Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:19, 7 June 2009

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

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

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

Osho deportation

Archived to Talk:Osho/Archive 7.

Troubling passage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 countries feared Osho??? Osho a small village boy with no money to begin with ends ups having 100 Rolls Royles.. Not being into any buisness at all. Pure Spirituality! 60 centres and thousands and thousands of 'not so fools' following him.. or were they 'fools' to follows him?? I mean thousands and thousands of 'fools'??. These people of scientific societies, having no relegion of their own ( mostly christianity and less muslims as religion). Fools talking about science and scientiology followed him for what good?? My point:The Crowd following speaks for itself. And if that crowd is belonging to a scientific society then.. speaks more for that person. There definately was an element of elightenment in Osho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.14.103 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Why "Osho" and not "Rajneesh"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from google..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Our naming policy is based on the principle of least surprise, and a preference for the most easily recognized name. Article traffic statistics currently point to an overwhelming user preference for "Osho" over "Rajneesh" or "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" , indicating that Osho is the most common and easily recognized name among Misplaced Pages users.
2. Applying the Google test recommended in WP:Naming conflicts shows that 2.13 million English web pages mention Osho, but not Rajneesh, vs. 0.3 million English web pages mentioning Rajneesh, but not Osho. This ratio is in the same order of magnitude as the preference ratio among Misplaced Pages users for Osho over Rajneesh. I see no good reason to alter the article title in favour of a name that is ten times less common in practice.
3. Our naming conventions express a clear preference for self-identifying names, as well as current official names. The subject of this article discarded the title Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the late eighties, some time before his death in 1990. Since then, all publications authored by him have been published under the name "Osho". This has been the case for over 20 years. Osho is both the self-identifying and current official name.
4. While Britannica, Gale and others have opted for the older, historical name, it's easy to find reputable reference publishers who have not. Examples:
   – Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge;
   – Encyclopedia of Community, SAGE Publications;
   – Historical dictionary of New Age movements, Scarecrow Press;
   – Holy people of the world, ABC-CLIO;
   – Exploring New Religions by Continuum International Publishing Group leads with Rajneesh/Osho and then points out in the first sentence that Osho is the present name, and uses it predominantly throughout the remainder of the article;
   – Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis.

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

When I search for "Rajneesh", it takes me to "Osho", so it's not a problem. What wikipedia really ought to do is simply assign an ID number to every article, and then use redirects to get to those articles. Then the debate over which title is the "right" title goes away. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although this is about a bit more than renaming an article I think... :) jalal (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The point being that it doesn't really matter what the article is called, as long as youo can get to it easily. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Majority of biographical articles cited above have "Rajneesh" in the title

Even the majority of examples cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), use "Rajneesh" in the title of the articles about Rajneesh: Examples:
– Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge; -v OSHO (BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH), article starts off with: Osho was the founder and leader of the Rajneesh Movement.
– Historical dictionary of New Age movements, Scarecrow Press; OSHO — formerly, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
– Exploring New Religions by Continuum International Publishing Group Rajneesh/Osho.

See also Talk:Osho#Encyclopedia_articles_use_.22Rajneesh.22_in_title. If even the articles cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) use "Rajneesh" in the title of those articles, and the predominant majority of biographical articles about the individual in Encyclopedias use "Rajneesh" in the title, we should take our lead from these sources, and do so as well, in this article. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Misplaced Pages pages

