Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 14 March 2009

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

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

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

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

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

Names

Rajneesh-given names are listed for some of the witnesses and defendants but not all. For consistency sake as well as to more fully identify the individuals, it would be nice to list rajneesh and "christian" names of all participants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.42 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will see what further info there is in other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive

The second section repeats the overview. Change one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

non working links

link 24 is going nowhere and one link I looked at goes to an anti cult site which is a very poor place to referance to as its already announcing its anti stance there facts should be removed or cross refered. is anyone bothered if I remove them?(Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

24 actually does not have a link, it is just a cite to a newspaper. Which other link are you referring to? Cirt (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hi curt. at lot of these links seem a bit circular or like this cite to a newspaper but not to the article...go nowhere or to another wiki article is that normal and is is considered to quote articles written by anti cult site ..eg rick ross.... im looking through them all to see what is going on here..did you write most/all of this article? .... Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Please be more specific about which individual cite you are discussing. Every single sentence in the article is backed up to sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. I think you may be referring to wikilinks of the sources in the individual citations. For example, wikilinking to The New York Times, instead of simply writing The New York Times, in the cite. This is not the actual source, the source is the individual article. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

well ill have more of a look and get back to you ..you do seem to have gone a bit overboard on the article .. after all it was an idea not a real crime even though having the idea and preparing to commit it are offences .. No one was hurt in any way ..and as for actuall links to reliable sources there are but a few .... really this page is a bit strange and weighted.. it could easily be well trimmed/edited and incorporated in the bioterror page.. and at the start....hit squad ...goes to a rap band ..! (Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

and hit squad itself is a bit much and slang hit squad n. Slang 1. A squad or team of hired executioners, as one organized for carrying out a political assassination. 2. A group of political terrorists. they were hardly either of these.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

The subject of the article fits the first definition you cite "A squad or team of hired executioners, as one organized for carrying out a political assassination", perfectly. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

no they don't they werent hired ... a hit man is would be considered to be a profesional.. as in get a hit man! (Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Regarding , secondary sources actually describe it using the term "hit squad". I will cite them on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

well Ill thank you not to just revert small changes ...if I make a small change you could happily just go get the quote and talk about it... just reverting is not a good begining! and even if a link is found ..the link would not be an inbiased reporting as a hit sguad is totally unreflective of thr reality(Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

it's amazing here how people guard articles ... i have had some discussion and changed a couple of words...almost nothing one of the words was linking to a rap bans b4 i got here... (Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

I will comment with sources on the talk page shortly. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment - Hit squad

Template:RFChist

• Should the term "hit squad" be used to describe the conspirators involved in the assassination plot against a United States Attorney? 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) removed the term "hit squad" from the article, with the edit summary removed the weighted and slang expression hit squad - though this term verbatim is backed up to multiple secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. After I pointed this fact out clearly in an edit summary, he reverted, with edit summary weighted statement (slang).

In fact, secondary sources use this term, here is a presentation of those sources:

1. The plot included a plan to intercept Turner on a roadway near his home. The all-woman hit squad was to feign car trouble, stop Turner's car and rush him. In addition to Turner, others on the hit list included Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer, now a Republican candidate for governor.

   Associated Press (September 12, 1990). "Assassination Plot Admitted". The Seattle Times. p. F2. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

2. They are accused of plotting in 1985 - along with several other followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh - to kill Charles Turner, then the U.S. attorney for Oregon. Turner was not harmed. But prosecutors say the hit squad hoped his death would derail a federal investigation of immigration fraud and other crimes by the sect's members.

   The Seattle Times staff (April 7, 1994). "Snag In Rajneeshee Extradition". The Seattle Times. p. B2.

3. In May 1985, Sheela Silverman, the Bhagwan's second-in-command, also known as Ma Anand Sheela, called a meeting of selected followers to form a hit squad to plot Mr Turner's assassination and kill several dissidents on the commune. Stork volunteered to be the killer, buying guns and silencers and stalking Mr Turner.

   McKenna, Michael (February 2, 2006). "Mercy for expat in US kill plot". The Australian. p. 5.

