for his health and for Rajneesh Foundation International generally. During Osho's stay, of several months, property was sought so that a new commune might be built. It is thought that Sheela was instrumental in finding an appropriate location, but it was her husband Jayananda (sanyasin name of New York banker John Joseph Shelfer) who sourced and made a surrogate purchase of land in Oregon. The property, located across two Oregon counties (Wasco and Jefferson), previously known as "The Big Muddy Ranch, was aquired for US$5.75 million, a 64,229-acre (260 km).

Personally, I feel this is both a neutral and accurate overview, it offers a perpective that incorporates a number of the views outlined above without a bias towards one or the other. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it all sounds a bit vague and ambiguous. Phrases such as "It is alleged", "was seemingly", "temorary residence" (?), "it is thought that", "appears to have been made": it all sounds as if there are no facts available, and yet as the previous talk sections show, there is plenty of information that we can use. Instead of "was seemingly abrupt", how about "The move was abrupt, with few informed in advance..."? (Although to my English ears that usage of abrupt seems out of place.) Instead of "It is alleged... etc": "Issues with Osho's health, combined with tension between the Pune ashram and the Indian government, led to...". ("Alleged" should be banned from Misplaced Pages :) .) We have plenty of sources for this subject and there is very little disagreement between them so why not just write it like it is? jalal (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the "back issues", it is pretty clear that a "prolapsed intervertebral disk" was the primary, but not only, reason for the trip to America. It was certainly the basis of the visa application. An expert in lower back problems, Dr. James Cyriax, had been flown over to Pune and after that it was decided that if surgery was needed, then New York was the best place, as it had the leading hospitals and CAT scans for that kind of work (cf. Meredith, Brecher). It is clear that other factors played a part in the move, particularly Sheela's power plays, but the actual decision was based on the possible need for back surgery. jalal (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reservations, but what we have are opinions (except where offical records exist), according to different sources, there is no conclusive evidence to support certain claims. On the one hand we have a largely sympathetic insider view, and on the other, we have a sceptical, and at worst cynical perspective that raises questions about various claims: reasons for the move, intentions, possible deceptions etc. etc. The above simply offers a diplomatic approach to dealing with the information at hand. The other way to deal with this is to state the sources in the main body of text i.e. according to so and so, Osho this, Osho that, which is messy. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not bad, but many of the circumstances are uncontested – that Osho had a debilitating back problem, that Sheela wanted him to go to the US (officially for health reasons, privately for other reasons as well), that the move was sudden, that Osho travelled on a medical visa, that Sheela and her husband found the place, and that her husband bought it.

I note that if I were to attempt to improve your version, I would end up with something pretty much like what we got now. :-) Which part of the present version do you feel is ambiguous? Perhaps we can tweak it somehow to address your concern. Jayen466 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What I think is a good thing to include from your version is the sentence about people looking for suitable property. Looking at the dates, the property was actually found within 10 days of Osho's arrival in the US. Jayen466 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's clear from Carter's account above that the medical issues are contested. What evidence actually exists? are there medical records? where? who has seen them? In actuality this version rests on the account of people close to Osho and sympathetic to his cause, therefore it is not conclusive. The Pune/Government trouble as a contributing factor is tagged on like an after thought. In addition, the current version excludes: the mention of surrogate purchases, the background to New Jersey - the fact that it was also a property aquired by Shelfer for RFI in advance of Osho's arrival - the sudden rather secretive departure, the low key trip to Bombay directly after Pune, and the arrest warrant claim. Another point I meant to raise has to do with the sentence "By 1981, Osho's Ashram hosted 30,000 visitors per year" I think it would be appropriate to reference the point, highlighted by Metha & Desai, that the vast majority of visitors at that time were Westerners, by then Osho's primary audience. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi - the impression that you were implying that a strictly proportionate view of things was a matter of bad faith arises from the comment; I fail to see how you can deny the significance of this period. Maybe it is of little significance to individuals caught up in the Osho world view.. You went on to polarise your own views with this one in a way which, if you were not addressing it to me, remains obscurely unexplained. No matter. Did you drop your search for authorities stating that Osho obviously always intended to go to America because he was Indian? Then just a mention of the idea from BEFORE the immigration case publicity would help your thesis a little.

You appear to have a somewhat paranoic disposition. The irony is, your allegation relates to what was in actuality a general statement based upon the notion of there being three typical perspectives. Also, at that point in time I had not considered what affiliations you might have, as it is not important. My position on this article was made quite clear some time ago. Currently I am operating with applicable guidelines in mind, I have never attempted to obscure my position and have made it obvious where I stand. Regarding your query, I haven't even started searching. I have no idea what your last sentence is about. Harping on about what you believe my position is really is pointless, so don't bother, best if you limit your verbiage to Osho, his life, and the consequences of the American experience both for him personally and for the movement in general. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now about your other idea - that Osho could not have been just "floating around". He went on record a great many times as saying that he liked to go along with whatsoever happened, and also that he intended to withdraw from active involvement with disciples. These sentiments can hardly be represented as adopted in the cause of deniability etc. They are an intrinsic part of his work that devolve directly from his central ideas. As far as the doctors go, those "partial and sympathetic" accounts do cite independent specialists who do not appear to have complained that they have been misrepresented by the likes of Foreman and Meredith (who are both health professionals) - unlikely, if it were all invented.