I took a look at all the other WP language versions and they all use Osho as the title, even the Chinese version. I think Rajneesh is much more common in USA, but in foreign countries Osho is the more common term. Certainly in China, Japan, India and Malaysia, most have never heard of Rajneesh. So although Cirt has a point that English publications in the past have used Rajneesh in the title, it raises the question of whether the title should synchronize with other Misplaced Pages versions. It's also clear that as time moves on, the term 'Rajneesh' will be used less and the term 'Osho' will be used more. Should we be guided by the past, or look to the future? As the search term 'Rajneesh' already redirects to this article, there seems little to be gained from changing the title to 'Rajneesh'. jalal (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is circular reasoning, as other Misplaced Pages articles and pages are not WP:RS. It is clear that the predominant majority of reliable sources, especially titles of encyclopedia articles, use "Rajneesh" in the title to refer to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Jalal (talk · contribs) is wrong, evidently he did not check "all" of the other Wikipedias - for example see: Italian Misplaced Pages - "Osho Rajneesh", Dutch Misplaced Pages - "Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh", Polish Misplaced Pages - "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)", and Portuguese Misplaced Pages - "Rajneesh". Cirt (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine as a compromise modeling the name for this page after the Italian Misplaced Pages or Polish Misplaced Pages models, the Polish version is probably the best way to go here. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This would also be in-line with Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge; -v OSHO (BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH), which was itself cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), above . Cirt (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too clear on what the problem is with the existing situation. A search on Osho or Rajneesh ends up on the same page through the miraculous use of redirects and the very first sentence explains the other names he is known by, this is as used by most other WPs (except, as you have noticed, the Italian and Polish). I know this sticks in your craw a little, but could you explain why the current situation is improved by undoing a move that took place (after much discussion) a couple of years ago? Quoting academic books from the last century as justification doesn't persuade me, they will slowly be phased out in time. Are there any other reasons? Thanks in advance for you patience with me. jalal (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I think that Misplaced Pages should use the same name for the article used by the majority of WP:RS sources, and in fact, encyclopedia articles, out there - namely Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Misplaced Pages articles by their very nature are informed and drawn from WP:RS sources, and the name for this page should be modeled after a preponderance of these sources. See Talk:Osho#Encyclopedia_articles_use_.22Rajneesh.22_in_title for some examples of the names chosen by other encyclopedias. Note the years on those entries - multiple cites are from 2009. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Material added

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

Osho on Homosexuality

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

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

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

Yes, seems to me, too, that Osho contradicted himself on some subjects. This makes a good teacher, you are compelled to think and find out by yourself what you belief and hold true.

How to insert what he said on homosexuality I still don't know. I have not thought about it again until now. But it has to. Osho is thought to have been sort of sex maniac, that's why it should be mentioned.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.213 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• It would seem that there are sufficient sources to show that the subject condemned homosexuality, at very least. It was not a major part of his teachings, but a short sentence on the matter wouldn't be out of place.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• An apparently moderate and sober treatment of the issue is in Susan J. Palmer's The Rajneesh Papers. ISBN 8120810805. Pp 110-111. However that's focused more on the movement than the subject so it might be a better source for the other article.   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• It IS a major part of his teachings, because he kept on and on about a certain one of his formulations - the four stages of sexual love; autosex, homosex, heterosex and beyondsex. He considered that his way could not arrive at the fourth without passing through the third. From this viewpoint, for example, he said that Walt Whitman might have become naturally enlightened had he tried being hetero. Nevertheless, homosex is better than no love at all. He repeated this a dozen times or more in public lectures. This message comes to you only in the interests of knowledgeable debate. Redheylin (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be best to find descriptions of the subject's teachings in secondary sources. Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss this 4-stage progression?   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can think of - Jayen knows more about 2ndry sources. I do not want to edit the page - and to tell the truth, I think most times a person is usually the most reliable source about their own opinions when these stand beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of consistent public statement. I find this generally to be the case in wiki, whether we talk of scientists or celebrities. That's not the intention. Just, since the matter was raised, I mentioned that it is better if everyone is familiar with the facts. Osho was known as the sex-guru in India because he advocated discussion of sex, sex education and an end to religious control of it, free contraception, the dissolution of the family into the commune and serial monogamy leading to celibacy. He saw homosexuality as a product of sexual segregation, particularly in male power elites, and he advocated positive discrimination for women. He discussed sex as a meditation among a hundred others but suggested that most of the people who claim to practise this are delusional. He did not advocate promiscuity: he was the world's first to begin a "condoms against AIDS" campaign and was excoriated for it a couple of years before the govts that excoriated him did the same thing themselves.

