Wikipedia

Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 12

< Talk:Rajneesh
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Tgeorgescu in topic Revert
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Requested move

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh → Rajneesh – Per WP:HONORIFIC. Rajneesh already redirects here so that should be the preferred title. regentspark (comment) 14:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Objection to details found in move discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Something about moving items with such un-supported claims...

  • Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh - was considered the usual name for the time that he was alive and was in the media regularly as that.
  • Osho - was as much his posthumous name, and still appears on the reprints of his works
  • honourifics - the average person from the era of his lifetime never understood most of his name as being honourifics
  • common usage at this stage is problematic, no editor here has offered specific evidence of doing the google hits or other dreaded statistical nightmares
  • In strictest terms the article should be under his birth name, and the rest of the appellations as redirects, then all the weak excuses to shift the article around like a tennis ball between the later names would fall completely flat.

satusuro 01:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move to - Chandra Mohan Jain

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Suggestion that as it is in the lead sentence, that this specific name should be used as the article title, and would be an excellent work around the issues relating to the edit warring and moves. All the 'aka's can be then redirects. satusuro 01:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajneesh → Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh –

note that this was a hasty and not very well considered move. This article has a history of controversy and bold moves such as this would generally warrant a longer consultation period.
Personally, I see insufficient justification, it is far being a matter of honorific title usage.
Across most of the notable literature on the subject, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is by far the most widely used title for this individual.
We generally refer to the best secondary sources to ascertain appropriate titles, those sources in this instance are mostly academic publications and most use "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh."
Google Scholar: Shree Rajneesh usage 1993-2012
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is still widely used in mainstream writings.
Also: "Osho Rajneesh" usage 1993-2013
Marion Goldman (a notable academic commentator on Rajneesh) interchanges Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh with Osho Rajneesh in an Oxford University Press book published in 2011 (Goldman, Marion S. 2011. Cultural Capital, Social Networks, and Violence at Rajneeshpuram. In Violence and New Religious Movements. Edited by James R. Lewis). Semitransgenic talk. 18:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - well documented and good point about the 'haste' of the last move, but disagree with the title issue - see above - Chandra Mohan Jain was birth name, and academics and 'notable literature' come and go, just as Osho himself was so keen to point out to his followers :) - he would have loved the irony of all this for sure. satusuro 00:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of WP:HONORIFIC, it clearly states: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. Throughout academic literature on the subject the full title is commonly used.
Additionally, The word "Bhagwan" was not understood widely in the West as a religious title. He was both commonly and popularly referred to by the full title Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
Furthermore, if we actually were to employ a reading of this along honorific title lines WP:NCCL would be closer to our purposes, but we have no rules for individuals who, within a specific religious tradition, are considered human incarnations of a god; but note, for example, that "pope" is always used in the article title. Semitransgenic talk. 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, it's necessary to disagree, as raised above, this is NOT a simple case of WP:Honorifics, the scholarly search results demonstrate this, it's a matter of the honorific being "so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it." Most sources, in the first instance, refer to the guy as Bhwagan Shree Rajneesh and rarely if ever in the sense that "Bhagwan Shree" is utilised in an "honorific" context, that's what he was commonly called, even in the popular press. Semitransgenic talk. 19:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The existing article title is concise and unambiguous. The last move was conducted and closed in an entirely appropriate manner, and the consensus was clear, and the rationale still holds. This new proposal does not add anything to that discussion, the searches cited may look impressive but are on closer examination quite irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Rajneesh", "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", and even "Osho", are all defensible titles for this article, and repeated moves and unending arguments over which is the one-and-only-true-acceptable title are misguided, waste of editors' times, and irrelevant to the readers. Lets gain some perspective about the lameness of the issue, and spend the time on improving the content of (this and other) articles instead. Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
i certainly didn't raise this because I believe there is a "one-and-only-true-acceptable title," Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was the title he was most commonly known by for the majority of his existence career, this a fact, borne out by multiple academic references, even Britannica adheres to this convention. You think it's lame, fair enough, I simply think very little real thought went into the most recent name change, but whatever, apologies for "wasting time" being so fucking pedantic. Semitransgenic talk. 22:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC:Was WP:HONORIFIC misapplied

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
This was a question for RM, nto RfC, and the second RM has effectively answered this question with "no." --BDD (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the context of this requested move discussion, was WP:HONORIFIC misapplied here? Semitransgenic talk. 17:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Support or Oppose reversal of this move.

Threaded discussion

Comments. Comment - all the items above seem to ignore that to reduce the article to his earlier name (as is found in the lede sentence anyway) would save a large amount of time and energy wasted on items which are otherwise superfluous. Not many people come to this talk page or article, and the rate/level of edit warring in the past suggests that most visitors are here to prove a point, rather than create a neutral amenable encyclopedic title and article. Chandra Mohain Jain seems an ultimately ideal article title. As for the generations of academics and others who play with the legacy of said person, ah, but dust in the wind. Keep it simply, ignore the fashions that come and go. A few redirects for the variant subsequent names, and all is solved. satusuro 01:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, with a few redirects one wonders, exactly what is the point of this? My agenda is simply to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. The article names are, or should be, purely handles, but unfortunately we tend to spend a lot of counterproductive time and effort on deciding exactly what they will be. Counterproductive because this discussion fuels the myth that Wikipedia is taking a stand by deciding an article title. This is exactly what we should not do. The article title should simply be a handle. Content belongs in the article, not the title. In the article it can and should be sourced. In the title, it can't be. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Andrewa, I agree with you in principle. But, sometimes an article title is important as well. Chandra Mohain Jain would be a really bad idea for this article because almost no one knows him by that name. A reader looking for "Rajneesh" who ends up with Chandra Mohain Jain would be very surprised and may actually think they're in the wrong place. Familiarity in article titles is a useful thing, though I agree it is often overdone. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I too appreciate SatuSuro's Solomon-esque proposal, but eventually side with RP because internal wikipedia debates should not be settled in a manner that is not helpful to our general reader. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Regents - there is a point however where choosing a handle for familiarity is a false trail - there are specific demographics for the readers who know one of the variants - bhagwan, osho, rajneesh - and invariably if it keeps going, this talk page and article will keep getting moved as another set of the variant demographic wins over whoever bothers to change (again) - no one is going to get traumatised by a well written lede para that clarifies the issue.
Abecedare - as to whether anything might be not helpful - a well written lead para can make it more helpful and end eternal bickering at this end of the talk page - the general reader may well not know any of the appelations, the real name is at least a removal of the various endless issues for this particular article - it may not be a universally acceptable solution, but it sure cuts through the waste of time and space that this talk page has consumed satusuro 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from SatuSuro. Clearly, if we use some sort of official naming criterion we'd save ourselves a lot of trouble and reduce the endless internal bickering that goes on in some articles. But, that's a meta discussion that should be considered elsewhere (and will never get resolved anyway!). in this particular case, I think we're better off with either of Osho, Rajneesh or even Bhagwan Rajneesh. Almost everyone who knows one of the three will not be surprised by any of the others. CMJ, however, would surprise almost everyone. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that article titles are important... I wouldn't spend so much time at RM if that were not so. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article traffic statistics

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

After a long time hovering around 30 looks per day, this article has suddenly shot up to about 1260. I don't know why. Does anybody else? [2] Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just editors visiting due to RFCs, RMs, multiple admin visits, etc. Regular intra-wiki affair and nothing to do with readers. Don't worry, he isn’t rising back. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Rajneesh is an actual surname forename, it's not exclusive to this one individual, anyone searching for a person with Rajneesh as a surname will most likely find this page as a top hit. Semitransgenic talk. 22:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that because of the move to "Rajneesh" people are accidently coming here when they actually want something else? Or have you commented in wrong section? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
eh? well there's this thing, called Google, if you search there, you are searching here, hence the popularity of Wikipedia with those engaged in SEO. Because Wikipedia is generally the top hit, anyone searching for a person with Rajneesh as a forename will find this article, the CTR to here after that initial search could artificially boost the traffic stats; if the figures return to normal after discussion closes, then this is not the case. Semitransgenic talk. 18:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
At present, it seems that there is no other existing article that could be named Rajneesh, see my comment above [3]. But what other topics could be so described? It could be a whole new ball game if the topic of this article turns out not to be the primary meaning of Rajneesh. I doubt that this will lead anywhere, but if there's a case to be made let's hear it. Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
see above. Semitransgenic talk. 18:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
But there doesn't seem to be any article which you (or anyone else) has suggested could be at Rajneesh instead of this one, is that correct? If not, can you be specific? Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
that's a different issue, within Wikipedia there isn't any other article, although the town Antelope, Oregon was for a time, in the 80s, known as Rajneesh. Semitransgenic talk. 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, my poor expression. I meant there doesn't seem to be any other possible article. Good point about Antelope, but it's unlikely to cause any problems so far as primary meaning goes. Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajneesh or Osho?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In copyediting this article, I've noticed that its subject is referred to throughout as Osho; however, he only bore this name for the last year of his life and was known by the article's title during his best-known period. I've replaced "Osho" with "Rajneesh" in several places, but will leave it to another editor to replace all the Oshos. Miniapolis 16:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First thanks for taking this article for copyediting. It has been controversial subject and has history of editwars. It is right he adopted name "Osho" in last years of his life. He was known as "Rajneesh" before that. I think keeping Rajneesh in earlier years of his life is ok. He is now better known as Osho and there are some copyright issues with Osho Name. So better we avoid it. I favour "Rajneesh" for describing his life till he adopted Osho. Regards-Nizil (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've left a note on Sarovara's talk page objecting to their inappropriate replacement of "Rajneesh" with "Osho". It confuses the reader, and while I'll complete the copyedit I don't see this article making GA in the face of POV-pushing. Miniapolis 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It is disrespectful to refer to Osho as "Rajneesh." It is like calling your mother by her last name; if my mother's last name is Smith, it would be like calling her Smith. "Osho" is a title/name used to refer to Zen masters, and Osho was a Zen master. I am trying to revert the title of the page to Osho. Appropriate changes should be made to the rest of the page. The fact that he took the title/name at the end of his life is immaterial. Taking the title "Bhagwan" was merely to challenge the traditional use of the word "Bhagwan" by corrupt people with spiritual pretensions. He has said this himself; also, he dropped the name to dissociate himself from its dirty history close to the end of his life. In the beginning, he presented himself and his views in a way that appeared attractive to those under the influence of traditional "religions," speaking on God, and after coming out of his 3 years of silence, revealed that there was no God. The change from "Bhagwan" to "Buddha" to "Zorba the Buddha" and finally to "Osho" is part of this change. If I fail to change the title of the page, I request anyone who is capable to change it. Stripping him of his chosen name (which also functions as a title) is incredibly disrespectful, because as a Zen master he deserves the name. Please desist from attempting to sabotage his name and title. Additionally, he is commonly known by everyone as Osho, NOT as Bhagwan and NOT as Rajneesh. I have changed the title displayed above the photo to "Osho." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.205.223 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Better (higher resolution) photo?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't upload anything because I haven't made any edits. Could someone upload a high resolution photo of Osho? The resolution of the current photo does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Thanks.

Suggest: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UHEbxoQ4bfE/TVVzD7e159I/AAAAAAAAAJc/mZxxWB4HCSY/s1600/osho-1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanavaark (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Verification Issue With Two Sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up if anyone is actively updating this page. Fitzgerald's articles in the New Yorker are now archived behind a paywall. Citations from them are now unable to be verified without subscribing to the magazine, so another source for the info they confirmed might be worth adding. Not a big deal, of course, but I noticed it and figured I'd mention it. Godless11B's gonna die the way he lived. 08:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A newer editor has twice made several changes to this article and has now contacted me on my talk page.

Here is a quick summary of the issues I had with the edits.

]].
  • "1984 Bioterror attack" anchor removed. This is a functional issue. The anchor exists because other articles directly link to this section. Removing the anchor breaks navigation.
  • "1984 bioterror attack" section renamed "Criticism". This section deals specifically with the bioterrorism attack tied to Rajneesh. The title is both descriptive and in common use.
  • "Legacy" section moved ahead of "Controversy" section. "Legacy" deals with impact after the subject's death. The end of the article is logical.
  • Addition of apologetic introduction to controversies. ("Rajneesh was a particularly good humoured man, and many of his words said in jest or to inspire critical thought, taken out of context, can be misconstrued (potentially). The following are said to have been said by him, but this is dubitable & there are no page numbers in the references. They are not the type of thing (subject or tone) mentioned in his discourses.") This material is unsourced and POV. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A newer editor has twice made several changes to this article and has now contacted me on my talk page.

Here is a quick summary of the issues I had with the edits.