4. Rajneesh 's deputy Sheela Silverman, called Ma Anand Sheela, formed a hit squad to murder district attorney Charles Turner because he was investigating the sect. The Antelope community disintegrated and Rajneesh was deported to India, where he died in 1990.

   MATP (April 11, 2007). "Sex and salmonella". The Australian. p. 11.

The term "hit squad" is an accurate description, it is used in multiple secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V, and it should be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Off2riorob

when I got to this article which cirt is guarding one of the hit squad words was linking to a rap band site.

and these links cirt has put herejust go to wiki pages about newspapers?

and secondary quotes ...could we have a primary..

and anyway.....

quoting newspaper articles similar to I ate frddy's hamster is hardly attempting to reflect honestly the reality which was that these amatuer guys in a conspiracy and not actually commiting the crime is hardly a "hit squad".

this doesnt bade well for any editing I was hoping to do to improve the article .. I put some comments on the talk page .. please read the talk page to see exactly what happened......

this was no hit squad even if there is a primary quote .. it was a group of silly people out of their depth being controlled by a dominant sheela....

I am of the opinion that hit squad is a weighted comment about this group of people that where brought together by sheela to talk about and do a bit of planning towards this non event... the reality of the crime is actually reflected in the fact of the small sentences and dropping of the charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's especially over weighted when you consider that the crime plan was dropped and some of the people who had no previous convictions of any kind and have had no other convictions since ...it happened 20 years ago,,

hit squad conjours up a picture of a bunch of dangerous killers and in this case that is simply not true..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

in fact for what is basically an article covering a crime and legal matters it is remarkably short of primary links

and has had little discussion and has been mostly written by cirt .. who is guarding it from any tiny editing .. have a look to what I changed ..it's better ..less dramatic .. less tabloid and less weighted to portray a one sided position. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

curt's whole stance here is have the article reflect his opinion and therefore to make the hit squad appear as badass as he can ... a one sided reflection of reality. and he is experianced in wiki .. he brought me here so fast .. for help with his what is basically his abuse of the wiki guidlines .. if you know them well you can use them for your own benefit and not for the benefit of the wiki. ... we didn't need any help .. we had just got started ..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

connotative baggage ..curt..lets just go with my little edits .. show willing.. it reads good ... the crimes are still there ..

it's hardly changed...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

the best and most honest edit is the one that I did removing hit squad and replacing it with group. this doesnt need all the silly secondary links ... my edit just removed the weight ...hit squad is obviously loaded.. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

ok peregrine ..I can go with that .. I was really just refering to any reporting of an event that is ..hyped up to sell papers.. made more exciting or dramatic than it actually was.. so cirt has attached himself to these comments that are by there very nature .. excitable..designed to excite the article and not reflect a true reality. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Comments by respondents to RFC

Hit squad does seem a bit overly kind, making them sound more badass than they were. Secondary sources rule, but it sounds funny. Maybe attribute the description? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean by writing "According to the Associated Press, The Seattle Times, and The Australian..."? That sounds silly. If it were one source using the term, sure, attribution makes sense, but when multiple secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V use the term, we begin to see that the term is indeed an accurate description. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

'Described as a "hit squad".' maybe? After that use it without quotes? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like this  ? Cirt (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's better. Probably two refs is enough, but lets wait in see if other wikiproject Oregon people have an opinion (they usually do). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay that sounds good, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks peregrine for commenting.. I agree with you it makes them sound more badass than they really were... attribute the description sounds good ..I could go with that!(Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

@Peregrine Fisher - Please do take a moment to read through all the steps they actually planned out - including creating a hit list, assembling a team of conspirators, obtaining false identification in one state, obtaining guns and weapons in another state, and staking out the job location of a United States Attorney with plans to assassinate him, and others including a sitting Governor. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some quotes in their somewhere would be good, to show that it's not our words, but the words of reliable sources. I think "hit squad" has a certain amount of connotative baggage, and should be used with a little extra care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the change - in direct response to your above recommendation. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

no . I am not happy with that at all. please have a look at it again (Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

there thats better...so called hit squad...I can go with that.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