Please provide relevant quotes and sources for the items mentioned above so they can be considered. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What else? You want the article to say that Montclair belonged to RFI (already)? Fair enough. Redheylin (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let's remember to be civil, it'll make this much easier. Re Osho's withdrawal from commune affairs, he gave a deposition under oath (in a defamation suit) in August 1984, cited by Brecher (p. 176). He said,

In that experiment , there was no question of democracy. That does not mean that I am against democracy. In politics, democracy is okay. But politics is a lower field. Religion is the highest phenomenon on the earth. In religion it can be only dictatorial. This was my third phase of work. When that phase was over I moved out of India and I moved into silence. Now the situationand context is totally different. I am no more concerned with the commune, its day-to-day work, its details, its economics, its finances. I am not concerned at all with mundane, worldly affaiirs. Now my disciples are prepared enough to take care of the commune. I am just an outsider. They can only ask their spiritual questions of me, nothing else.

Jayen466 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Under oath? Like that means anything. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please consider that the Brecher book is a dubious source, much of which consists of a largely conspiratorial thesis, published by a little known publishing house, in Bombay. In terms of guidelines on source material, I'm not sure it should be presentented as a reference at all. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Sheela (a semi-hostile source) mentions how the purchase came about. She had founded the nearby Chidvilas Centre; in her youth, she and her boyfriend Marc (Chinmaya) often came to the house to make out, because it had a glorious view of New York. Chinmaya promised that one day, if he could, he would buy her the house. (He died subsequently.) When Shelfer years later learnt that the house was empty and for sale, she bought it as an overspill for Chidvilas. She doesn't claim to have had other ideas in her mind -- just romanticism. Jayen466 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• FitzGerald (1986a), p. 86–87, says:

  It is true that Rajneesh had fallen ill in the spring of 1981. His allergies, his asthma, and his diabetes had worsened and sapped his energies; finally, persistent coughing began to affect an old back injury – a prolapsed disk – and this caused him severe pain. Indian doctors and one of the world's leading orthopedic surgeons, brought in from England to treat him, testified to his condition. In March, four specialists pronounced him very ill with allergies, astham, and the prolapsed disk.

• Milne, a qualified osteopath and a hostile source, describes himself administering unsuccessful treatment to Osho. Jayen466 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• IIRC, there are also sources attesting to a redesign of his chair at that time – lateral handles were attached at the front of the armrests to enable him to get out of the chair. On later chairs, the armrests had an exaggerated upsweep at the front, fulfilling the same function in a less visually obvious manner. Jayen466 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This can be seen in many photographs from the time. The use of a microphone on a stand had to be discontinued as well, as that contributed to the twist and aggravation of his spinal condition. A PZM microphone was mounted on the clipboard instead.jalal (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bump to keep the thread active: should automated archiving attempt to remove it. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bump. will be returning to this. Do not archive. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

30,000

It states in the article: By 1981, Osho's Ashram hosted 30,000 visitors per year. Goldman states in Lewis & Petersen (2005), that this was the figure for vists to the Ashram at its high point, in 1976. The citation is for a newspaper article that is cited in Carter, and in Aveling, but there does not appear to be mention of this figure in either book. Can a better source be provided to confirm the visitor number for 1981, as it is well nigh impossible to find the original news item? Semitransgenic (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that was an insertion of yours, last time round. I've never seen that source. Jayen466 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall, but if I did, there would have been relevant context provided, perhaps it has been removed, shifted or other. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

30000 a year is a conservative estimate, not even 100 a day!

If you dont like the book reference (although I think its being a bit picky to pull this up) we could put (it was getting busy)

or (take the number out altogether) the truth is the movement was growing (you could put this)

or (it started in a small apartment in bombay and now it was outgrowing poona.) real figures would have to come from the commune management and they would guard them with their lives. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Fall-out from the thread splitting

• Semi, you have mentioned to Cirt and Vassyana that Jalal has reported you for vandalism. Looking at Jalal's edit history, I cannot see that he made any such report, and there is nothing on AN either. Are you sure you're not mistaken? I did see that Jalal did a revert with WP:TWINKLE, which generates an automated edit summary referring to an edit "identified as vandalism". So if that is all that has happened here, then please let's calm down and get on with the job at hand. And it clearly would have been better to seek consensus before splitting the discussion thread, and removing another editor's contributions from it. Jayen466 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a mistake, I mistook the highlighted vandalism link as indication of an automated report for vandalism.