  • "1984 Bioterror attack" anchor removed. This is a functional issue. The anchor exists because other articles directly link to this section. Removing the anchor breaks navigation.
  • "1984 bioterror attack" section renamed "Criticism". This section deals specifically with the bioterrorism attack tied to Rajneesh. The title is both descriptive and in common use.
  • "Legacy" section moved ahead of "Controversy" section. "Legacy" deals with impact after the subject's death. The end of the article is logical.
  • Addition of apologetic introduction to controversies. ("Rajneesh was a particularly good humoured man, and many of his words said in jest or to inspire critical thought, taken out of context, can be misconstrued (potentially). The following are said to have been said by him, but this is dubitable & there are no page numbers in the references. They are not the type of thing (subject or tone) mentioned in his discourses.") This material is unsourced and POV. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rajneesh

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rajneesh's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OGN":

  • From The Dalles, Oregon: McArthur, Lewis A.; McArthur, Lewis L. (1992) [1928]. Oregon Geographic Names (6th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press. p. 826. ISBN 978-0875952369.
  • From Jefferson County, Oregon: McArthur, Lewis A.; McArthur, Lewis L. (2003) [1928]. Oregon Geographic Names (7th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press. p. 509. ISBN 978-0875952772.
  • From Antelope, Oregon: McArthur, Lewis A.; Lewis L. McArthur (2003) [1928]. Oregon Geographic Names (7th ed.). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press. p. 27. ISBN 0-87595-277-1.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Rajneesh NPOV and Primary Sources

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See additions by Julianraymondk and revert by NeilN.

The good faith edits including primary sources are allowed by wikipedia, where the statement is direct and verifiable and obvious, especially in the biography of persons, with the published content used to describe details of what they spoke about. The policy is here WP:PRIMARY. There are no interpretations in the article, based on primary sources.

I believe this leads a balanced NPOV, since critics are usually secondary sources allowing for interpretation, but any factual errors used in interpretation can be corrected using primary resources, which is the case here. The result is a balanced critique, as critiques are woven in with correct facts.

Please be aware of the following WP:DRNC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianraymondk (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Copied from NeilN's talk page by NeilN diff and Julianraymondk diff at 3 april 2015:
This is just from the lead:
  • "Born in a village in India, to a free rebellious childhood, and undergoing transformative experiences with death and meditation, he reported spiritual enlightenment at 21 years of age. An autodidact, and exceptional debater..."
  • "On 24 Sep 1985 he made a press announcement that the investigating team instead of tracking the absconded criminals, were bribing people with immunity in exchange for statements to indict and remove as many key organizational people as possible through false charges in an attempt to cripple or destroy the commune. By Nov 1985, he was accused of immigration violations of which he accepted two minor violations upon his attorneys advice and entered an Alford plea asserting innocence but conceding the jurys ability to convict him legally."
  • "Osho's return to Pune marked a resurgence in new techniques of meditative therapies and discourses focussed on Zen, and the ashram expanded. His health declined, and he left his body on 19 Jan 1990 and is said to have left his body in a very aware state after giving away his personal items."
You need to look at WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL. Your proposed changes clearly put the Rajneesh-approved version of events front and center. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The first point is necessary for coherency to show significant spiritual events or happenings, in the life of a spiritual leader. Just like we would show childhood prodigious nature of a artist/savant. The second point describes internal events that was especially relevant to the charging of immigration violation, a huge event, leading to the collapse of commune which is the primary subject of that paragraph. For a neutral pov, both versions need to be present especially when you are negating the views of the person who this article is about. Silencing the Rajneesh-view on every issue itself is a POV. Especially when accusations and counter accusations flow, a neutral space is where no ones voice is silenced. So you may not like the Rajneesh voice, but it should not be silenced for a balanced pov. What is your problem with the third. new therapies, zen discourses etc are well known.

I disagree that this is a Rajneesh-approved pov, since Rajneesh wouldnt advertise his arrest, commune collapse, highlighting of just the controversies about his teachings in the lead, and yet I have left them all in the lead, to reflect the opposite pov. Neither viewpoints should be silenced. WP:GEVAL does not apply to this article, since it is not a minority opinion or extraordinary claim of article, and since both views are significant to understanding the subject at hand.

This is the primary effort of NPOV... Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. WP:GEVAL being invalid for this article, should not be used discourage the development of NPOV, of which the article has several weak spots. Julianraymondk (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Julianraymondk: WP:GEVAL certainly applies for this bit of puffery: "to a free rebellious childhood, and undergoing transformative experiences with death and meditation, he reported spiritual enlightenment at 21 years of age. An autodidact, and exceptional debater." WP:EUPHEMISM applies to the third point - he died, nothing else. And the second point is basically inserting a press release for the subject into the lead. Please continue the conversation here instead of on my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 18:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

POV-check

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At 16 march 2015 Julianraymondk added a POV-tag, with the following edit-summary:

"requires pov check due to omission of details, in describing most issues, thereby presenting an unbalanced pov, tarnishes this biographical account. Miscategorization of information and highlighting of minor teachings as major ones etc."

It's clear to me if this article is regarded by him as being either too much pro or anti; please explain. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

But, given the thread above, probably too much anti. Well, I just went throught the article; I like it. Rajneesh was much more intelligent than I'd ever expected; great. A joy to read, this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes too anti. 1)structure --> Plan to work on it eventually. eg. Criticisms - strong summary doesnt summarize details, no details, many omissions. Positives are sandwitched between criticisms. Either needs to be pulled out, or retitled Reception to represent the jumble. Other issues like that. 2)content --> omission of details. article suffers from systemic bias (western vs eastern culture. Also studies in western acad on NRG very pov usually Judeo-Christian, or Western Secular prisms and often shoddy esp due to this groups' inflammatory history in US. native/insider accounts silenced). Eventually need to be addressed by bringing insider primary sources. 3) style and presentation --> slanted with allusions. Eg. He whistleblew on his top management inspite of risks, but presented as 'revealed', like a magician. Confounding the criminal and the innocent together as Rajneeshees etc, no nuance in presentation. out of court testimony presented as incriminating proof. lots of oddities. Again needs work. Understandable due to inflammatory historicity but style and presentation should be neutral. Lots of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianraymondk (talk • contribs) 07:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality, HIV and Prevention

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I hadn't looked at this article for a while, and now I see this section in particular has become impossibly synthetic. The current prose is a slavish attempt to whitewash and interpret the sayings of a highly inconsistent and idiosyncratic cult leader, to make him appear way more balanced and philosophically mature than he ever was in life. It makes for tortured reading. It might be best to revert to a previous version and thrash it out here. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The recent major changes are a great improvement. Rumiton (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rajneesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've never commented in Talk before, but I've ventured forth for the first time because of how whitewashed and biased this article has now become. It should be reverted to a version where "eugenics" was mentioned, back when it had more reliable contributors and source material. —Digyucca (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Digyucca: Would you mind going through the article history and identifying a satisfactory revision? —EncMstr (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@EncMstr: The 08:17, 29 June 2015 version seems to be the most recent I can find that corrects the euphemism of "genetic selection" to the more accurate (in this case) "eugenics," still contains info about Rajneesh's teachings regarding Jewish guilt and the Holocaust, and also contains info regarding the bioterror attack history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajneesh&oldid=669156739
I could have sworn I'd seen these particular topics under a section heading like "Controversy," but I'm not adept at searching words/phrases via View History, so this is the best I could do with my recollection of how this article appeared the several times I cited it and linked to it in the past. —Digyucca (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Rajneesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Osho name correction

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

If no one objects here (ie not a contro move), I'm planning on correcting the title to Osho under WP:RM. Osho oversaw the re-naming of his works and from September 1989 onwards all his works were published under the author name "Osho"; the Rajneesh Times magazine was changed to “Osho Times”; his famous “Rajneesh Active Meditations” are renamed “Osho Active Meditations” and more than 500 “Rajneesh Meditation Centers,” teaching his meditation techniques are renamed Osho Meditation Centers. Etc. DavidWestT (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This article has been renamed several times recently, so I think moving it again would be controversial. See this old version of the talk page, and it would be best to review the archived discussions. Here are all the page moves of this (talk) page; the article was moved at the same time.
  • 2015-05-01T07:25:29 Glauciamiguel (talk | contribs | block) moved page Talk:Rajneesh to Wikipedia talk:Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) (Whoever changed his name did it wrong. Rajneesh is a nickname.) (revert)
  • 2013-11-01T16:51:10 BDD (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Talk:Rajneesh (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) (view/restore)
  • 2007-02-01T12:52:00 Will Beback (talk | contribs | block) moved page Talk:Rajneesh to Talk:Osho (per discusion on talk page) (revert)
—EncMstr (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr (talk). I've read through each. Each of these attempts weren't made consistent with the actual rules (ie they were just random deletions and forced moves). I'm suggesting a well thought move based on much of what is readily available so that Wikipedia aligns with--really--the rest of the world. Will you object if I make the move? Or were you merely clarifying that there were past attempts, albeit faulty ones inconsistent with Wiki rules?

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 at a time Osho was already known exclusively as Osho already for more than a decade. For some reason an original article was started by mistake under the name Rajneesh which has been causing confusion since then. In fact, Wikipedia is the only major information source using this wrong name for Osho, which is then perpetuated in other languages making it unnecessarily difficult for people around the world to find information about this world-renowned figure, known only as Osho for the past 27 years. Osho International Foundation, the source of all licensing and publishing agreements has licensed Osho's works since 1989 exclusively under the author name Osho. There are literally thousands of such agreements with more than 200 publishing houses, in 62 languages around the world, all of whom publish his work exclusively under the name Osho. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the two questions above.DavidWestT (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@DavidWestT: For me, it is the other way around. Osho is the name I have only encountered on Wikipedia. I lived in Northwest Oregon in the 1980s and was—like millions of others at the time—amused, befuddled, and saturated with the antics of the Rajneeshies and whatever his followers were going to do next.
I don't oppose an article move, but I would feel better about any decision if there existed a well-balanced exposition weighing the alternatives and evidence supporting them. (Example) —EncMstr (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure.

  • As to publishing, Amazon.com shows 4677 results for "Osho" as an author, plus 275 results for CDs music and meditations and about 100 albums under his name. By comparison there are only 1,565 results for "Rajneesh". All of his books, published in 62 languages, are now – and have been for over 25 years – published and sold under the name "Osho." In 2015 alone, there were 484 book-publishing contracts (new and renewals) world-wide for "Osho," bringing the total number of active publishing contracts for "Osho" to 2668. Sellers and licensees for works by "Osho" include Apple/ITunes, Audible.com, St. Martin’s Press, and Penguin Random House, none of whom sell anything under the author name "Rajneesh."
  • Amazon.com: Osho has his own author page “Amazon’s Osho Page” under the name “Osho” and 4677 results for books, and 379 results for digital music, including meditations.

http://www.amazon.com/Osho/e/B000APLAZE/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1469528676&sr=1-2-ent

The great majority of listings were published since 1990. The results in English are similar in other language editions. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" has Amazon an author page without any author details listing two antiquarian titles published 30 years ago. These titles are not anymore in print. By contrast "Amazon’s Osho page" shows 4,677 titles. Other Rajneesh author page is "Bhagwan, Shree, Rajneesh" again without any author details with only one title that was in print 30 years ago.

And the search for "Rajneesh" produces 1,565 results, almost all for books by the author published in before his name change in 1989. The sales confirm that all current publishing is under the name Osho, and has been for many years.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aosho&keywords=osho&ie=UTF8&qid=146361 318&spIA=B014H7HG3K

Other Online Sales of Osho’s Works in English are Audible.com, Apple (ITunes) Penguin Random House, St. Martin’s Press, and many other publishers, publish extensively and exclusively under the author name "Osho."

AUDIBLE.com, the largest audio book publisher in the world presents all his works only under "OSHO": http://www.audible.com/search/ref=a_mn_mt_ano_tseft__galileo?advsearchKeywords=Osho&x=0&y=0  

APPLE (iTunes) publishes works only under the author name "Osho": https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=iTunes+Osho

Penguin Random House, the world’s largest English language publisher publishes works only under the author name "Osho": http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/58946/osho

St. Martin’s Press, New York publishes works only under the author name "Osho": http://us.macmillan.com/author/osho

The results for Foreign Language Publications of Osho books parallel those in English as shown above: India. English & Hindi publications on www.Amazon.in  (India): http://www.amazon.in/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/275-2221160-0059435?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Osho German publications www.Amazon.de: http://www.amazon.de/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=Osho&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&emi=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0  

Spanish publications www.Amazon.es: https://www.amazon.es/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_es_ES=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=osho

French publications www.Amazon.fr (one book here with name Rajneesh): https://www.amazon.fr/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&__mk_fr_FR=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=Osho&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&field-collection=&node=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=38&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=9

Japanese publications www.Amazon.jp: https://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/376-1425593-7743563?__mk_ja_JP=%E3%82%AB%E3%82%BF%E3%82%AB%E3%83%8A&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Osho

Italian publications www.Amazon.it: https://www.amazon.it/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=osho&rh=n%3A411663031%2Ck%3Aosho

Portuguese publications www.Amazon.com.br  (Brazil): https://www.amazon.com.br/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Osho

Osho’s Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic is published in 20 languages:

http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Spiritually-Incorrect-Mystic-Osho/dp/0312280718/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463107945&sr=8-1&keywords=autobiography+osho 2.3India Publishing

63 English and 84 Hindi books published by OSHO MEDIA PUNE

Whatever is found listed under Rajneesh are mainly second hand books from a time before the author changed his name to Osho. Rajneesh on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_14?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bhagwan+shree+rajneesh&sprefix=bhagwan+shree+%2Caps%2C422&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Abhagwan+shree+rajneesh

All of Osho’s Meditations – internationally known as "Osho Active Meditations" are published exclusively under the name Osho, presented by more than 500 Osho Meditation Centers only under the name Osho:

http://www.newearthrecords.com/osho/ http://www.newearthrecords.com/music-store/all-products/osho-dynamic-dvd/ https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=Osho+Active+Meditations+&rh=n%3A5174%2Ck%3AOsho+Active+Meditations+ http://www.osho.com/meditate/places-to-meditate/meditation-centers

Osho Meditations (a search for "Osho Active Meditations" on Google shows 74,300 results). All of Osho’s meditations are only found under "OSHO".