On the other hand I have seen it argued here that a misconception, if filed as a story and plagiarised by a few other newshounds, deserves to be placed here even if it the misconception can readily be refuted from the subject's own statements. This is not a standard of debate with which I care to engage. Since the editors concerned are bent upon inserting what they know to be untruth, I prefer simply to leave them to wind themselves so tightly that they choke. Redheylin (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The are many problems with primary sources, especially in the case of someone who had given as many talks as this subject. I'm sure that Palmer isn't the only one who's discussed the subjects views on this topic. I'll see what I can find next week.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While there are problems with primary sources, this discussion was kicked off and claimed legitimacy by quoting some. Now, the 3 web pages linked by Austerlitz above already show a very multidimensional approach, at times critical, at other times supportive of gayness. The following could be added:

Homosexuals are called "gay" people. They are really gay! The heterosexuals look so sad. Whenever you see a couple you can immediately know whether they are married or not: if they are sad they are married, if they are looking dull and dead they are married. Marriage kills all joy for the simple reason that it creates so many conflicts. Hence all societies have condemned homosexuality, for the simple reason that if it is not condemned, what will happen to reproduction? In the past it had some meaning, but now it has no meaning.
Now the day has come when homosexuality CAN be accepted, should be accepted as a natural outlet of your sexual energies. I am not against it, I am not for it either. I am simply saying that if you have to live your sex you can choose your style, you are free to choose your style. If you decide to be stupid, at least you should be given the freedom to choose what kind of stupid you want to be! I give you total freedom.
My effort here is to help you to go beyond it, so if you are homosexual you have to go beyond homosexuality, if you are heterosexual you have to go beyond heterosexuality. And there are other people also who are neither, who are autoerotic, autosexual. They have to go beyond their autoeroticism. Man has to transcend sex, whatsoever kind of sex it is, because unless you go beyond your biology you will never know your soul. But meanwhile -- before you go beyond -- it is your freedom to be whatsoever you want to be.
You say, "I am homosexual. I feel terribly oppressed and stricken by the stigma of homosexuality." There is no need to be "terribly oppressed." You must be accepting people's condemnation. Deep down somewhere you are also against it; otherwise, why feel oppressed? If people are against, let them be against! You need not declare to everybody that you are a homosexual. You need not move with a flag that you are a homosexual! You can remain a homosexual. Of course, you cannot hide it because your sex style changes your body language. The way the homosexual walks is totally different from the heterosexual; the way he talks is totally different. And he looks so gay, so happy!
So you will have to remain a little less happy, that's all. Don't look so happy, and walk a little more consciously, that's all.

— Osho, The Way of the Buddha

In Iran, the punishment for homosexuality is death -- although because of this punishment, more Iranians are homosexual than anybody else. Because when something is so dangerous, people become interested: "Naturally there must be something in it. When the punishment is death, that means there must be something higher than life in it, more than life in it. It is worth taking the risk!"
But why should people be worried about others? About everything the society remains alert: nobody should have his own individual way about his sex, about his love, about his clothes, about his way of talking, manners. Every society imposes a fascist rule on its members. It destroys much that is beautiful.

— Osho, Ah, This!

In the West, if you are walking hand-in-hand with a woman no problem arises, because the society is also the same. But walk hand-in-hand with a man, two men walking hand-in-hand, and people start looking at you. Something is wrong -- you look homosexual, you look gay. It is dangerous! Now homosexuals have been one of the tortured minorities in the world, very much tortured. In some countries they are killed. In some countries, for example in Iran, if it is found that two persons are living as homosexuals or lesbians, then the only punishment is death. What nonsense! They have not committed any crime against anybody, they have not harmed anybody! Two men living together, or two women living together, this should be nobody else's business.
But there is a great fear of homosexuality, and the reason is that homosexuality has been repressed down the ages. ... The homosexual has a very different lifestyle, and you are heterosexual. He belongs to another religion, he has another politics, he is not a man like you. The moment somebody says that he is gay, a gap arises, a great gap. Now how can you communicate? But all these fears have to be dropped; these are all defense measures. They simply show that you are not yet settled in your being -- afraid any outside influence may take you away, off your ground.