Irrespective of this error, the allegation that the edit amounted to vandalism is patently false.

I very clearly asked for a third opinion (external to the discussion), jalal's response to this was not constructive (second opinion concurred with changes, no need for a third opinion). I was in the process of figuring out thread splitting when the reverts started.

Also, the material I introduced (indictment details, and a Time Magazine report that reflects the charge that Rajneesh lied on his original visa application) related directly to the issues surrounding the medical visa, and exactly what the INS brought forward.

And be clear, there are three entire paragraphs of material introduced here by jalal that relate to an entirely other issue, details of of Rolls Royce shipments, alleged conversations with visa officials, and alleged involvement of Reagan's administration.

That is simply going skyward, and is beyond the scope of the discussion as outlined above, it also buries the main items in a cloud of conspiratorial verbiage.

I moved this material, and then decided to move the rest, becasue it was inserted retroactively and served to muddy the original thread.

It was very clear what we were discussing, if this cannot be agreed upon I am simply wasting my time taking a consensus based approach and going to extra lengths to keep the teasing out focused, which was the original intention.

Again, another thing we should be clear on is that I could proceed to edit the article at will, using verifiable sources, operating within wiki guidelines, without entering into detailed discussion about sources; and let things unfold in that fashion.

If both you and Jalal continue to approach this topic in such a closely guarded and possessive manner do not be surprised if individuals such as I go about doing things in a manner that pays less heed to your opinions. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. if as it looks this article is stagnant then is it ok to start slashing it back to the bare facts?

(Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Hi Semi, thanks for clarifying your position here. The information I added to the thread (mostly to the end) was pertinent. You removed it and took it out of context. You were warned three times then I took action. Editing another editors comments (and here I count removing the context as editing) is inexcusable and disrespectful and typical of your attitude here. You can indeed "proceed to edit the article at will", that is the basis of the Misplaced Pages. For myself, I more interested in creating a balanced article and working with the other editors rather than against them. The article as it stands already contains a section ("Move to US") that exists for the sole purpose of placating you so that other editors can get on with work. Are you seriously threatening an editing war here??? jalal (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of threatening to instigate an edit war?

Get your facts straight instead of throwing yet more accusations at me. The move to America section was in line with suggestions to sectionalise key historical events as a means to address objections to disproportionality.

I'll say it again, you added three paragraphs of material that were completely off the point, in an effort to side rail the disscussion on the INS case. This is counter productive when an editor has clearly made attempts to keep the discussion focused on specific questions.

Another point, in the informal review - that jayen466 has used as justification for some of his edits - it very clearly states However, the views of both supporters and detractors come across in the editorial voice of the article, sometimes relying on poor referencing and original research to push the claims. The article needs a solid rewrite and fact-check.

I would like to continue editing the article with this in mind, yet, for example, the arising Move to America section was closely guarded by both you and Jayen466. You both insisted on placing the medical issue as the primary reason for the move - with emphasis on this, and initially, with the exclusion of other factors. However, those that are now included are still positioned as secondary factors, despite the advise given, and despite the fact that there are well documented alternatives to this view, provided by reputable commentators, across a wide range of sources.

This is again evidence of a particular modus operandi that seeks to promote one version of events over others. This is not a way to proceed and the only way to address such conflicting editoral matters is to change the tone of writing so it is pragmatic, impartial, encyclopedic, and directly attributes views to the respective holders, in prose form, rather that making a statement and citing a page number, as is currently the case. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest of editor Jayen466

It should be noted that Jayen466 is an Osho devotee that he has apparently made it a personal mission to edit this article at Misplaced Pages. Please note the dominance and prevalence of Jayen466 editing. It seems meaningful to point out that this Misplaced Pages entry serves as an example of what's wrong with Misplaced Pages, i.e. an anonymous editor with an agenda can come in and make an entry read largely like he or she wants, if they are willing to put in the time and effort and understand Wikiepedia rules and politics. This article is largely out of touch with reality as a direct result and represents a rather one-sided positive view of Rajneesh. Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, is actually an infamous man and was often called a "cult leader." This was widely reported by the mainstream media, but the bulk of this entry, dominated as it is by an Osho supporter, doesn't reflect the objective history about this man and his life in a seriously balanced way. Anyone really interested in finding the facts about Osho should go to a public library and sort through a periodical stack. Or find information elsewhere available, which is not filtered through an editing process substantially dominated by an Osho/Rajneesh devotee.Rick A. Ross (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ross. Personal attacks are rarely, if ever, productive. And are usually a sign that one side has run out of good arguments and has to resort to defamation and slander. You may want to read through No Personal Attacks (for instance Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. and following). Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. jalal (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out the fact that Jayen466 uses Misplaced Pages to promote propaganda for his guru is not a "personal attack," but rather a point of fact. It's unfortunate, but sadly Misplaced Pages is often used and abused in this way by anonymous editors with personal agendas. By the way, "defamation and slander" is not applicable to statements of fact. And attempting to dismiss statements of fact by labeling them falsely as "defamation and slander" would be a kind of pointless "personal attack." If Jayen466 has no connection, personal interest and/or history with Osho/Rajneesh that would be interesting point of clarification for him to make here, but my understanding is that he most certainly does. And this fact makes him a less than objective and biased editor about Osho/Rajneesh.Rick A. Ross (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