A search for "Rajneesh active meditations" brings up just two results. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Rajneesh+Active+meditations%22

  • Osho.com

The osho.com website is solely for Osho and his work, and is reported to rank 362 in India, with 6.8 million visits a year from 160 countries.

Google AdWords average monthly searches for "Osho" in June 2016 are 301,000.

Google AdWords average monthly searches for "Rajneesh" in June 2016 are 6,600 which is 2.19% of "Osho" searches.

  • Youtube

OSHO’s official YouTube Channel at www.youtube.com/oshointernational has 270,000 subscribers and 54,000,000 video views All exclusively of talks by "Osho": https://www.youtube.com/user/OSHOInternational/about

YouTube with "Rajneesh" shows 92,000 hits. Many of the "Rajneesh" hits are "Osho Rajneesh" or not related to Osho, the article subject, at all. Different people, different subjects. The first result has 201,000 views; the third result is an "Osho" video with over 2,000,000 views. While difficult or impossible to compute with certainty, Rajneesh (relating to the article subject) is less than 1% of the "Osho" YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rajneesh

  • Facebook

The official and verified Facebook page for the author "OSHO" https://www.facebook.com/osho.international shows 2,365,829 likes or followers and is part of a series of related official language sites with an additional 3,000,000 likes on the Facebook platform.

Facebook lists all 400+ groups related to "Osho" and "Osho Meditations" https://www.facebook.com/search/groups/?q=Osho

Facebook pages search “Rajneesh” (search on 15-May-16). Summary: “Rajneesh” fans/members are less than 1% of “Osho” fan/members.

A Facebook search of "Rajneesh" under "People" lists 9 other persons, neither Osho nor Rajneesh, before listing anything using "Rajneesh."

Data: https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=rajneesh

  • Press

Osho is particularly popular in India, his country of birth. India is #1 in the world in newspaper readership, and Osho is covered daily throughout India in the two largest languages English and Hindi and as well in many of the addition 17 languages published in India. Over 1000 articles a year appear in the India press. Statistics and examples of articles about Osho and/or the Osho International Meditation Resort from 2005 through 2015 are presented in the linked document. All of these articles refer to Osho, not Rajneesh.

Osho by the press: http://www.osho.com/read/osho/by-press Osho in Indian Media: http://www.osho.com/pdf/Osho_Indian_Press_Coverage_2016.pdf

Let me know if you'd like me to dig more or if this is sufficient for the move.DavidWestT (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Osho's death

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just learning about Osho. Why is there no section about his death? Most deceased notable individuals have a section on how they died. Thank you 2001:980:AEEF:1:7CA5:D70F:7983:9196 (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments18 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This is clearly the outcome when the post MRV survey and discussion is considered along with the initial results. As one of the more controversial page renames it should be no surprise that the initial results led to a rename. Without the post MRV results I might have made the same call. "Rajneesh" gets a far superior number of page views over "Osho";[1] however, I make this decision without prejudice for any future attempts to garner consensus for a page move, especially if the situation changes in favor over time, and new information can be provided to support renaming this article to "Osho" or to another title. (Please see Old moves template just above the TOC) (non-admin closure)

References

  1. ^ page views – Osho vs. Rajneesh
 Paine  u/c 16:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rajneesh → Osho – per WP:COMMONNAME Procedural comment. Lengthy reasoning given by User:DavidWestT listed below. Timestamp placed here for listing brevity for bot. 06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting Per MRV result ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Original close vacated by MRV

The result of the move request was: Moved to Osho. This is a close call, with NPOV concerns by the opposers noted, but COMMONNAME evidence for "Osho" is ample. While it was not mentioned in the debate, MOS:IDENTITY certainly plays a part. I will reiterate that article titles are not the place to address NPOV concerns about article contents, as long as they satisfy the naming criteria. No such user (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • As to publishing, Amazon.com shows 4677 results for "Osho" as an author, plus 275 results for CDs music and meditations and about 100 albums under his name. By comparison there are only 1,565 results for "Rajneesh".
  • All of his books, published in 62 languages, are now – and have been for over 25 years – published and sold under the name "Osho."
  • In 2015 alone, there were 484 book-publishing contracts (new and renewals) world-wide for "Osho," bringing the total number of active publishing contracts for "Osho" to 2668.
  • Sellers and licensees for works by "Osho" include Apple/ITunes, Audible.com, St. Martin’s Press, and Penguin Random House, none of whom sell anything under the author name "Rajneesh."
  • Amazon.com: Osho has his own author page “Amazon’s Osho Page” under the name “Osho” and 4677 results for books, and 379 results for digital music, including meditations. [http://www.amazon.com/Osho/e/B000APLAZE/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1469528676&sr=1-2-ent]
  • The great majority of listings were published since 1990. The results in English are similar in other language editions.
  • "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" has Amazon an author page without any author details listing two antiquarian titles published 30 years ago. These titles are not anymore in print. By contrast "Amazon’s Osho page" shows 4,677 titles.
  • Other Rajneesh author page is "Bhagwan, Shree, Rajneesh" again without any author details with only one title that was in print 30 years ago.
  • And the search for "Rajneesh" produces 1,565 results, almost all for books by the author published in before his name change in 1989.
  • The sales confirm that all current publishing is under the name Osho, and has been for many years. [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aosho&keywords=osho&ie=UTF8&qid=146361 318&spIA=B014H7HG3K]
  • Other Online Sales of Osho’s Works in English are Audible.com, Apple (ITunes) Penguin Random House, St. Martin’s Press, and many other publishers, publish extensively and exclusively under the author name "Osho."
  • AUDIBLE.com, the largest audio book publisher in the world presents all his works only under "OSHO": [4]
  • APPLE (iTunes) publishes works only under the author name "Osho": [5]
  • Penguin Random House, the world’s largest English language publisher publishes works only under the author name "Osho": [6]
  • St. Martin’s Press, New York publishes works only under the author name "Osho": [7]
  • The results for Foreign Language Publications of Osho books parallel those in English as shown above:
  • India. English & Hindi publications on www.Amazon.in (India): [8]
  • German publications www.Amazon.de: [http://www.amazon.de/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=Osho&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&emi=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0]
  • Spanish publications www.Amazon.es: [https://www.amazon.es/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_es_ES=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=osho]
  • French publications www.Amazon.fr (one book here with name Rajneesh): [https://www.amazon.fr/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&__mk_fr_FR=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=Osho&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&field-collection=&node=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=38&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=9]
  • Japanese publications www.Amazon.jp: [9]
  • Italian publications www.Amazon.it: [10]
  • Portuguese publications [www.Amazon.com.br]
  • (Brazil): [https://www.amazon.com.br/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Osho]
  • Osho’s Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic is published in 20 languages: [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Spiritually-Incorrect-Mystic-Osho/dp/0312280718/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463107945&sr=8-1&keywords=autobiography+osho] 2.3India Publishing 63 English and 84 Hindi books published by OSHO MEDIA PUNE
  • Whatever is found listed under Rajneesh are mainly second hand books from a time before the author changed his name to Osho.
  • Rajneesh on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_14?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bhagwan+shree+rajneesh&sprefix=bhagwan+shree+%2Caps%2C422&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Abhagwan+shree+rajneesh]
  • All of Osho’s Meditations – internationally known as "Osho Active Meditations" are published exclusively under the name Osho, presented by more than 500 Osho Meditation Centers only under the name Osho: http://www.newearthrecords.com/music-store/all-products/osho-dynamic-dvd/ [https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=Osho+Active+Meditations+&rh=n%3A5174%2Ck%3AOsho+Active+Meditations+] [11]
  • Osho Meditations (a search for "Osho Active Meditations" on Google shows 74,300 results).
  • All of Osho’s meditations are only found under "OSHO". A search for "Rajneesh active meditations" brings up just two results. [12]
  • Osho.com The osho.com website is solely for Osho and his work, and is reported to rank 362 in India, with 6.8 million visits a year from 160 countries.
  • Google average monthly searches for "Osho" in June 2016 are 301,000.
  • Google average monthly searches for "Rajneesh" in June 2016 are 6,600 which is 2.19% of "Osho" searches.
  • Youtube:
  • OSHO’s official YouTube Channel at www.youtube.com/oshointernational has 270,000 subscribers and 54,000,000 video views
  • All exclusively of talks by "Osho": [13]
  • YouTube with "Rajneesh" shows 92,000 hits. Many of the "Rajneesh" hits are "Osho Rajneesh" or not related to Osho, the article subject, at all. Different people, different subjects. The first result has 201,000 views; the third result is an "Osho" video with over 2,000,000 views. While difficult or impossible to compute with certainty, Rajneesh (relating to the article subject) is less than 1% of the "Osho" YouTube channel. [14]
  • Facebook:
  • The official and verified Facebook page for the author "OSHO" [15] shows 2,365,829 likes or followers and is part of a series of related official language sites with an additional 3,000,000 likes on the Facebook platform. :* Facebook lists all 400+ groups related to "Osho" and "Osho Meditations" [16]
  • Facebook pages search “Rajneesh” (search on 15-May-16).
  • Summary: “Rajneesh” fans/members are less than 1% of “Osho” fan/members. A Facebook search of "Rajneesh" under "People" lists 9 other persons, neither Osho nor Rajneesh, before listing anything using "Rajneesh." Data: [17]
  • Press:
  • Osho is particularly popular in India, his country of birth. India is #1 in the world in newspaper readership, and Osho is covered daily throughout India in the two largest languages English and Hindi and as well in many of the addition 17 languages published in India. Over 1000 articles a year appear in the India press. Statistics and examples of articles about Osho and/or the Osho International Meditation Resort from 2005 through 2015 are presented in the linked document. All of these articles refer to Osho, not Rajneesh. :* Osho by the press: [18]
  • Osho in Indian Media: [19]