— Osho, Be Still and Know

As for secondary sources, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, vol. 1, p. 253, say:

"Palmer hints at a slight ambivalence within the group, noting that 'homosexuality not considered sinful or abominable ... but a cowardly cop-out and that in one publication Rajneesh grudingly admit ... that homosexuality can also be a valid path to superconsciousness."

Mullan says that he was inconsistent on the topic of homosexuality, like with most topics. That is borne out by the above quotes; so if editors want to insert something like this, there are some secondary sources commenting. On the other hand, it's not a major issue in the literature on him; he was inconsistent on most everything, not just this. The passage on gender relations from The Rajneesh Papers would, as Will says, make more sense in Rajneesh movement. JN466 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling that. Pending other sources, it looks like Mullan may be the best secondary source for the subject's beliefs on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone here say that the subject was notable for his views or comments on homosexuality? I would say not. Are we to add a section to all articles about their comments or stated views about homosexuality? Osho also talked about lesbianism, are we to add comments about that? I have some good quotes where he talks about the beautiful lady-boys of Bombay, he loved those lady-boys, lets add that. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

The subject's views on sexuality are indeed notable. As I said before, I don't think that picking quotes from among hundreds or thousands of talks is a good way to proceed. Secondary sources are always preferable. If there are others besides Mullan then let's find them. I don't think that an entire section is warranted. Probably just a sentence or two. Let's see once we have all of the facts.   Will Beback  talk  16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The sex guru. If we are to add men = men comments we should also add girl = girl comments..also it is worth noting that Osho's views on man=man sex changed over time mostly relating to and incorporated his views on the emergence of the HIV Virus and the dangers of that to a communal way life. Also it is worth noting the difference between man-man sex and man-man love and Osho's comments and opinions regarding the difference. Osho was named the sex guru in the press but his was the way of the heart. His message was love, he said many times that sex was a base energy and as you raised up your energy to higher levels that sex would 'drop away'. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

If there are sources that discuss the subject's views on female homosexuality then let's look at those too. Mullan doesn't appear to differentiate male from female homosexuality, so we might not need to either.   Will Beback  talk  16:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I merged two threads on the topic.   Will Beback  talk  17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Merged? Which two threads? Would you provide a link to this'merger'. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

  Will Beback  talk  17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a 'Lady-boy' a kind of 'merger'? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

I do agree that Osho's opinions on sex are significant both intrinsically and as a matter on which one might wish to be informed due to the sex-guru legend. And I'd say the formulation I mentioned was, in turn, a significant part of those opinions. I cannot say I find the above quotations are contradictory; I am not really confused by coming across the ideas that "it will be hard to leave sex behind without any enduring experience of heterosexuality" and that "everybody is what they is and there is no need to shoot gays". Rather, the ideas I mentioned above seem to me internally coherent. It is not "contradictory" and "incoherent" simply because the man is not telling you how to judge and what to accept and to reject with your oh-so-valuable emotions. Making a precis of it is a bit of a challenge however. Redheylin (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal to summarize Mullan. Something like, "According to one , Osho had inconsistent views of homosexuality, including describing it as a disease and a 'very immature level of development'". While that doesn't include the "4 stages" mentioned above, it does imply a hierarchy of development that appears to have been a repeated concept in the subject's reportedly inconsistent views on the topic. However I'd like to keep checking on the sources to make sure that there isn't more on this topic in the secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  09:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Apart from Mullan, we have Palmer saying he "grudgingly" admitted homosexual love could be a valid path as well; I also found this (Taylor & Francis Group), which describes some of the four stages. Personally, I am still not convinced that highlighting his views on homosexuality is due weight; as part of a wider discussion of his views on sexuality it might make sense.
• Do editors feel his teachings on sex need to be described in more detail in the "Teaching" section? He did have quite a marked influence on tantra as understood in the West. JN466 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that adding a commment specifically about Osho's views on Homosexuals(male) would be giving Homosexuality undue weight as it was not one of his core teachings at all. I wouldn't mind it being in teachings if you were going to broadly expand that section to include a lot of other comments about other aspects of his sexuality comments, like eg, tantra and as I mentioned rising in love and the death of sexuallity through meditation. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Encyclopedia articles use "Rajneesh" in title

1. Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", ], retrieved 2009-04-23 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
2. Kushner, Harvey W. (2002), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Encyclopedia of Terrorism, SAGE, pp. 306–307, ISBN 0761924086
3. Fahlbusch, Erwin (1999), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", The encyclopedia of Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, p. 233, ISBN 0802824137 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Doniger, Wendy (2006), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions, Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 902, ISBN 1593394918
5. Houghton Mifflin Company (2003), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 1261, ISBN 9780618252107
6. Joseph, Bea (1986), "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree", Biography index, vol. 14, H.W. Wilson Company, p. 566
7. Parry, Melanie (1997), "Rajneesh, Baghwan Shree", Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Chambers, p. 1529, ISBN 0550160604
8. "Rajneesh, Shree" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t142.e9655>
9. "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t101.e5930>
10. "Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree" Oxford Dictionary of Hinduism. Ed. W. J. Johnson. Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 26 April 2009 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t272.e2018>
11. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2009. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
12. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh." Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2009. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

Please keep this subsection for listing such references only and not for discussion, thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)

Above on this page Jayen466 (talk · contribs) cited the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, pp. 476–477, Routledge; -v, which has as its article title: OSHO (BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH). I think this would be a most acceptable compromise, and we could model our Misplaced Pages page after the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, and similarly title this page Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Cirt (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While my personal preference would be to stay with Osho, Cirt's reasoning seems sound enough, and I would have no grave objection to the change – though I reserve the right to change my mind if Gale and Britannica change to Osho. ;) Other views? Jayen466 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. Msalt (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Nice idea. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's after the fact, but it seems to me the best compromise, so no objections here. jalal (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cirt. That title works well and will astonish the least number of people. I had no idea my comment would trigger this much research and discussion. All I was trying to do in the first place was to remember the name of the cult leader in Oregon that had a bunch of Rolls Royces. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• IIRC, I was the admin recruited to move the article from "Rajneesh" to "Osho" in 2007. This is a sensible compromise that probably didn't occur to anyone back then. I'm glad it's worked out.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Excerpts from Osho's works" ???

This makes the page seem like even more of a promo piece. Let's avoid all this spam in the External links section please. Perhaps best to take a look at the External links section of Prem Rawat, and model after that - see here. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam? It is quite common for us to have ELs to excerpts from an article subject's works. These are Times of India/indiatimes.com articles, their copyright status is okay, and they add value for the user. Jayen466 11:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Excerpts from Osho's works" all to Times of India/indiatimes.com articles, no Western media sources or links, no links to criticism of any kind or any critical websites - seems quite POV and unbalanced indeed. I imagine you would object as well, if someone were to add eleven links to external websites and media articles all critical of Rajneesh with bolded subsection headings and bolded sub-subsection headings creating obtrusive headings in the Table of Contents - you'd complain of WP:Undue weight perhaps? Let's just avoid that particular conflict altogether, thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are neither critical nor promotional, they are just works by the article subject, which any reader can judge for themselves. It is standard for us to have those, and you have inserted many such links yourself in other articles. We cannot apply a "lex Cirtis" – if you approve of an author, links to their publications online are in, if not, they are out as "promo"! If there are general grounds for not linking to excerpts of authors' works available in reliable online sources, then please explain them to me. As for your comment about the lack of Western media, the subject is Indian, and the Times of India is as reputable a publication as they come in India. Puzzled. Jayen466 11:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oregonian wrote a series of investigative journalism articles on Rajneesh - their journalist was then targeted for assassination and her name was put on a hit list for writing these noteworthy pieces. Shall we include links to articles such as these as well, in their own bolded-highlighted subsection in the External links section, to other media/press coverage arguably much more noteworthy than some "excerpts to works" ? Cirt (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, even the article on Adolf Hitler has an external link to a full English translation of Mein Kampf. Misplaced Pages is not censored.