this has been raised previously, see here also. no time back then to pursue the issue further, dealing with these two is time consuming, they engage in tendentious editing and tag teaming, it's pointless attempting to get the community to address this, it gets reduced to disputing content, and currently the editors in question are forcing consensus decisions and making the last call on everything. It's a niche article, the wider community is indifferent to their behavior, and it's ridiculously time consuming to make a case, simply have to take the long way around and deal exclusively with addressing content. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, you are probably right, but what this article specifically illustrates is a very substantial flaw in the open source format. That is, that dedicated members of a group/cult (e.g. Osho) can dominate an article within Wikiepedia for propaganda purposes. Frankly, this article reads like an advertisement for the group and guru, rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. As anyone other than devotees of the guru and a few relatively obscure academic apologists know, Rajneesh became known as a notorious criminal cult leader, not a "mystic and spiritual teacher." His ability to garner any mainstream attention was due to his criminal conduct, gross abuse, exploitation of followers, extreme materialism (90 Rolls Royes) and ultimately the fact that no one wanted him, as he wandered embarrassingly from place to place refused entry by nations due to his notorious but well-earned reputation as a vicious and destructive cult leader. Anyone can go to a public library and find this out by reading news articles in the periodical section. But here in Misplaced Pages, in an almost Orwellian exercise, history is no longer really relevant, but rather the overriding opinions of Osho devotees that have come to dominate and control this entry.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If Jayen466 had "no connection or personal interest" in Osho, he probably wouldn't be editing here. It's quite normal for editors to have an interest in their subject. Semitransgenic edits articles about music here, because he has an interest in the subject, I think it is quite normal. Jayen466, Semitransgenic and myself also have an interest in Osho, that's why we are here, editing the article. And you have shown up because you are also fascinated (and horrified???) by the guy. jalal (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Osho/Rajneesh was destructive cult leader

I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness through court proceedings within ten states in the United States specifically on the subject of cults. I have also been qualified and accepted in United States Federal Court as an expert witness on the subject of cults, through what is called a "Daubert hearing," which is essentially a special hearing set aside in Federal Court proceedings to establish the expertise of an expert witness before that expert is allowed to testify. I have never failed to be qualified and accepted as an expert witness about cults in any court proceeding. My working experience regarding cults began in the early 1980s. I have stated this here to preface the following statement; Osho, also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, easily fits the classic profile of a destructive cult leader. This article should have much more discussion of the cult aspect of Rajneesh/Osho, which is after all what actually made him notable historically. That is, he became infamous as a notorious "cult leader." Instead, due to the dominate editor's point of view here, this is barely being mentioned or discussed. The net result is a Misplaced Pages entry that reads more like a propaganda piece, as opposed to an encyclopedia entry.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, here and here is how some other encyclopedias, including the Encyclopedia of World Biography (Gale Group) and Britannica are treating the subject. I don't see any appreciable difference in tone and content; if anything, we feature more overt and ad-hominem criticism than they do. The article has undergone several reviews; none of them pointed to major POV problems. Cheers, Jayen466 19:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to turn this into a tit for tat but Jayen's statement above is characteristically disingenuous and follows a pattern that only those who have engaged with this editor will identify. Please note the diffs and note that the former version was put forward for GA review, the result was. Note also comments in the informal review in August that highlight issues relating to OR, and polarisation, that had remained undressed since the GA review. Note also that there was a serious weighting issue that has only been addressed recently. There were also issues with copyvio's from Fox, synthesis, and multiple editors have raised concerns regarding bias. Finally, the comparison with other encyclopedic publications serves only to validate Misplaced Pages's worth and demonstrates that it has the potential to be far superior in its ability to deliver relevant information that many commercial sources fail to consider. The article will eventually provide an unparalleled overview of Osho and his movement, of that I can assure you there is little doubt. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The choice of names for the subsection headings and overall structure of the article leaves much to be desired. It gives the article a very non-NPOV feel to it, like a promotional/advertisement piece. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? We used to have just years for the bio section, then Semi asked for thematic headings. Jayen466 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, the entire "Teachings" section is overweighting the article significantly, in undue proportion to the amount these "Teachings" are covered in secondary sources as opposed to balanced against how much the individuals actual life and biography is covered in secondary sources. This entire section could be moved to Teachings of Osho. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lede: 407 words Bio: 4562 words Teachings: 1831 words Reception: 1531 words That makes it about 20%; I reckon that's about right. The teachings are covered extensively in sources; some give more attention to their analysis than to the discussion of the bio data. Jayen466 04:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. With both the way the subheadings are structured, which make it seem like the "Teachings" takes up half the article from looking at the Table of Contents, and the undue weight given to the "Teachings" in the article. This is a biography article, not a discourse on the "Teachings" of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restructured the headings, following the principles used to structure Gandhi e.g. Jayen466 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