DavidWestT (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • (Now Support, see below) Oppose Comment (EDIT: added in the birth name and the Rajneesh name in the lead, as long as it has those I'll comment for now and further study the name change and comments. approx. 00:20 UTC 14 September 2016) for now, since it's concerning that the article has been almost scrubbed of the name Rajneesh even as an alternate. Rajneesh died in 1990 shortly after changing his name in 1989, a name, Bhagwan Rajneesh, which was on all of his many books, lectures, public appearances and everything else related to him. The nom and in fact the article makes it sound like those books and name are hardly a blip on the available literature and life history when in fact they compromise the bibliography collection of an author, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Late in life, and after much controversy regarding the name Rajneesh, he changed it and then passed away a few month later. Please explain further, if you would, why the name change has been so widely used and accepted in such a way that his Rajneesh name isn't even listed on his page as an alternate. I didn't keep up with his work in the late 1980s but studied his work in the 1970s, a very good writer with an impressive knowledge of the yoga sutras and other wide-ranging and important areas of yogaic and eastern thought. He's one of the only major figures in the field of the era I didn't get to meet. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In September 1989 the author and mystic known until then as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931-1990) changed his name to only “Osho” and instructed his foundation (to whom he had assigned all the rights to his work including his personality rights and representation rights) to publish his work and to refer to him only as “Osho.” He not only changed his name to Osho but also specifically instructed his foundation and his followers not to refer to him any more under his previous names. Osho personally oversaw the re-naming of his works and from September 1989 onwards all his works were published under the author name “Osho”; the “Rajneesh Times” magazine was changed to “Osho Times”; his famous “Rajneesh Active Meditations” are renamed “Osho Active Meditations” and more than 500 “Rajneesh Meditation Centers,” teaching his meditation techniques are renamed “Osho Meditation Centers.” [Osho name change information: http://www.osho.com/pdf/Osho_Name_Change_Information.pdf] During a transition period all his published works carry a note of this name change: “Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is now known simply as Osho. Osho has explained that his name is derived from William James' word “oceanic” which means dissolving into the ocean. Oceanic describes the experience, he says, but what about the experiencer? For that we use the word “Osho.” There are articles about Osho published on Wikipedia in 49 languages, 27 languages are published under the name “Osho,” some under combinations or his previous name, showing the mess this is creating and the need to clarify this name issue. Wikipedia was founded in 2001 at a time Osho was already known exclusively as Osho already for more than a decade. For some reason an original article was started by mistake under the name Rajneesh which has been causing confusion since then. In fact, Wikipedia is the only major information source using this wrong name for Osho, which is then perpetuated in other languages making it unnecessarily difficult for people around the world to find information about this world-renowned figure, known only as Osho for the past 27 years. Osho International Foundation, the source of all licensing and publishing agreements has licensed his works since 1989 exclusively under the author name Osho. There are literally thousands of such agreements with more than 200 publishing houses, in 62 languages around the world, all of whom publish his work exclusively under the name Osho. Apart from Wikipedia, the transition from previous name to “Osho” is essentially complete, and its use vastly outnumbers the name “Rajneesh” throughout the world. Since Osho changed his name in 1989, he is now known worldwide – and almost universally referred to – as “Osho”: 1) As an author of hundreds of books on spirituality and meditation, 2) As the creator of unique meditation techniques, particularly the Osho Active Meditations, and, 3) In connection with the Osho International Meditation Resort. [Osho in the World 2015: http://www.osho.com/pdf/OshoMedia_2015.pdf] DavidWestT (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, and it may be the common name now, but that seems no reason to remove the former name as at least a prominent boldfaced alternate on this page. There is still the Rajneesh movement page and {{Rajneesh movement}} template, do you suggest changing those as well? The concern, which you haven't addressed, is that many people "from the olden days" still think of him as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh ([EDIT: Wrong, I missed them on the list] I see his yoga sutra series isn't listed on his 'works' section on the page, maybe you or someone can put those in, especially the 10 volume series which is an exceptional addition to the literature) and that if the page name is changed the former name which he went and taught under for the vast majority of his influential era - and shouldn't the books written under that name probably still be listed under the original name? - will be removed from the Wikipedia page. Thanks for your long answer, as well as your concern and positive energy. Randy Kryn 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is important to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to remain independent and neutral about the topics it discusses. I have the impression that this article has been edited by people who do not have a "neutral and objective point of view" about this topic and I suspect that this renaming effort is part of that. There is a substantial number of people who are actively promoting this person as "Osho". To the general public other than his active followers, I have the impression that he is much better known as "Bagwan Shree Rajneesh" or "Rajneesh". At least the New York Times said in 2002 that he is "better known to many Americans as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". The fact that this name has been mostly removed from the body of the article, to me, merely suggests that there has been some biased editing by his promoters. The fact that he told his followers to start calling him a different name shortly before he died does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia needs to follow those instructions. Certainly while he was alive, he was primarily known to the general public as "(Bagwan Shree) Rajneesh". Of course the publishers of his works list him as "Osho" – simply because the people who now own the copyright to his works are in a position to demand that. What we need to pay attention to are reliable sources that are independent. I note that in the very lengthy argumentation given above, none of the mentioned sources of information are independent of his promoters and publishers who hold the copyright to his works. Am I wrong about any of that? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, for example Indian press calls him Osho: East Comes to Osho, etc. I'm going to poke around to summarize what independent media says about him. Fairly Indian Express is independent, national media in India as much as the Miami Herald is independent. Further the NYT article you're referring to throughout calls him Osho consistently throughout the article a number of times. [20]. I don't see any substantiation of the "better known to many Americans" claim for example which Americans and what percentage is "many." I find it more dispositive that NYT says that phrase in passing and continues on with calling him Osho. In other NYT articles they also call him Osho. Here we are in 1998: [21] and in 2014: [22]. From Daily Telegraph to Washington Post I' seeing Osho, Osho and more Osho when journalists at reliable sources are talking about him. [ http://www.osho.com/read/osho/by-press] Osho, Osho and more Osho at major newspapers and magazines worldwide. DavidWestT (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (my earlier comments are above), as the 'Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh' name is holding steady in the lead and nobody has tried to remove it. That certainly needs to stay as an alternate name, even if some of his "followers (where'd he go?)" someday try to literally erase his former name from Wikipedia. It does seem like the name is 'Osho' now, and it will be going into the future. Even the last time n-grams were calculated, back in 2008, the two names were tied with Rajneesh going down and Osho rising. Randy Kryn 19:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for most of the last forty years Rajneesh has been more common name,[23] and even now it is ahead, so no need to make this change, particularly as there is a questino of WP:NPOV raised about the Osho name in the comment above.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    The "and even now it is ahead" n-gram, which shows the Osho name just-about tied and gaining, is from 2008. "Now" is 2016. The name Osho didn't exist 40 years ago, or 30 years ago, but since 1989, so this n-gram is more accurate. The Rajneesh name is holding as an alternate name in this pages lead, and the question I have for the remainder of the page is should "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" replace some of the Osho-descriptors on events which occurred before the name change? How has Wikipedia handled other late-in-life name changes within the body of its articles? Randy Kryn 10:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indian media has frequently referred to him as "Osho Rajneesh". Examples:

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Osho-Rajneesh-disregarded-all-laws-Ex-aide/articleshow/18592196.cms 2. http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/doctor-claims-foul-play-in-osho-death/story-e8WJ7ytN7XtrTSmPERf9yK.html 3. http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/review/2016/jan/15/Rebellious-Flower-A-sincere-biopic-869222.html Soham321 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support His Organizations are often named after his name "Osho" in most of the cases. For example Osho International Foundation, Osho dham etc. So its better if we choose this name as its more popular after his controversial death. Terabar (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was known as Rajneesh for the greater part of his notability. Osho can be included in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose yes, WP is objective and looks at a subject overall and per NPOV we follow the strongest sources covering the subject as a whole. WP is not driven by what subjects or members of an organization want (see WP:PROMO and especially WP:NOTWEBHOST. People too often mistake a Wikipedia article for social media or an extension of the subject's own website. Wikipedia is neither. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Either Osho or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, per WP:COMMONNAME, but not Rajneesh. I'm sure that nobody has a clue who "Rajneesh" may be; "Osho" may also be problematic for many, but better known than "Rajneesh"; and "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" will surely be known by most, but is prohibited at Wikipedia because of the religious titles. So, "Osho". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • --Relisting Per MRV result ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Following relisting - Oppose didn't previously comment. Also not convinced this Osho should be first on Osho (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree with In ictu Occuli, is this even the common name for Osho? This hasn't been clearly demonstrated, and until it is, using Rajneesh may be a natural disambiguator.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose majority of secondary sources cited in article do not use Osho. Also, usage hits via google scholar, "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" usage 1993-2016 (1370 hits), "Osho Rajneesh" usage 1993-2016 (342 hits),"Osho" Google Scholar usage 1993-2016 (61 hits). Name should be 'Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh' or as a compromise (that reflects sourcing) 'Osho Rajneesh.' See extended rationale below.Agree with ictu oculi re:disambiguation issue. Pandroid (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the evidence above and below. It appears that most third-party sources use "Rajneesh" instead of Osho. In fact, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh appears to be the most common form, and the article should likely have that title.--Cúchullain t/c 18:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No clear consensus for move

not sure who saw it fit to close this move request when consensus is not evident above. I would like to propose a move review. Additionally, 'Osho' didn't actually write or publish any books. The books in print are transcriptions of recordings made of his various lectures and talks, these were then published by the corporate entity Osho International Foundation (originally Rajneesh International Foundation) and translated into various languages, that's why there are so many hits via the searches offered here. Looking to the scholarly sources, Osho is not the title that is most commonly in use, even to this day, so this fact should be reflected in the title of the article. A search of academic sources paints a different picture to that offered above. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:CD3A:BE58:71EA:4683 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The assertion that "the evidence for common name is ample" flies in the face of evidence presented during the discussion, particularly the NGRAMs, which show that in 2008 (the last data point for the ngram) the two were neck and neck. The supporters have some valid arguments, but so do the opposers, so it's clear that thre isn't a firm consensus above, and this should have been a no consensus close, not a move. Effectively the close is a supervote. Pinging No such user to ask them to consider changing this close to "no consensus" so we can avoid the need to go to move review. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: As I said in the closing statement, that was a close call; I still feel it was within the discretion range. Even if we accept the argument that "Osho" brand is the result of an orchestrated campaign posthumously lead by his followers, (results of which can be seen even within our article's text – lots of POV-language and anachronistic references to "Osho" even at the time he wasn't known as such), one can't argue with success. I feel that prevalence of "Osho" in modern usage (as opposed to that of before 10 or 20 years) has been demonstrated in the RM. Feel free to start a move review. No such user (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@No such user: if it's a close call, then it should be a no consensus close. That means both sides made good arguments, but neither had consensus, which is perfectly fine. Your close, however, is "consensus to move", which you admit yourself is not present, since you say it is a close call. As I say, there's no need for this to go to move review, please just change it to no consensus, as it's clear there is none. Neither the oppose nor the support make anything like a slam dunk case.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
By "close call", I meant "close between 'move' and 'no consensus'". Somebody else might close it differently, thus my remark. The nominator has presented an extensive evidence that wasn't really refuted by the opponents – the three oppose !voters largely only asserted that he had been known as "Rajneesh" during most of his life, and is covered as such in RS from that period and some time afterwards (true), but did not provide much evidence (other than that ngram of yours which cuts both ways) that it is more common now. I am aware that the subject is controversial, and I had perused the talk page archives, where the naming of the subject was a frequent source of contention; but I don't feel we give up any NPOV solely by renaming the article to "Osho".
In RM discussions very often there is no "slam dunk" consensus, and my approach so far has been to close in favor of relatively thin !majority (in terms of policy-based arguments, of course) – unlike XfDs, no information is lost by renaming the article. But I'm reluctant to change my close – let us test that approach in a move review, why not? No such user (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources that were not included in the review

@No such user: you may have made a mistake here. The "extensive evidence" you are consulting is primary, and this is a controversial move that clearly does not have consensus approval. I've looked through the archive discussion on previous move attempts, see: [24] [25] [26] [27] and other related discussion: [28]. Drawing on what other editors have written on the matter consider the following:

  • Across most of the notable literature on the subject, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is by far the most widely used title for this individual.We generally refer to the best secondary sources to ascertain appropriate titles, those sources, in this instance, are mostly academic publications, most of which use "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh."
  • Guideline quote, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
  • We generally refer to the best secondary sources [especially in controversial topics] and those sources in this instance are mostly academic publications: most of which use Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or some variation.
  1. Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", [[Encyclopedia Britannica]], 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
  • Examples of wiki article naming across other territories:

Italian Wikipedia - "Osho Rajneesh", Dutch Wikipedia - "Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh", Polish Wikipedia - "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)", and Portuguese Wikipedia

  • Majority of biographical materials [reliable secondary content] cited in the article have "Rajneesh" in the title. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:29CC:477F:FFCB:DB71 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Debate closers are supposed to operate on the evidence presented, not to search for evidence out there (although I've done that on occasion as well). The discussion had been open for a whole month. It is true that we give more weight to scholarly sources, but on the other hand we aren't a paper encyclopedia, and we're able to adapt after the real word reacts to the name change. I really don't have any problem my closure being reverted or changed, but I'm reluctant to revert it myself because I feel it was reasonable on the basis of evidence presented and my own reversion enters a potential procedural mess: now if I were to change it to "no consensus", should I revert the move as well? WP:TITLECHANGES instructs that If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor. Let a move review solve this mess in the best procedural way we can manage. No such user (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      But there has been a stable title, which was the one agreed at Talk:Osho/Archive_12#Requested_move, which shows the most recent RMs on this subject. In a no consensus scenario, that title, which has stood for the past three years, is the default one. And if you did decide to undo the move, then yes, the process is simply to change the close and revert the move that's been made. That happens plenty of times, because the first stage of move review is informal discussion with the closer.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      Not sure if I agree that "Rajneesh" was a stable title, as the 2013 move was followed by a failed counter-RM and a speedy-closed RfC in the same vein; followed by a series of unilateral moves [29] and move-protection in 2015. No such user (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Surely, first and foremost, debate closers are supposed to adhere to our guidelines concerning the meaning of consensus when it comes to closing discussions? you made a bad call here, should probably accept that and reopen the debate. Also re:"and we're able to adapt after the real word reacts to the name change" are you suggesting that academic scholarship is not representative of the "real world"? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:29CC:477F:FFCB:DB71 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm surely not suggesting such a thing; please don't pull strawman. The evidence was presented in the RM that "Osho" is a WP:COMMONNAME now and it was not IMO effectively refuted in the debate. Even if I did make a bad call here, I maintain it was a reasonable one with the arguments as presented. Where were you with that evidence when the RM was conducted? Even if you persuade me that the article ought to be at "Rajneesh" (or at "Osho Rajneesh", a variant nobody mentioned), do you think it's fair to participants that I reopen the debate, say "oh well, somebody presented contrary evidence 7 days after the close, let me revert it"? It's a can of worms I'm unwilling to open. Somebody please open that MR. A MR is a structured, procedural way to resolve this mess, I don't have a problem that I maybe made a bad call, but now it is too late undo the fact that I did make it. No such user (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • will open an MR once I have time to jump through the hoops involved, following procedure to discuss with closer first. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:29CC:477F:FFCB:DB71 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Second closure

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

So, a closure for the move-request. Now we've got an article with the title "Rajneesh," starting with "Osho (born Chandra Mohan Jain, 11 December 1931 – 19 January 1990), also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Just like Swami Vivekananda, it would make more sense to use the WP:HONORIFICS, that is, "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh," or a double title: "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho)" c.q. "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". Ad infinitum... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: in the Netherlands, he was simply known as "the Bhagwan", without his own name. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Multiple people commented in the WP:Move Review that having a non-admin closure was not a good practice for this WP:RM discussion – but now we have another non-admin closure after only two days of further discussion after the MR re-opened it? That does not seem proper. I suggest a retraction or a speedy overturning of that second closure, or we'll end up with another MR. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I have retracted my closing of the case @BarrelProof:. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that was necessary. I think we need to be extra careful with this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you tell people that from now on you want to be called John, not Jim, how would you feel about people arguing over whether to call you one or the other? Does your decision count for nothing simply because it has not been verified and acknowledged by law? If this is not dishonoring the man, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.49.120 (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily matter how he might feel about it. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we are simply here to report the world as others already report it. And per MOS:IDENTITY, we only go with the person's personal preference if it's not clear which form predominates in reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion of third closure