I am aware of RS stating that the reporter, Leslie Zaitz, was put on a hit list. I am also aware that nothing ever happened to her, that no one was ever indicted or prosecuted in relation to Zaitz, and that the subject of this article was neither prosecuted nor indicted for anything but immigration violations. Let's also not forget that those sannyasins who committed serious crimes in Oregon also tried to murder Osho's own doctor, a man whom Osho subsequently entrusted with a leading role in the administration of his estate. It's also worth mentioning that the movement Osho started has never again been found guilty of similar abuses. These events occurred a quarter of a century ago. The fact is that according to RS, Osho's reputation is flourishing, in particular in India. Hence the presence of his writings on a regular basis in the Times of India, which as it happens has the widest circulation among all English-language papers. Jayen466 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh is an extremely controversial figure with an enormous amount of criticism written about him and his movement. If we are to permit pushing out his "works" in an External links sub-subsection that draws significant attention to it in the Table of Contents, we should have a sub-subsection in External links devoted to that critical coverage as well. Otherwise, best to use the Prem_Rawat#External_links model. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Added {{No more links}} to the External links sect. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I think you're wrong. I believe if India's most reputable paper puts his stuff online, it is okay to link to it. And I have no objection to adding external links to material that is critical of Rajneesh. On the contrary, if you know of good stuff out there, it should be there, just as long as the sites comply with the guidelines given in WP:EL – no self-published stuff, etc. But I shan't war over the addition of the ToI articles with you. Jayen466 16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho's videos on Utube viewed more than 5,000,000 times.

May the 1st 2009 the osho videos on the Osho international site on You tube. com passed the 5 ooo ooo views landmark. Most popular views are the videos specifically regarding meditation . This is a massive total and shows Ohso's popularity around the world , some of the videos there have subtitles in Russian , Spanish and Italian. This is worthy of insertion perhaps in legacy. What does anyone think? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

WP:RS/WP:V source for this assertion? Cirt (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

oh hello cirt again..are you following me around ? I can do nothing without you appearing as if by magic! I shall take it as a mark of respect that you consider me worthy of tracking (Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

If you go there and count up the views you'll see how many views there have been , it's over 5,000,000 now and is beginning to be reported around the web. Here is a picture of the occasion and here is it being reported on Osho Internationals official blogspot.

] I imagine counting the numbers on utube is a bit of a job and the official Osho International blogspot will be unworthy as a reliable source??? I have only just discovered this and have yet to look any further, I went there and one video alone on the Osho utube site has over 900.000 viewings. I imagine the Osho international press office have released a story to one of the Indian newspapers and I'll have a deeper look around and anyone else who is interested could have a look around for more articles regarding this massive viewcount. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry? are you refering to this ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement If you go there and count up the views you'll see how many views there have been. But that blog is not a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am looking forward to entering the wonderfull world were when I am run over by a bus I will refuse to believe I was run over by a bus untill I read about it in a reliable source , even if I see a photo of it running me over I will refuse to believe it untill the source is provided. However if I am down the park at the lake and I hear a quack quack I am sure it will be a duck. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

"Truth" is not an attainable standard for this project. Verifiability, on the other hand, is. I can understand your frustration to the extent that personal knowledge can sometimes seemingly override what the newspaper says; but if we allow that which is unsupported by reputable sources (all of which conform to a specific criteria explained here) to find its way into our encyclopedia, we have abandoned all hope of maintaining verifiability short of speaking directly with the person holding a viewpoint. ←Spidern→ 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Spidern for at least understanding my frustration and attempting to help me with your explanation. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

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

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