to clarify, I did not request 'thematic' headings, I requested a sub-division of noted life events according to chronological order, such as found in the example provided. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Osho deportation

Archived to Talk:Osho/Archive 7.

Poor formatting in the Notes subsection

This subsection should simply use {{Reflist}}, set to 2 columns. Any more columns than that scrunches the citations and looks silly and awkward. Please restore the formatting to use {{Reflist}} in the Notes subsection. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

colwidth is a valid and recommended parameter for Template:reflist. It adjusts the number of columns to the size of the user's screen, ensuring an optimal display for any screen or window size, and minimising the amount of vertical scrolling users have to do. As it is, the notes fit on a single screen on a large monitor. Using 2 columns, regardless of screen size, the same notes would take up 3 screens, with most of the display showing empty white space. That is not user-friendly; I prefer the current setting. Jayen466 13:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The current setting looks awful on my screen, and I have looked at this on multiple different computers. We should simply use {{reflist}}, set to 2 columns. Perhaps it will be best to get some other opinions on this. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like the effect. A number of FAs use the colwidth parameter. The current FAC Millennium '73 has it too; I don't think anybody there has objected to it. This article has had a multi-column footnote format for a very long time; no one has ever raised it as an issue before. I've started off a thread at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy); you are welcome to weigh in there. Jayen466 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the idea of a notes section is to make provisions for relevant footnotes. Since edit contention will most likely continue, I would personally like to begin adding cited text in the footnotes section for added transparency. Having such a tight column width will prove problematic if text is added in the footnotes section. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

is the way to go then. Jayen466 13:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for addressing this. Semitransgenic (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I understood that the current editors had agreed to a mediation session over the ongoing conflicts here. Semitransgenic then had a private talk with Vassyana and never came back. What happened? Are we going to repeat the whole cycle of edit/revert/argue for a third time? If so I suggest we apply for a page lock down until this is sorted out. jalal (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I presumed all concerned were watching the relevant talk page as before. Things have cooled somewhat since then but if you think mediation is required now please proceed in the appropriate manner. cheers Semitransgenic (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw, at the moment we seem to be hurtling along quite nicely. Let's wait until there is a problem. Jayen466 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Price

Yes it looks like you are right regarding Carter's description. Don't have Metha right now so can't check the exact context of the statement. Section got lost in the edit. Semitransgenic (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cult label, criticism

Many reliable sources refer to Osho and his followers as a "cult," and yet this and similar criticism of the leader and group doesn't seem to be given weight in this article. Where is the Controversy/Criticism section for such a controversial figure? Newspaper examples of the man or group being called a cult:

• Orange People's sect appeal (The Australian, April 11th, 2007)

The Indian guru, also known as Osho, died in 1990. His sannyasin cult generated international headlines with its bizarre sexual rites and its audacious takeover of the town of Antelope in the US state of Oregon in the mid-1980s.

• Cult Ousted From Church Amid Emotional Outbursts (Los Angeles Times, September 5th, 1981)
• Oregon town is bracing for showdown, Residents see the specter of the Rajneeshees in newcomers (Associated Press, April 24, 2000)

The atmosphere is reminiscent of turmoil stirred up here by a different group of strangers in the 1980s -- 4,000 followers of cult leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Cult members once sickened 700 residents of The Dalles after lacing restaurant salad bars with salmonella. Cult members were also accused of plotting to kill a U.S. attorney.

• Rajneesh cult calm in face of adversity (Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov 3, 1985)
• Ex-Cult Town Mayor Tells Of Murder Plot Two Rajneesh Followers Implicated In Alleged Plan To Kill Federal Prosecutor (Rocky Mountain News, July 7, 1995)

A former devotee of the late guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh on Thursday implicated two former leaders of the free-love cult in a 1985 plot to kill Oregon's chief federal prosecutor.