Can someone please explain the status of the name of this page? Why is it now back to Rajneesh when there was a close on the latest discussion and a move?DavidWestT (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@DavidWestT: The page move which changed to Osho was reviewed through Move Review. The decision there was to reverse the page move and collect information about whether a move is desirable. —EncMstr (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. What's the next step? The title of the page should be Osho. DavidWestT (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment All of his books, published in 62 languages, are now – and have been for over 25 years – published and sold under the name "Osho." Did you have a chance to review the info I listed above? Give me a moment also to review the comparisons in Google Scholar for each name. In Amazon it is overwhelmingly in favor of Osho vs. Rajneesh. DavidWestT (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was closed again, by a non-admin again. This time there was a declaration of "No consensus", which appears to mean that the title of the page should remain "Rajneesh", and it should stay that way unless the discussion is re-opened by another WP:Move Review or is re-opened voluntarily by the person who closed it (or some additional time goes by and another WP:Requested Move is submitted). Personally, I'm not too happy to see another non-admin closure, and not too confident that the closure decision was appropriate. The person who closed the discussion acknowledged that the matter is controversial, but performed a non-admin closure anyway (after two previous non-admin closures with different conclusions were re-opened or retracted). The instructions urge caution about doing that, "but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure". I do not suggest submitting another WP:Requested Move soon with the same proposed change of title – a WP:Move Review would be the appropriate way to try to overturn the decision. (Please note that although I am providing this advice, I am not saying that I agree with your opinion that the title of the page should be "Osho".) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable work

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure of the precise way of going about this but since this talk page may be the right place, i am starting here: In the bio-factoid box, under "Notable work", it says, "Over 600 discourse transcriptions published and translated in several languages." I have tried twice to edit this (Dec 10 and 18, 2016) and been reverted both times, the first time for alleged "spam" because i cited a reference and the second time for not supplying a reference.

I tried to edit this to "Over 5500 discourse transcriptions published in over 450 books and translated in many languages", with and without the citation. Perhaps the problem is that "discourse transcriptions" refers to whole books and not just transcriptions of individual talks. If that is the case, that should be clarified. Otherwise, what is the objection to changing it as i had tried to? -- Sarlo (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So where's Baghwan?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the fact that he was known for about a quarter of a century as Baghwan not mentioned in this article? Maikel (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Increase of popularity

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quote: "their [Rajneesh's syncretic teachings] popularity has increased markedly since his death" In my neck of the woods, Germany, once a Sanyassin hotbed, the popularity of the movement has practically vanished. So how can this claim be true? Maikel (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That info may be outdated:
Yet, my local New Age bookshop still has got plenty of his publications available. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

'Godman'?

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

from the article: 'Bhagwan, was an Indian Godman and leader of the Rajneesh movement. During his lifetime he was viewed as a controversial mystic, guru, and spiritual teacher..'

Now, there is a wiki article on the word 'Godman', where it is defined as 'a colloquial term' that is 'used in India'. I suppose that the term is used in a fairly snide way. For example, I could ask: Will India get over its obsession with godmen? I know a bit of India’s godmen, that they make billions, sway political fortunes, hold entire cities to ransom. There are few other countries where cult leaders command the same kind of influence as India’s gurus. As a matter of emphasis, okay, it's something to consider. At the same time, though, Hinduism makes it clear that no man can be a prophet, let alone a god. Of course, many of these gurus pass themselves off as semi-divine figures. I think I have a grasp of what has led to the popularity of this peculiarly Indian term – the godman – to describe a guru whose followers believe he has divine powers. And I don't mind if we say something like this about the late Sathya Sai Baba, for example. By the way, wiki doesn't call him a Godman, but introduces him as 'an Indian guru, spiritual leader, and philanthropist'. Well, that's just not the same thing, is it?

I wonder if we can all agree that the term 'Godman' is tendentious, and labeling a 'Godman' is to denounce somebody as a fake. It conjures the idea of setting out to fool a gullible public. There are, of course, stage magicians with routines that include eating glass and drinking poison. There certainly are popular self styled Godmen. There is Swami Premananda, who is convicted for raping 13 girls and was put through two consecutive life sentences. Just in general, I think I get it, if you are considering that somebody is, shall we say, running a flourishing flesh trade racket, in the guise of leading a spiritual life, then okay, we don't approve. And again, there are controversial 'gurus', who are infamous for the controversies they are embroiled in. There are self-styled godmen. There is something like 'MSG: Messenger of God', made on (and by) the self-styled godman, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.

However, in the case of Osho, we are dealing with somebody who can actually be quoted saying 'I am not a godman'. Here's a link:

http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-scriptures-footprints-category-31987c68-e1d?p=02972e50ca4db6c7ac6daa3b92f57cb3

Now, your mileage may vary, but I think he's perfectly coherent and reasonable on this occasion, for whatever it is worth, when he describes how 'Godman' is 'a category invented by journalists', and so forth. And look, I like to think I'm reasonable, I know that this dude has, like, the shining bald pate and the long white beard, carefully groomed to look impossibly careless, reaching out wherever you look. Was he, as it were, a sight for the Gods? Sure. But I think it a judgment call whether or not to insist on calling him a 'Godman'. I admit that a reference is given for the idea of labeling Osho a 'Godman', to this book: 'Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal, Volume 1'. So we have this on the authority of Uday Singh Mehta and Akshayakumar Ramanlal Desai. But I wonder if they also would suggest that The Gospel story, fundamentally, is about a dying and resurrecting godman. I might look at what wiki says of Jesus. Perhaps that one day, the Lord Jesus, the God-man, said that He was a grain of wheat etc.? I mean, look, he is both god and man. So there might be *more* justification for calling Jesus a God-man, than there is for calling Osho a Godman..

Of course somebody probably has an agenda here, of spreading the harsh Truth about India's Godmen. Fine. But what is wiki's agenda? I might agree about Godmen, Con Men. It's not that I even disagree. Consider, that Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, one of India's so-called "godmen", has as many as 60 million online devotees. Why do so many people believe in these dubious men and women to the extent that they are even willing to die for them? Good question. Godmen, a Threat to Indian society and culture. I think I get it. The script is super predictable. A saga of this sort unfolded in 2014 when the country witnessed a standoff between the police and an ‘army’ of devout followers outside Sant Rampal’s ashram in Haryana. Those of us who don’t subscribe to this kind of blind, raging faith find the phenomenon baffling. India may be a religious country. India has had a long history of gurus or spiritual guides. In recent times, the tradition seems to have metamorphosed into an industry. But, look, on the other hand, this pious land is the land of lord Srikrishna, lord Rama, lord Buddha, Guru Nanak. What about Mother Teresa? I might mock her, but not on wiki as a 'Godman'. I mean, is this the place for a radical humanistic revolution?

Note how different is the term 'Renaissance man'.

Now, to be clear, it's not, for me, either 'He showed us the way' or this kind of snide stuff, is it? I don't want the article to describe him as 'a Master of Masters'. But to take a guy who says 'to me God is a dead word, a dirty word, a four-letter word', and call him a 'Godman' does seem churlish, or, that is, rude in a mean-spirited and surly way. It's not that *I* have a rule against being rude etc., but let's see if we are at least doing it in cold blood. Is this what wiki is for?

Note, in any case, that Osho is in the media recently -- Netflix's new documentary series is a you've-got-to-see-it-to-believe-it look inside Osho's ashram in America. 'Wild Wild Country'. And I'm totally down with the point that witnessing the sort of blind devotion that Rajneesh’s legions of followers displayed towards him can be unsettling. A true story that seems too strange to be real.

Nevertheless, I think maybe Osho could be more neutrally introduced as 'an Indian spiritual guru', or such. Even if you go on to describe, as it were, 'this bizarre zombie sex cult' or whathaveyou..

DanLanglois (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • You list 'Mehta, Uday' as the author of this source, but I think perhaps you have this person confused with Uday Singh Mehta, who has a wiki entry, and a PhD from Princeton University. But no, not the same person. This one does, nevertheless, have a PhD, but it is from Mumbai University. Also, the publisher, Popular Prakashan, specialises in cookery titles. I note the level this book is written at, here is a quote: 'It is the premise of every religion — and this premise is religion's defining characteristic — that souls, supernatural beings, and supernatural forces exist.' Or this: 'Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.‎' And okay, look, who is calling this a reliable source of anything? To answer that, I note that the co-author is Akshay Ramanlal Desai. About whom one may ask, was he truly a Marxist or a Trotskyist? Some may squeeze their eyebrows when confronting with such a question. A legitimate question, though, from the point of view of Revolutionary Marxist angle. DanLanglois (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

sorry, just to chime in here, but this seems a little racist. So because someone didn't study at Princeton implies their academic qualification is somehow lacking? odd. And, the publishing house is well known in India, has published on many topics, including sociology and women's studies. The citation conforms with guidelines on verifiable and is a reliable source. Acousmana (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

but I am willing to be instructed as to whether, because someone didn't study at Princeton, implies their academic qualification is somehow lacking. I'm not sure how the issue is racism, when I point out that 'I think perhaps you have this person confused with Uday Singh Mehta, who has a wiki entry, and a PhD from Princeton University'. I can only gather that you agree with every word that I said. If we are to also muse about what is racist, then I wonder, for my part, is the term 'Godman' racist? I had, of course, come here to raise the point that I find the term snide and inappropriate. DanLanglois (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

not sure how a term widely used in India, by Indian nationals, to refer to other Indian nationals engaged in the godman business, is racist, there are quite literally thousands of godmen in India. You did clearly infer, above, that the Indian sociologist was underqualified and that the Indian publishing house was disreputable, both of this inferences are untrue. Acousmana (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago63 comments14 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Rajneesh → Osho – There were two closures already to this discussion, which you can see in the Archives. However, both the closures were desperate and by a non-admin. Osho is the most common name for Rajneesh. It should not be a problem to change the article name, example such as Indian poet, lyricist and film director Gulzar is the common name which most people associate with instead of his real name Sampooran Singh Kalra or NBA basketball player Magic Johnson for Earvin Johnson Jr or CM Punk for Phillip Jack Brooks or Nasty (musician) for Aviesk Baniya

In this discussion in pinging the related, active and interest editors to express their views and discuss the outcome.

@Vanamonde93:, @CASSIOPEIA:, @Gpkp:, @Idera1123:, @Saqib:,@Graeme Bartlett:, @DavidWestT:, @DanLanglois:, @Salvidrim!:, @Amakuru:

Let's have a discussion to have a conclusion, which is not desperate. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment, 13 September 2016 (discussion)(Originally closed as moved, but was then relisted again after a move review). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accesscrawl (talk • contribs)
  • Support - having seen the Netflix documentary, it was evident that the followers called him Osho back then, and still call him Osho today. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The question is not what his followers call him. It's what is the name by which he is primarily known by the general public, not just his followers. Also, to be precise, when you refer to "back then", I think you're not referring to the period before 1989. It is before 1989 that he was the topic of the most press that came to the attention of the general public (at least in the United States). There was only about one year between his request to be called Osho and his death. There is also the potential ambiguity with Oshō and other topics at Osho (disambiguation). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Speaking of the Netflix documentary, I just did a little studying. I watched it too, and my unscientific personal impression was that most of the references to him in the documentary itself used "Bhagwan" or BSR or "Rajneesh", although there was also some use of "Osho". There were also a lot of partial matches for "Rajneesh", such as "Rajneeshee" and "Rajneeshpuram" and "Hotel Rajneesh" and "City of Rajneesh", which tends to reinforce the name. The people who stayed with him to the bitter end (esp. his attorney) sometimes called him Osho, most especially when referring to more recent events. For a more scientific survey, I noticed a few other things. The picture that is used to advertise the film (see it here) has "Rajneesh" in handwriting twice in the image (and no instances of "Osho"). I then surveyed all of the film critic reviews cited by Rotten Tomatoes (a website that aggregates film reviews from recognized film critics). One of them (Sunday Times (UK)), was a dead link, but I looked at the other nine: NPR, The Atlantic, RogerEbert.com, Time Magazine, Christianity Today, Missoula Independent, IndieWire, Triple J, and ArtsAtl. Three of these nine contained no mention whatsoever of the name "Osho" (e.g., NPR, The Atlantic, ArtsAtl). Four of them used both "Osho" and "Rajneesh" somewhat (Christianity Today, Missoula Independent, Triple J, Indiewire), and two of those four had only one instance of "Osho" (IndieWire and Triple J). The remaining two didn't contain either term exactly, but had some partial matches for "Rajneesh" (Time Magazine and RogerEbert.com). In a couple of them, the most frequent name was "Bhagwan". My overall conclusion from this exercise is that "Rajneesh" or BSR would be the most recognizable, next would be "Bhagwan", and "Osho" trails. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you're going to reopen a requested move which has already failed twice, it would be usual to explain what has changed since the last request which might make this one succeed. Since that is absent, and there's seemingly no new evidence to discuss, I refer you to my oppose vote on the last discussion. The WP:COMMONNAME in English language reliable sources is Rajneesh, and that's what matters, not what his supporters say.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The body of the article states: in February 1989 took the name "Osho Rajneesh", shortened to "Osho". Maybe that can be included in the first sentence of the intro and call it resolved. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Please check the updates on the discussion. I'm sure New York Times, The Indian Express, Washington Post, etc are not his supporters. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Both the NYT and Washington Post articles call him "Rajneesh" in their headlines, and the NYT article says he is "better known to many Americans as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". That appears to me to be evidence that these publications think the most recognizable name for him is "Rajneesh". The Indian Express article includes "aka Bhagwan Rajneesh" in its first sentence, and the "Osho" in its headline is within a quoted phrase from a supporter (i.e., someone who says "I think our country is in need of Osho's thought process the most right now"). Also, were those sources identified by looking for all sources that refer to him, or by preferentially looking for sources that call him Osho? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if we should consider renaming the article to Osho Rajneesh. As pointed out by Rowan Forest, he chose that as his name, and it seems to be recognizable and perhaps acceptable both by people who refer to him as "Rajneesh" and those who refer to him as "Osho". It also does not suffer from as much ambiguity as either "Osho" or "Rajneesh" by themselves. Regarding the mention that it is "shortened to 'Osho'", does this mean he actually did not want "Rajneesh" to be part of his name at all anymore, or was he just saying he preferred that as the short form? The two cited sources for that statement in the article are offline sources, so I can't see what they said. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Both NYT and WASHINGTON POST are notable newspapers from America. Firstly, Why wouldn't they mention what a subject was popularly known in "their" country? Second, 'better known to many Americans as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh' How would you define 'many'? Also, is wikipedia only serving America? It appears to me that the world is in a transitions for his name. Old generation prefer calling him Rajneesh or Bhagwan or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the newer folks are clueless about the name Rajneesh or bhagwan or bhagwan shree rajneesh. Only for this reason Publications always mention Osho aka Bhagwan Shree rajneesh or Rajneesh. It is to bridge the gap between old and new generations information. Check out the searches made on google for Rajneesh v/s osho. That will clearly state what is his popular name. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: How was that list of people to ping selected? I was an active participant in the last RM and its MRV, and I appear frequently in the article's edit history, but I was not included in the ping. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Respond @BarrelProof ,It is a random selection of interest editors and active editors. Few those were pinged are altogether new to this. Few regulars were randomly pinged.Accesscrawl (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @Accesscrawl: I'm sure you meant well here, but please read WP:CANVAS, and be careful when pinging particular people to a conversation. Because if you only ping a subset of the people previously involved, even if you do so in good faith, and randomly selecting, you risk creating a skewed conversation. The number of people pinged who previously opposed may exceed those who supported, or vice versa. In general you should either ping nobody, or you should ping everybody, and explicitly say which group you have decided to ping (for example, everyone who participated in the previous RM, on both sides). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • @Amakuru, I'm taking care of WP:CANVAS. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I reviewed the list of the 10 users who were pinged. I think I detect some bias in favor of the proposal in that selection, but not an especially strong one. Of the 10 pings, I find 5 that might be perceived as favoring the proposal (one who previously moved the article from Rajneesh to Osho, one who changed the name in the article's infobox from Rajneesh to Osho, one who proposed moving the article from Rajneesh to Osho, one who made Talk page comments that consistently referred to the subject as Osho, and one who closed the MRV as reopen while saying the MRV tended toward endorsing the move from Rajneesh to Osho). Although I refer to potential perception of support for those users, some of those actions are not really clear indications of support. I find 1 that previously expressed opposition to the proposal (Amakuru), 1 that was consulted and provided what appears to be neutrally phrased advice (CASSIOPEIA), and 3 that seem uninvolved and inexplicable (Idera1123, Saqib, and Graeme_Bartlett). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Till the time you don't detect a strong case of bias because of the pinging it is just crystal ball reading. I requested number of editors to open the discussion as i was new to it. None did. One of them helped me to open it and asked me to ping editors, I pinged editors randomly. If that created a pattern, that is solely spontaneous. I've asked some more neutral editors to join in the discussion on their talk pages. So that the discussion becomes healthy.Accesscrawl (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
        • perhaps pinging editors involved in previous move discussions, or at least the most recent one (2016), would be advisable. Acousmana (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I've pinged personally to 50+ editors on their talk pages. I don't think anybody is interested in discussing. Only few interest editors turned up. Negligible contribution. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
        • pinging 50+ editors is very unusual, how many of those have actually edited the article, engaged in previous move discussions, or have demonstrated an interest in the subject matter? Acousmana (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
        • what is unusual when one pings editors? Accesscrawl (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
        • i can only suggest you read WP:CAN and consider if "mass posting" might apply. What determined who it was that you pinged? Acousmana (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Who determines what is mass and what is limited posting? 5 can be mass for a not so well known article and 50 can be less for a Donald Trump discussion. Moreover, if any biased is noticed in this discussion of page move. We shall come up with this component of WP:CAN. Otherwise this suggestions are just simply increasing your edit counts. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

seems excessive, can't remember similar instance, again, can I ask you: What determined who it was that you pinged? the guidelines are clear with respect to inappropriateness, can you demonstrate that you adhered to the recommendations? Acousmana (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Accesscrawl, you are still canvassing. What is your justification for asking this editor to join in on a RM on a subject their editing history strongly suggests they wouldn't have a clue about, or be interested in? Have you comprehended what WP:CANVAS means? You seem to be pulling users/editors out of a hat. You've been queried as to how and why you are pinging so many people, yet you've provided no valid explanation, nor have you curtailed your activities. Please understand that such behaviour is disruptive. See WP:APPNOTE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was known as Rajneesh for almost his entire highly visible public career, and selected the Osho name only in the final months of his life. The vast majority of reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person use the name "Rajneesh". A redirect from Osho to Rajneesh is the best solution. Non-independent sources like his publisher should be ignored. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has mentioned Non-independent sources like his publisher yet. The sources mentioned are independent. Moreover, coming to the popularity of people knows him as, as i've already mentioned. Compare the google searches. Rajneesh v/s osho Accesscrawl (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Google search take place, when some one wants to know more about a subject which he has heard or seen, offline or online. That subject becomes the keyword. In this case as repeatedly mentioned, According to kwfinder.com there is ~4,51,000 avg monthly search of the keyword "OSHO" when compared to ~40,000 avg monthly search for "Rajneesh". That is strong point for the popularity of subject according to WP:COMMONNAME. Top results of this searches are Wikipedia Rajneesh page. To make the point - People aren't looking for Rajneesh. They want to know about Osho. That is the reason the searches for osho keyword is overpowering Rajneesh. Now one can argue, but osho was called rajneesh. That information is valid and can be a part of article infobox, "Other Names". Not the title. But the point is, whenever you want to know about Osho directly, wikipedia will beat around the bush with the name and give you information which says "Sir, the person you are looking is called Rajneesh." However, if one would want to know about Rajneesh one would have searched Rajneesh not Osho. The search volume of osho would have never overpowered Rajneesh. Wikipedia is giving the right information, but it is outdated information because Once upon a time he was called Rajneesh not anymore, and that fact has to be accepted. I would say that wikipedia is misleading the google searches. I'm sure misleading is the last thing the encyclopedia would like to do. Google searches :Rajneesh v/s osho. Accesscrawl (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply to Accesscrawl. We simply do not use raw counts of Google hits to determine article titles, especially for a person who died when the internet was in its infancy, long before Google was founded. Instead, we take a look at the full range of reliable independent published sources that devote significant coverage to the person, and those sources either call him Rajneesh or, more recently, acknowledge that Rajneesh is the name he was best known as. He only abandoned the Rajneesh name a few months before he died. The list of six people you posted below were or are widely known by the name in the article title for many, many years. None of them changed their name in the last months of their lives. As for your comments about the United States, it is clear that this person came to worldwide fame while a resident of the U.S. and in connection with several serious crimes committed by his followers in the U.S. The massive wordwide media coverage of those days universally calls him Rajneesh, and therefore so should Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply What do you mean by raw counts? This google search counts clearly states the popularity. Moreover, I've provided "Full range of reliable independent sources" who calls him osho. Including NYT. Here goes more information covered by independent press media. You aren't trusting Google, you aren't with NYT and others. Wikipedia is all about updates, we are still stuck in 1985 when he visited America, when he was called Rajneesh. Important thing is what he is popularly known today. It is American hangover that Old generation prefer calling him Rajneesh or Bhagwan or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the newer folks are clueless about the name Rajneesh or bhagwan or bhagwan shree rajneesh. Only for this reason Publications always mention Osho aka Bhagwan Shree rajneesh or Rajneesh. It is to bridge the gap between old and new generations information. He changed his name to OSHO and people know him as osho. Enough proof has been provided. Moreover, 60% of the other language wikipedia page uses the title OSHO. Accesscrawl (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The goal is not just to identify whether there are some reliable independent sources "who calls him osho" (and ignoring things like whether their headline uses "Rajneesh"). It is to identify how he is most typically referred to (and most recognizable as) in all of the independent reliable sources (among other factors such as whether it is appropriate to include something like like "Bhagwan", which seems to be an honorific). Please see MOS:ID: "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources." (emphasis added) See also WP:SPNC and its discussion of Cat Stevens. Were those sources identified by looking for all sources that refer to him, or by preferentially looking for sources that call him Osho? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that you are making sense, still he isn't commonly called Rajneesh, he was either called Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or osho. Some of the RS are mentioned where there is "No Rajneesh" in the title. Also consider google searches. That is clear consensus. If we are finding it difficult to find a balance, Google searches will give us a clue of what are people actually looking for. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this article was constructed using the best secondary sources available, most of it is academic literature, the majority of which uses the title Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Osho Rajneesh has also been used in some literature, but I personally would prefer the former. Note that the majority of secondary sources cited, and even more recent scholarly writings, still use Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Also, in terms of search results, usage hits via google scholar are more revealing: "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" usage 1970-2018 (2040 hits), "Osho Rajneesh" usage 1970-2018 (458 hits),"Osho" Google Scholar usage 1970-2018 (255 hits - not all associated with usage here). Acousmana (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Acousmana: why did you mark oppose if you prefer BSR? Accesscrawl (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
because the proposed move is to 'Osho' not BSR.Acousmana (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I would not mark oppose if I oppose the current title. I would have marked comment or simply commented. Anyways, that is your call. However, if google is considered. Please check searches for the names Rajneesh v/s osho Accesscrawl (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
did you, or did you not, propose this article be moved to Osho? If yes, I oppose this, what's not clear about that? re:google, it's already explained above why a raw search, in this context, demonstrates little of value. Acousmana (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom,comments and reply by Accesscrawl. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The arguments put forward are convincing, and my own researches indicate an overwhelming use of Osho as the primary means of discussing this person in a variety of sources, compounded by the large volume of publications by him, which use just Osho - including this 2015 book published by Penguin. I have rarely seen such a wide and comprehensive current use of a name in a Move request. I can understand the opposes, but they appear to be based on an outdated naming protocol or on a reluctance to accept yet another move request when there have been so many. But we should get this right, and if the name is wrong, then its wrong. SilkTork (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I am getting the impression that the evidence is being selectively chosen to promote the name change. I have asked twice about how the sources cited in support of the name change were chosen, and have not received a satisfactory answer. Certainly it is possible to find sources that support different names – that is not what's important. I have been thinking that perhaps the issue is a difference between how he is known in the U.S. and in India (in independent reliable sources). But a very interesting point that I just learned about is that the corresponding article in the Hindi Wikipedia is at रजनीश, i.e., "Rajneesh". To me that puts very strong doubt on the theory that "Osho" is the overwhelmingly dominant name for him in India. Clearly the two most relevant places are the U.S. and India. I'm getting the impression that the divide here is primarily between independent sources and promotional sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I must respectfully disagree with SilkTork, who to their credit is the first "support" post so far to argue on the basis of policy, and also in its spirit rather than simply its letter. That Penguin book is an official publication of OSHO Media International, all of which now refer to Rajneesh as Osho. Per Amakuru, Cullen328 and BarrelProof above, I wouldn't call that an independent source, and the independent sources I've found in searches over the past few days lean heavily toward the use of BSR. I just can't see any new evidence introduced here for the move. SilkTork, could you please summarize what you've found apart from that 2015 book? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. TMGtalk 12:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Mighty Glen: just to concur with your observations, the vast majority of independent scholarly sources on the subject (and reputable tertiary sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica) still use Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. A few 2018 publications include New Religions as Global Cultures, Religions as brands? Religion and spirituality in consumer society in the Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, and Religion, Society, And Psychoanalysis, all published by Taylor & Francis.Acousmana (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The case for Osho is remarkably weak. The nom, for example, bases its arguments on WP:OTHERSTUFF rather than on an analysis of the two names and then devolves into lose talk about "older" and "younger" generations, none of which amounts to evidence. Based on the sources I'm seeing here, independent sources refer to this individual both as Rajneesh as well as Osho, apparently with a preference to putting Rajneesh in the headline, while sources associated with the Osho organizations refer to him as Osho. That the hindi wikipedia uses Rajneesh rather than Osho is also quite telling. Since we shouldn't use honorifics in the title of an article, I think this article is at its correct title and there is no need to change it. --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • New York Times article on Osho refers to the subject throughout the article as “Osho.” The New York Times used the name “Osho” 16 years ago throughout the article, using “Rajneesh” only to provide further identifying information, seen as relevant by the Ny Times 16 years ago.
  • Jacqueline Fernandez has expressed her will to play Ma Anand Sheela to the Indian newspaper The Asian Age. The whole article doesn't contain the name Rajneesh. However, She has mentioned Osho twice.
  • Kourtney Kardashian and Osho “She read a book by Indian mystic and guru Osho, as the father of her two children whipped out his Macbook Pro laptop, sporting a pair of pinkish red swim trunks.”
Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) Name changes sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, WP:COMMONNAME still applies, but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per WP:COMMONNAME.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names
The following are examples(apart from few given above) of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability:
People
Because the vast majority of the public will today find Osho as an author, the name under which he is almost universally published and thus known, is “independent and reliable” evidence of common usage. And they overwhelmingly reflect the public’s present understanding of the article’s subject as “Osho,” not “Rajneesh. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the reason that he is generally encountered as as an author today as "Osho" is that his works are copyrighted, and the people who own the copyright are actively promoting the use of that name for him. They will not allow publications of his works under the name "Rajneesh" and similar. As Wikipedia, we try to pay more attention to independent sources than to promotional and affiliated sources. To the vast majority of people, at least in the United States, he is known as the man at the center of the major events that took place in the United States in the early and mid-1980s, and thus is primarily known as Rajneesh or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. While he might have been referred to by his new preferred name in some more recent publications, he still seems most recognizable as Rajneesh to most people. It seems a bit like Cat Stevens (although Stevens hasn't been associated with any notorious crimes). Cat Stevens has eventually returned to sometimes using his old name, since he knows that's how most people know him. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The name Osho was not decided after his death for copyright purposes. He chose that name in 1989. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think no one has ever said the name was chosen after his death or for copyright purposes. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"the people who own the copyright are actively promoting the use of that name for him." -BarrelProof. I'm sorry, it must have been your evil twin brother fooling around with your WP account. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Using the copyright to promote the name is not the same thing as choosing the name for copyright purposes. Perhaps there is a language understanding problem here. There is no dispute about the basic facts. He chose the name "Osho", and he did so shortly before he died. It was not chosen by someone else – it was chosen by him. There is no indication that the reasons for his choice of the name had anything to do with copyrights. According to the Osho International Foundation, he also "requested that everything previously branded with RAJNEESH to be rebranded OSHO" ("OSHO: Background Information". Archived from the original (etext) on 24 March 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)) In support of that request, the people who now own the copyright to his works are now identifying him as "Osho" when publishing his works. This is not the same thing as saying that he is primarily known to Osho now, since many of the people who are familiar with him as an encyclopedic subject are not his followers and are not recent readers of his published works. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
His works was copyrighted since he started. Check the same document you have mentioned Osho Background info. I don't know why do you mention first "vast" majority and later debunk it to "atleast" in America. What does that imply? The event occurred in America in mid 80's was just a minute part of his whole work. Considering what happened there, Antelope should still be called town Rajneesh. As it was popularly called Rajneesh and officially named too and Rajneesh people were majority there then. As i've mentioned before, people rarely are searching Rajneesh when compared to osho searches on Google. However, asking all the wikipedia expert and Admins, is there a possibility to find the trail how user gets on Wikipedia page? After searching what on google. That'll clear the air.Accesscrawl (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The reason I said "at least in the United States" is simply because I want to acknowledge that am not very familiar with the culture and the sources in India and their reliability. It seems that there might be a difference between the way he is known in the two places. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Why mentioning America is needed in the first place? There are 195 countries, if everyone starts mentioning what is he called in their country it'll take a decade to end this discussion. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you joking? Major events involving the topic of the article took place in the United States. Much of the article is devoted to those events. There is the establishment of a huge commune in a rural area, a fleet of Rolls Royce cars, dramatically unconventional religious and social and sexual behavior, the takeover of a city, the attempted takeover of a county, recruiting and later ejection of homeless people on a large scale, a series of biological attacks using Salmonella bacteria, a plot to kill a high government official, a longer hit list of potential targets, immigration fraud relating to sham marriages, bugging of his private conversations, his forced ejection from the country, the collapse of his commune. All that took place in the United States. That is all rather notable, and he was the one key figure at the focal center of all of that action. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This list is big, but that doesn't implies "Major". There was a attempt assassination in India on him. He was exempted entry from 21 countries including US. If all the 21 countries starts counting what happened during that period of his stay. Something or the other "Major" event would come up. My suggestion is lets look broader view, world view. Not limited to America or India or any other country. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The 21 countries that denied him entry after his ejection from the U.S. aren't even identified in the article. I think it is rather obvious that the countries that are the most relevant to this article are the U.S. and India. That is where he has attracted the most attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I assume that overall popularity is indifferent of where he has grabbed more attention. Name move should have no impact on where the events happened or what events are mentioned in the article. Wherever and whatever the events would have happened, we are looking for unanimous name through this discussion. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Across most of the notable literature on the subject, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is by far the most widely used title for this individual.We generally refer to the best secondary sources to ascertain appropriate titles, those sources, in this instance, are mostly academic publications, most of which use "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh."
  • Guideline quote, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
  • We generally refer to the best secondary sources [especially in controversial topics] and those sources in this instance are mostly academic publications: most of which use Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or some variation.
  • Marion Goldman (a notable academic commentator on Rajneesh) interchanges Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh with Osho Rajneesh in an Oxford University Press book published in 2011 (Goldman, Marion S. 2011. Cultural Capital, Social Networks, and Violence at Rajneeshpuram. In Violence and New Religious Movements. Edited by James R. Lewis).
  1. Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", [[Encyclopedia Britannica]], 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
  • Examples of wiki article naming across other territories:

Italian Wikipedia - "Osho Rajneesh", Dutch Wikipedia - "Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh", Polish Wikipedia - "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)", and Portuguese Wikipedia

@Acousmana: So according to this information you've provided Rajneesh is still the wrong title. It should be Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Also, when we observe the title in other territories Osho is most commonly used Title,placed in bracket or together with Rajneesh. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
it's not wrong, or right, it's the result of consensus building. I personally believe the long standing Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh title should never have been changed. The literature on the subject clearly uses BSR most frequently. Acousmana (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD: George Meredith (sannyasin)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved

Page watchers may be interested in contributing to the deletion discussion for George Meredith (sannyasin). Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD : Osho Times

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved

Any interest editors would want to contribute deletion discussion of Osho Times Accesscrawl (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This page is far too reverential

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Stating he had no knowledge of the crimes, we don't know that at all. Also, why no mention of the crimes he was convicted of? This shouldn't be some sort of recruiting screed or loving write-up, which is it. JannJann101 (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it diverging from reliable sources somewhere? Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
His page doesn't mention which crimes he was convicted of, shouldn't it? JannJann101 (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NOTNEWS Accesscrawl (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Highly dubious claims about Manmohan Singh

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The statement "Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Indian Sikh writer Khushwant Singh have expressed their admiration for Rajneesh" is cited from a single sentence in a SF Gate article written in 2004. The article makes no reference to a specific quote by Singh nor provides any evidence for this claim. The only direct reference I see is the book "India My Love: A Spiritual Journey", which was written by Osho himself. I am removing this statement since I cannot find any independent sources that verify this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9401:2D7F:2446:2607:D1DD:CC5D (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Osho is Not a Philosopher

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the introductory words of this wiki-page, Osho is depicted as the philosopher: "... was an Indian spiritual guru, philosopher and the leader of the Rajneesh movement." I have found this not to be true. Osho stated himself that he is not a philosopher:

"I am not a philosopher. The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic." — From Ignorance to Innocence, Chapter 2

From the quote above it is clear that Osho is a seer of truth. I suggest we use that term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinoklisovich (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, Wikipedia is not for our personal opinions, we just follow WP:SOURCES. We do nothing else than parroting WP:RS. Also, since he had a dog in this fight, he is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source about himself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

R.E. Manmohan singh

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The praise from former Indian PM Manmohan Singh is indeed accurate, and their are in fact hundreds of Osho"s books in the Indian Parliament. The book that you mention, "Books I have loved" was not written by Osho, as you claim, but is actually a compilation from different talks.

This page on Osho is a bit of a joke but don't worry, it will be made more reflective of the real and more balanced with time. Personally I don't have time for this right now, but the page does need additions from people who have more knowledge of the subject matter. 


Eternity5090 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


“ Books I have loved” is not a compilation. It is “India my love” that is the book that was mentioned that is indeed a compilation. And your are correct, there is indeed over three hundred of Osho’s books in the Indian Houses of Parliament, and the qoute from Manmohan Singh, is accurate. Can you find the source of the comment perhaps? Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My contribution removed .

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I have made a contribution yesterday which was: 

"Rajneesh had first mentioned that he had been informed that Sheela had bugged the entire commune including his room and taken some tapes with her when she left in the first press conference he gave on the 16th of September 1985 when he publicly exposed the crimes and invited the government authorities in to investigate.[1]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).


I feel that this is an important part of the history of Rajneeshpuram which is missing from the wikipage , as when Rajneesh decided to hold the first press conference after Sheela had left, based on the information that he had been given from someone inside Sheelas group as well as other sannyasins, he publicly exposed the crimes that he had been informed about, but also mentioned that someone had informed him that not only had Sheela wiretapped the entire commune, she had taken some tapes with her with her to Germany, or Switzerland, and that they were informing Interpol.

This is an important point , because there has been a false portrayal in the U.S. media particularly, that Sheela had made some recordings that Rajneesh was unaware of. And in this wiki page, it has not been mentioned that it was Rajneesh who first informed the FBI and the goverment authorites about the tapes, which makes it apparent that he was not at all concerned about whatever may be on those tapes.

So I want it to be mentioned as I feel the wiki is actually misleading and it appears to insinuate that Rajneesh was unaware of the tapes that Sheela had when she left Rajneeshpuram.

I have given two sources , one is a transcription taken from a tape recording, of a press interview in 16th september 1985. It is backed up by a video recording.

The other source is an actual audio recording of the interview, and the entire press conference, in which Osho makes a public statement and then takes questions from several journalists.

This is also backed up by video. The press conference was also broadcast on US live television and is historical. In no way can these sources be said to be suspicous or dubious.

In fact, the talk was attended by many journalists, ( I have the full list of every journalist present,) who represented several different news agencies in that talk, on that date, and the talk itself was witnessed by thousands of people. There were in fact two talks given every day at that point I believe. It is The last testament vol 2 chapter 26.

There are statements that have been allowed by people on the Rajneesh wiki page which are hearsay and have never been proven , such as part of the trial testimony by one of the group accused by Rajneesh of crimes, and they are accepted, obviously placed to try to damage his reputation. Whether they are true or not is not the point (and there are statements that have been made by other members of the same group in their testimonies that contradict those of Ava Avalos) : the point is that the sources I have provided are backed up by audio recordings, and video recording, and the statements were witnessed by many correspondants from several international news agencies.

So it is a matter of public record.

because Epinioia, removed my first contribution, I have added the name of the press reporter, Brian Ecker, from Associated Press, Portland, into the second edit.

"Rajneesh had first mentioned , that he had been informed that Sheela had bugged the entire commune including his room and taken some tapes with her when she left in the first press conference he gave after Sheela had left on the 16th of September 1985 in an interview with Brian Ecker associated press, Portland, when he publicly exposed the crimes and invited the government authorities in to investigate. He also said that they were going to inform Interpol. Sources: 

[2]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).


This is a historical event and as the point of the wiki is meant to be a resource for historical research, I can see no reason why my contribution should be out of place here.

The other argument was, that I should not allowed to enter information from a first hand source(that means Osho`s talks). However, there are many instances in the wiki page on Rajneesh were his qoutes have been used and accepted by Epinocia, without any objection. For instance, someone has recently created a new section on genetic engineering and manipulation, using Rajneeshs qoutes as a source.

However, there are many of Rajneeshs qoutes which could be used to completely contradict the ones which have been chosen, where Rajneesh warns of the dangers of humans messing around with nature, etc. Rajneesh always made it clear that the point was not to cling to his words, that he deliberately contradicted his statements so that people who be forced to think for themselves, and that no-one would be able to create a dogma, and ideology, after he had gone.

But this is not the point.

The point is that I have just added something factual which is backed up by audio and video files, and it has been removed because of a personal bias agaisnt Rajneesh.

Now, I see no reason why should not be allowed. It is not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing with what Rajneesh has said , it is simply a matter of historical fact, that he mentioned the tapes in the first press conference on the 16th of September 1985. And I think that the wiki is a place to state facts that have been proven, more than personal bias, beliefs or greivances.

This will also put an end to the rumours that there were tapes that he was unware of.