- I strongly object to this change. These are not "tabloid" publications, but highly respected sources. And "so called" is weasel wording. No, the wording suggested above by Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) is most appropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

your words are weasally... peregrine said attribute it and that is what I have done chill out ..its two almost irrelevant words.. which peregrine has said are a bit over the top ...weighted.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

cirt.why you are now attempting to talk to me on my talk page is beyond me .. and I will need a little time to think about that..

right now I would prefer it if you refrained from that. thanks truth is .. the best and most honest reflection of the reality was my little edit and I recommend you to revert to that.. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't quite understand why there is such a heated debate about this but I will offer my comment as requested on the Community Portal page. It seems to me that hit squad is slang and given that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, maybe there should a word like conspiritors or plotters. That is all I will say because I think this one is over my head. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good suggestion to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I could go with conspirators or plotters - those terms sound appropriate. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) and Elmmapleoakpine (talk · contribs) - let me know if this edit conforms appropriately with the latest suggestion by Elmmapleoakpine. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Now that slang has been brought up, I think just using "conspirators" in the instances where "plotters" is used would be better. It's not slang, but plotters sounds non-standard to me. Looking at a thesaurus, collaborator sounds the second best to me. I think conspirators is only used once per paragraph, though, so alternation is probably unecessary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay now the instances are only "conspirators". Better? Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're done here. We may keep talking about it, but you have to call them something, and I think conspirators is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay great, thanks for your input. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you to the "respondants". I am happy with it now .. It reads a lot better.(Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

second paragraph.

in the second paragraph the word stalked is used .. this is a criminal offence ..is there a quote for this ? was anyone charged with the offence? I have jusr read a quote where the phrase staked out was used but this is quite different to stalked.. I don't think the sanyassins behaviour was what we would consider to be stalking as the word is used today! so staked out his place of work sits better..and at the end of the paragraph ..and turned was never harmed.. in there should be that the conspiritors changed their minds and discontinued their plans. the way it is written makes it sould like the fbi stopped the crime being commited which is not true..and also that the federal investigation was requested by Osho after he discovered sheela's crimes.

and where it says "some had fled" the country at the top of para3 .. if they were not wanted didn't they just leave the country? Is there quotes for this? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

and where it says in para one .. by high ranking followers of rajneesh... then only one of these high ranking positions is mentioned and ..fourth in command is not a real position.. on the ranch there was not a command structure like this.. so are there quotes to confirm their high rank? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

sheela was not in the position of "chief lieutenant" it was not run on a milatary structure. sheela was his ...secretary i think ..ill go have a look ...(Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) - You have yet to provide any sources to back up your spurious claims. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

links..

link number 11 is not working ...gives this...Object not found!

The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

shall we remove it or attempt to repair it? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Link removed from ref, not needed for WP:V. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by Off2riorob

and - these are POV-pushing changes intended to minimize the nature of the facts. These changes are not supported by sources. Indeed, Off2riorob (talk · contribs) did not introduce any new sources to the article to back up his assertions. What sources do you have that back up your recent edits? Cirt (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

number 6 I am contesting the fact ..your fact that they were high ranking officials and you have only the one that head of security.. where is your fact to prove that the others were high ranking officials .. some of them were not high ranking at all.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)) and it is well reported that they were isolated ..that none of the vast majority of sannyasins new anything about it .. all the conspiritors were charged 6 or 7 or so ... so they were by nature a small isolated group.. do you disagree with that or have anything to suggest otherwisw.(Off2riorob (talk))

The information is all already sourced in the article. You have yet to produce any sources on the talk page to back up any of your claims. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

as far as your accusations go of my pov ...you have to be joking. this article could have been written by the kind of person that at the time was gettin his gun to go shoot some rajneeshees... I feel the article has been written with a pov and my objection here is to balance it more ..to make it less one sided which it is now... and I amgoing to do that! (Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

do not....

I do not want to talk to you on my talk page. post here .(Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

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