• Cult Offers To Abandon Guru's Commune (San Jose Mercury News, October 31, 1985)

Leaders of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh's controversial Oregon commune are ready to abandon this 64,000-acre ranch and leave the United States for good, if a deal can be struck with federal prosecutors ensuring their guru's freedom

• Last fugitive in case against Oregon cult members appears in court (CNN, Dec 21, 2002)

There are many many more newspaper articles of this sort. The "cult" label and related criticism should be reflected in this article. Xanthius (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same the other day. I'll add a few sentences on the loathing his movement inspired; I remember there is something to this effect by Saul Levine, comparing it to Scientology etc. Cheers, Jayen466 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done (or made a start, at least). Added a corresponding subhead in Reception and some relevant information. Jayen466 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of all this controversy, why can't we just let Bhagwans be Bhagwans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.138.184.71 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the manipulation of this supposed "encylopedia entry" should not be ignored is because it reads like a paid advertisement for a guru group, and promotes propaganda and the group's self-interest at the expense of the objective credibility of this Web site as an open source resource. If Misplaced Pages is to have credibility, the issue of anonymous editors promoting group propaganda should be addressed. As it is Jayen466, an Osho devotee, is an example of how entries at Misplaced Pages can easily be manipulated when staffers and/or volunteers acting on a group agenda come here to edit certain targeted articles endlessly. This kind of dominance turns reality on its head and is Orwellian in its final result, as this article demonstrates to any objective observer familiar with Rajneesh/Osho through mainstream media reports.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

dear mr ross we are looking for the middle path here.

anyway.. I think with this cult label the sannyas movement in early poona and the ranch could have deserved its label . the utopian dream one leader . orange clothes and the mala. lots of living together in communes. separation from the outside world. in fact up until osho's death. but since the death of the guru the organisation has imo moved away from being a cult to being a lot more mainstream (osho started this work of making us more aceptable with the removal of the orange clothes and removal of the mala.) since the death of the guru and the commune becoming a resort and osho becoming more populist in india and around the world (greatly increased book sales)although there are still a few small pockets of sannyas communallity the emphasis is more on the individual and the lower emphasis placed on Osho (the removal of his pictures from the resort)and the recent process of the quantam leap from guru to your own buddhahood.the emphasis recently has become one more akin to the teachings of zen buddhists. I would say that recently they have moved towards a spiritual movement well intergrated within the mainstream with little or no controversity remaining. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

New heading for parts of the introduction.

Half the introduction to the topic, narrowly and only address the history of oshos's controversies, in the garb of an introduction (cut n pasted below for reference). That makes it sound like a tabloid writeup!

An alternative way to present the information would be to add one sentence to the intro, from which a link connects to the new subheading, allowing for a smoother reading, instead of focussing on a sliver of this rather large topic and phenomena on which dissertations have been written in several fields.

That linking sentence could be - He was heavily mired in controversial events throughout his life - followed by a link to a subtitle such as Biography - Introduction (level 2), Controversies etc. Unfortunately I am not wiki savvy, and am not sure how it is to be done. Can someone please help me do this? It will be very appreciated.

Better organization, better reading

Regards Jules

These are the paragraphs that need a new home "....

A professor of philosophy, he travelled throughout India in the 1960s as a public speaker, raising controversy by speaking against socialism, Mahatma Gandhi and institutionalised religion. He advocated a more open attitude towards sexuality, a stance that earned him the sobriquet "sex guru" in the Indian and later the international press. In 1970, he settled for a while in Mumbai (Bombay). He began initiating disciples (known as neo-sannyasins) and took on the role of a spiritual teacher. In his discourses, he reinterpreted writings of religious traditions, mystics and philosophers from around the world. Moving to Pune (Poona) in 1974, he established an ashram that attracted increasing numbers of Westerners. The ashram offered therapies derived from the Human Potential Movement to its Western audience and made news in India and abroad, chiefly because of its permissive climate and Osho's provocative lectures. By the end of the 1970s, there were mounting tensions with the Indian government and the surrounding society.

In 1981, Osho relocated to the United States, and his followers established an intentional community, later known as Rajneeshpuram, in the state of Oregon. Within a year, the leadership of the commune became embroiled in a conflict with local residents, primarily over land use, which was marked by bitter hostility on both sides. In this period Osho attracted notoriety for his large collection of Rolls-Royce motorcars. The Oregon commune collapsed in 1985, when Osho revealed that the commune leadership had committed a number of serious crimes, including a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles. Shortly after, Osho was arrested and charged with immigration violations. He was deported from the United States in accordance with a plea bargain. Following an enforced world tour during which twenty-one countries denied him entry, Osho returned to Pune, where he died in 1990. His ashram is today known as the Osho International Meditation Resort.

..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.105.210 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this will work. Have a look at WP:LEDE and WP:MOS; there are certain standard formats that we are supposed to follow in structuring an article. I can see what you mean about the lede (i.e. the introduction) reading a bit like a tabloid, but then again, those are key facts of his life, are they not? What would you rather have in the lede, bearing in mind that the lede should be a short summary of the article as a whole? (P.S. You can sign your posts by placing four tildes at the end, also available as a clickable option in the Insert menu below the Save button.) Cheers, Jayen466 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Urban sentence

Hi Semi, parts of that sentence drew on page 185, in particular the 3rd paragraph on that page. I thought Urban explained there the background to his statement on p. 183 about the path being well suited to its time. Have a look, see what you think. Jayen466 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK will get back to you when I have read the chapter in question. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

undisscussed deletion

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

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

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

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

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

and(will beback)reverted it

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

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

What do you think, Semi? Jayen466 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hello jayen .

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

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

I think half was from Semi, and half was from me. I definitely remember adding the satanic glow. I figured, might as well go the whole hog. :-) But I admit I am a little bit listless about this article at the moment. Partly because I'm busy at lots of other places. Cheers, Jayen466 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

In short I object to the changes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who is going to do this checking?

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

Move to America, again.

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

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

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

Discussion

Well, this is the diff that Semi complains about (left side is what I had changed it to, right side is what Semi changed it back to). Comments? Merits/demerits of each version? Jayen466 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• For reference, here is the source (Carter) for the Encounter group passsage that is part of this dispute: Jayen466 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Also note that the section starting "<!--The move seems ..." in my version did not display on the article screen. (The "<!-- text -->" marker turns text into a note that the encyclopedia reader then can't see on the finished page.) Jayen466 16:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi, just in case you were not aware of this, my edits did not excise the Move to America at all. I removed (commented out) Laxmi's comments, and I removed reports of Sheela's having pressed for the move for a long time. Those were content that I added some while back. The section then being rather short, I also removed the separate headline for it. I retained the fact that he moved to America, that he was ill before, that he never sought medical assistance in the States, and that the authorities contended he had made false statements on his visa application. Cheers, Jayen466 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

so is this the actual dispute?

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

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

so tell me what is the actual problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the energy here IS stagnating the article.

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

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

why be so attached to the article?

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

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

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

thankyou for these constructive comments semiT.

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

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

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

the article at all.

clearer and simpler..less complicated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of unbiased writings about Osho.

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

unlimited groups in the article?

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

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

or they could be called a biased commentator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal comments

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

Move to America, #3

The thing is easy to cover. First Osho got ill. This is notable in itself, even if he had not moved to the States. Then a visa application was made for him to go to the States, on a medical visa. He went. He never sought outside medical help in the States. The authorities accused him of having lied on his visa application. He later made an Alford plea to that charge. All of these things are stated in the article now, and were stated in the article as I had edited it a couple of days ago. What is the problem? Jayen466 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

this is what you commented out:

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

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

":this is what you commented out:" Semitransgenic, this is an untrue assertion which I would like you to retract. I did not comment out that section. Here is the page as I left it: . Please check again. Jayen466 13:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And as you very well now, and FitzGerald reports, they did not successfully prosecute. Osho's lawyers made a plea bargain. There never was a trial. Jayen466 13:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

There is another version, according to which he never left the United States apparently, but died in US custody: Chryssides is a respected scholar. :-( Jayen466 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

On 1 June 1981, Osho traveled to the United States on a tourist visa, for medical purposes, and spent several months at Kip's Castle in Montclair, New Jersey. According to sources close to Osho he had a prolapsed disc and had been treated by several doctors, including a leading orthopedic surgeon from London, called James Cyriax. The move is reported to have been overseen by Sheela.She stated that Osho was in grave danger if he remained in India but would receive appropriate medical treatment in America . Osho's previous secretary, Laxmi, reported to Frances FitzGerald, that is was her failure to secure new property in India that led Osho to relocate when his medical condition declined.

Other commentators believe that conditions in India, including mounting tension, increasing criticism of activities in Pune, and threatened punitive action by the Indian authorities, created the impetus for Osho to relocate operations to America.Gordon (1987) notes that Sheela and Osho had discussed the idea of establishing a new commune in the U.S. as early as late 1980.During his time in America Osho never sought outside medical treatment, leading the Immigration and Naturalization Service to believe that he had a preconceived intent to remain there. The INS would later find Osho guilty of immigration fraud, including making false statements on his initial visa application.

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

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

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

Let us start with the last sentence. FitzGerald, p. 86, which this is cited to, says: "Whether false statements had been made was the legal question at issue, and INS officials never proved their case. (In the end, they did not have to.)" The reason they did not have to was that Osho's lawyers made a plea bargain. In addition, the INS cannot find anyone guilty. This is a matter for courts, judges and juries. How can you write this, and cite it to FitzGerald, when FitzGerald says nothing like it? Jayen466 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

In a plea bargain you are not "found guilty", you "plead guilty" to an agreed charge and are sentenced without there being a trial to establish your guilt or innocence. Alford plea has always been wikilinked, and our article on it makes clear that it counts as a guilty plea. I would have thought that was apparent from the fact that he was sentenced. I have now expressly added that it is a form of guilty plea for those readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. Jayen466 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you misrepresent what I have done in my edits, and that you misrepresent sources. I will charitably assume that you have done neither intentionally, but it is worrying nonetheless. Cheers, Jayen466 14:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the second sentence, The New Yorker is not a "source close to Osho". It is improper to characterise it as such. Jayen466 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

It is not up to you to speculate who The New Yorker got its information from. I do not need to remind you of their fact-checking reputation. Jayen466 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Well, what did you think of this version? This had the MTA integrated at the beginning of the Oregon section. Jayen466 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

==

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

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

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

Semi, you yourself added the phrase about sham marriages in this edit. You probably copied it across accidentally from further below. I have now removed that part. Cheers, Jayen466 17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Verbatim

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

Semi, please let's just agree to go with the actual source verbatims. "Sheela oversaw" and "Sheela's unilateral decision" just aren't the same to me, sorry. With attributed verbatims, there can be no quibble that you or I are emphasising or adding or subtracting something. Jayen466 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Another thing, we now mention the two counts he pleaded guilty to twice: Once in Move to America, and once in Arrest. I think we needn't mention the sham marriage plea in the Move to America section; it does not really belong there. I suggest we shorten the last MTA sentence to: "Osho later pleaded guilty to immigration fraud, including making false statements on his initial visa application." The notes that you added are useful of course; would you mind transferring them to the Arrest section, if you are agreeable to this? Cheers, Jayen466 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi, earlier today I specifically added to the article that the Alford plea is a type of guilty plea. I have never claimed otherwise. Jayen466 17:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have affirmed consistently that Osho made an Alford plea (which is a kind of guilty plea). I have consistently denied that he was "found guilty", since that expression presupposes a trial with a judge or jury arriving at such a decision independently of the defendant's plea. It is not a major thing to me, it's just that we should not create the impression that there was a trial when there wasn't one. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, Jayen466 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is a paper by James T. Richardson that has detail on how the US authorities were trying for years to find a way to deport Rajneesh from the States, by hook or crook. He writes, "it was quite an eye-opener". But that is all by the by. Fact is, Osho pleaded guilty to these two charges, so that is what we have to say, and it is what we are saying, is it not? Let's move on. Jayen466 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Yeah well, that's life. Clarke goes into how Osho was rather ungracious and querulous in defeat, saying if the world perished, it was only what it deserved and all that. Jayen466 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yes Semi, but it was never established in a court of law. FitzGerald says it, verbatim: "The INS officials never proved their case. (In the end, they did not have to.)" (p.86). We can't fly in the face of that and pretend that officials' private beliefs are the same as a court finding. Cheers, Jayen466 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

editor (semitrangenic) posting/ editing under different identities and unknown ip addresses.

if this is one of your nasty little posts would you add your name to it.

Block quote+ :::actually smartass, I have the original texts, simply forgot to adjust the page numbering will be addressed. 143.117.78.169 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

it's good policy to at least put your name to what you do! (Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Listen Rob, your accusations are getting tiresome, if you notice, recently I edited from an IP, I then immediately signed in, reverted the IP edit, reentered the submission and left a comment saying exactly what had happened, i.e. I forgot to sign in, this has been my behavior consistently, your continued WP:AGF infringements are unacceptable and I would now ask you to please cease. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my notice posted above, #Personal comments. This dispute over a post from 11 months ago isn't relevant to improving the article today. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the world tour.

I would like to see the world tour explained in a little more detail.

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

1. ^ Meredith 1988, pp. 308–309 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMeredith1988 (help)
2. ^ Gordon 1987, pp. 93–94 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGordon1987 (help)
3. ^ FitzGerald 1986a, p. 86 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFitzGerald1986a (help)
4. Palmer 1988, p. 127 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPalmer1988 (help), reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 377 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAveling1999 (help)
5. ^ Fox 2002, p. 22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFox2002 (help)
6. Wallis 1986 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWallis1986 (help), reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 147 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAveling1999 (help)
7. ^ Lewis & Petersen 2005, p. 124 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewisPetersen2005 (help)
8. Guru in Cowboy Country, in: Asia Week, July 29 1983, pp. 26–36
9. Geist, William E. (1981-09-16). "Cult in Castle Troubling Montclair". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-11-27.
10. Palmer 1988, p. 127 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPalmer1988 (help), reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 377 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAveling1999 (help)
11. Wallis 1986 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWallis1986 (help), reprinted in Aveling 1999, p. 147 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAveling1999 (help)
12. Guru in Cowboy Country, in: Asia Week, July 29 1983, pp. 26–36

• 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