The other argument that primary sources are not allowed doesn’t apply either, as there are lots of other pieces on the page which are using citations and sources taken from Rajneeshs books, which are also primary sources. Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Bamboobreeze (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • - an interview, tape recording or video of someone is considered a primary source. Wikipedia is based mainly on secondary sources as stated in WP:PSTS.
  • - Wikipedia is not based on what the subject of an article (in this case Rajneesh), or people closely associated with that subject, have to say about the subject. Information from them is regarded as a primary source (original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event - this includes tape recordings, videos and interviews). Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish material about the subject in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking.
  • - Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
  • - even if what Rajneesh says is true, it still needs to be confirmed by another source - see WP:VERIFY, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
  • - as stated in the Wikipedia:Closing discussions guideline, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."
  • - see also Wikipedia:Interviews, "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material" and "Wikipedia cannot use comments made by an interviewee to cite claims that would normally require either secondary or third-party independent sources." - Epinoia (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Epinioa, Epinoia, Your argument that the one of the sources that I have used is an unrealiable source, which is the archive of Osho`s words at Osho.com, cannot stand , as the same source has already been used as a source in citation :223 Faq, International Meditation Resort . Your argument that there archive is not relaible in some way does not stand, as all of the talk transcriptions are backed up by audio recordings, many of them also by videotape, and the press conference in question was viedotaped and is avalaible on video, and in audio format which I have already given.

The same press conference has also been mentioned by many publications around the world, and was attended by many international and local journalists. And has already been mentioned on the wiki.

there are also numerous sources from Osho`s words and books including citations 205, 29, and again another source that has already been used as a source in citation 20, is run by osho.,com, the site that I have cited as a source that you are trying to block for being unreliable.Bamboobreeze (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Bold text== Osho.com , official archive of all of Osho`s talks which is backed up by audio and video is most cases, now being labeled as an `unreliable source` by Epinoia and new contributions blocked to the Rajneesh page. ==



Epinoia, Your argument that the one of the sources that I have used is an unrealiable source, which is the archive of Osho`s words at Osho.com, cannot stand , as the same source has already been used as a source in citation :223 Faq, International Meditation Resort . Your argument that there archive is not reliable in some way does not stand, as all of the talk transcriptions are backed up by audio recordings, many of them also by videotape, and the press conference in question was videotaped and is avalaible on video, and in audio format which I have already given.

The same press conference of 16th September 1985, where Osho exposed all of the crimes that he had been informed of, including that he had been informed that Sheela had wiretapped the entire commune including his own rooms, and that she has apparently taken some tape recordings with her to Germany, and then invited the FBI and governement authorites to investigate the crimes and said that they would give full co-operation, has also been mentioned by many publications around the world, and was attended by many international and local journalists. And has already been mentioned on the wiki.

there are also numerous sources from Osho`s words and books including citations 205, 29, and again another source that has already been used as a source in citation 20, is run by osho.,com, the site that I have cited as a source that you are trying to block for being unreliable.

Bamboobreeze (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • WP:RS says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Has Osho.com checked the facts? Osho.com my confirm that the press conference took place, but the contents of the press conference must be verified by independent sources. See WP:VERIFY, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Osho.com can be used as a source for content that can be verified by reliable, independent sources.
  • WP:INDEPENDENT says, "An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject." As Osho.com is dedicated to Osho/Rajneesh, it cannot be considered an independent source. Anything sourced from Osho.com should be backed up by citations from other reliable sources.
  • WP:COISOURCE says, "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." Because of the connection with Osho/Rajneesh, Osho.com cannot be considered a reliable source without reference to other independent sources, as per Wikipedia guidelines. When presenting Osho's ideas and teachings, Osho.com can be cited because what they say can be confirmed from other sources. - Epinoia (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- p.s. - @Bamboobreeze: - when naming another editor in a post it is common courtesy to ping them to notify them that they are being discussed - use the {{ping|username}} template - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia, You have put:

:*WP:RS says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Has Osho.com checked the facts? " - Osho himself, gave the facts , at least what he had been informed had happened by other people. That is the only reason these crimes are known to the world today and that is why we are discussing it.'' The problem is, the way it is being presented on this page and in usually in the other sources used here such as the Oregonian (which was always highly biased against "the Bhagwan" and the Rajneeshees, always portrays Osho as the villain and Sheela as "the scapegoat".'

Also, my point is that is doesnt mention anywhere that Osho first mentioned that she had taken tapes. Which clearly suggests that he had nothing to hide. By the way, they also had boxes of the tapes that she had left behind they handed over to the FBI.

"Osho.com my confirm that the press conference took place, but the contents of the press conference must be verified by independent sources. See WP:VERIFY, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Osho.com can be used as a source for content that can be verified by reliable, independent sources.

  • WP:INDEPENDENT says, "An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject." As Osho.com is dedicated to Osho/Rajneesh, it cannot be considered an independent source. Anything sourced from Osho.com should be backed up by citations from other reliable sources."

All that OIF have done have archived his talks which are backed up by audio and video files. It would be unreasonable to suggest that it did not happen with overwhelming evidence that is on record.

There is a list of journalists that can be provided as a reference, who were at the talk given, and it would be unreasonable to suggest, that the press conference did not take place. Especially as it has already been mentioned on the wiki. (minus the info that I want to add).

Now are we going to reach some sort of compromise on this or what.

I believe it is unreasonable not to allow Osho.com archive of talks to used as a reference, especially as they have already been used and cited as sources on this wiki page. Bamboobreeze (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • - "Osho himself, gave the facts" - as noted above, this is considered a primary source, Wikipedia is based mainly on secondary sources as stated in WP:PSTS
  • - "at least what he had been informed had happened by other people" - this is hearsay - see Wikipedia:Hearsay
  • - "There is a list of journalists that can be provided as a reference, who were at the talk given, and it would be unreasonable to suggest, that the press conference did not take place." - I did not suggest the press conference did not take place - all a journalist can do is confirm that it did take place, not for the veracity of what was said
also, as requested above, please ping me when mentioning me in a post - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is not neutral in tone.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I realize that the talk page is not supposed to be used as a general forum page about the subject however I find this article highly biased from both anti-and pro-Rajneesh writers. I found this article as a link from one about a different deceased "guru" from India which is more neutral in tone. If anyone with knowledge of this movement can "fix" it by removing overly negative and/or positive emotional sentences, and can limit themselves to non-snarky facts, I think they should! This is a very strange article as it now exists. Thanks.Lmlmss44 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edits by Bamboobreeze to the sections "Euthanasia and genetic selection" and "Contradictions and'`heart to heart communion'" have multiple issues:

  • over-reliance on quotes (MOS:QUOTE)
  • over-reliance on primary sources with no verification from reliable secondary sources (WP:PSTS & WP:VERIFY)
  • the sections may contain original research (WP:NOR) and (WP:SYNTH); the sections uncritically use texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them
  • the sections may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral (WP:NPOV)
  • the sections were created by a single-purpose account (WP:SPA) who may have an agenda (WP:AGENDA) or may be involved in advocacy (WP:ADVOCACY)

- if anyone can help improve these sections by reducing the reliance on primary sources and introducing citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources (WP:RS) to help maintain a neutral point of view, your contributions would be welcome - Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits to euthanasia and genetic selection

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

@Epinoia. Here we go again. These qoutes which are originally put in this section are not part of Rajneesh’s core philosophy. Therefore put on there own they are out of place . I have pointed out clearly that he contradicted himself consistently on most things through the years , as qoutes here. This is because in the way that he worked was not actually about words at all, as he always consistently said over the years, it was a silent heart to heart communion which involved his consciousness meeting with the consciousness of the disciples. I am creating a new section about that, as if this aspect of Rajneeshs life is not understood , at least on an intellectual level, it would be impossible to really understand him, or what he was really about. And it is also the main part of his ‘teachings’ so it does really belong in the “Teaching” section.

I think it is clear what up you really mean is you think that the qoutes that I have used, portray Rajneesh in too ‘good’ a light in your eyes, and you are worried about that. It does seem to be an agenda as I have heard you have blocked a lot contributions from others, for example with my first edit where I am mentioning that Rajneesh mentioned that Sheela had taken some tapes with her and he had already contacted the police and the FBI ,in the first press conference he gave after he left, this is historical but you removed that and said that Osho.com wasn’t a reliable source. But you have allowed the same source to be added previously when someone has taken several qoutes( out of context) and placed them here. Although don’t make him look any better it just makes it clearer that those subjects are topics that he contradicted himself on and not a part of his philosophy of the new man . And he continuosly stressed that the new man was not meant to be striving for any ideal or perfection but rather, totality in the present moment and an acceptance of the ordinary and being human. Having balance is not a bad thing. Also, proven, factual events which make the article more balanced are not a bad thing. It is good to look at history from all the different angles . 

 By the way, you still haven’t replied my simple query, are you actually an administrator here. Bamboobreeze (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t realise that the new section is still there. I will try to shorten some of it. And perhaps provide some citations for certain parts which will make it clearer.Bamboobreeze (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- please do not make up false things about me such as, "you think that the quotes that I have used, portray Rajneesh in too ‘good’ a light in your eyes" - this is completely untrue and inappropriate - I made no comment about the content of the quotes, only that MOS:QUOTE states, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style"
- I have already explained at length on this talk page, on my talk page and your talk page why the content you added about Sheela and the tapes was not acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has nothing to do with the multiple issues with the edits to the sections mentioned above. - Epinoia (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia . I know this is a point of contention between us, we have discussed a bit amd I have found an extra source which is the original report by the news reporter that Rajneesh was speaking to. But I am still deciding exactly how to write that part.Bamboobreeze (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Bamboobreeze - it is not a point of contention between "us," it is a point of contention between you and the Wikipedia guidelines.
- please read the Wikipedia:Interviews guideline:
  • "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said."
  • "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material."
  • "Wikipedia cannot use comments made by an interviewee to cite claims that would normally require either secondary or third-party independent sources"
- if you wish to use material from an interview to establish facts, it must be supported by independent reliable sources WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. Interviews are regarded as primary sources WP:PSTS - please read the guidelines - if you need help understanding them try the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Teahouse
ps. please learn to use the ping template correctly, it's {{ping|username}} - simply copying @Epinoia does not work - Epinoia (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

<no wiki>@Epinoia:</nowiki> - it is between us, because yes there are certain guidelines there, but it does depend on how you interpret them. You argued that Osho.com is not a reliable source, because it is a site run by people inlvolved with Osho, but I argued that the site has simply a database, an archive of all of Osho’s words, which are also backed up by original audio recordings and lots of them, also videotaped. This archive, is already being used as a source on this wiki page, as you know, also , you have allowed it before for others contributions here without any fuss. Multiple qoutes too.

The other point is that is was an international news conference, broadcast on live tv, attended by thousands of sannyasins( appears in several books by people who were there) - as well as many news reporters, local, national and worldwide.

This is a historical event, and there are many things which have been put onto this page which are not proven at all, simply claims that are refuted by others, or have alternative versions of events, and the whole bioterror attack section has been written in such a way that it in not at all neutral in tone. And there are certain points there that anyone familiar that are not mentioned.

Also, there are points here that are also based on interviews as,well.Bamboobreeze (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Bamboobreeze - if you make edits that do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines they will be reverted. If you believe the edit is valid you can go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. You might want to read the guideline Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, particularly the section, Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia - Epinoia (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

<no wiki>@Epinoia:</nowiki> - but you are not actually the wiki yourself, you are someone who is using the wiki , like me. You won’t tell me whether you are an administrator or not. The guidelines can be interpreted in different ways.Bamboobreeze (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- I have already quoted the guideline that states, ""Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." That's definitive. - Epinoia (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

<no wiki>@Epinoia:</nowiki> - the information is a statement of historical fact, that Osho called a press conference, on the 16th of sep 1985, very quickly after Sheela and most of her groups had left. He accused her of several serious crimes including illegal wiretapping, poisoning both sannyasins inside the commune and people outside the commune, and attempting to murder three members of his household. He also told the assembled press reporters that he had also been informed that Sheela had taken some tapes with her to Germany, and that he knew were they were hiding and that he had already contacted the authorities and would be contacting Interpol. It is neutral historical fact. That has been recorded on audio, video, and also reported by news reporters around the world. .Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

- it is a historical fact that the press conference took place and was recorded - that does not mean that what was said in the press conference was true.
- but what you have written is fine because it reports on what he said without stating that what he said is true:
"Osho held a press conference on Sept 16, 1985, in which he accused Sheela of several crimes including illegal wiretapping, poisoning and the attempted murder of three members of his household. He said that he had been informed that Sheela had taken some tapes with her to Germany, but he knew where they were hiding and had already contacted the authorities and would be contacting Interpol."<ref>(add a ref link to the press conference)</ref>
- leave out the other stuff about his doctor etc. unless you have citations to reliable sources to verify it WP:VERIFY and to avoid WP:UNDUE
- I see you still haven't figured out how to use the ping template - {{ping|username}} - considering the formatting errors of your previous edits, it would be beneficial if you took some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia formatting and style before making further edits - Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Epinoia (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@epinoia , everything that I have read comes from the same sources as the accusations or statements that are already mentioned. Although the section has been written in a way that makes Sheela appear as the scapegoat. I am not making no more edits because you don’t like what I am writing. I am open to suggestions but will continue making edits. It wouldn’t be a proper page on Rajneesh without mentioning his contradictions, also his concept of the new man , which has not been represented or adequately described properly here.

Bamboobreeze (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

-I have made no edits outside this topic, because I have only just joined wikipedia as an editor. Am I expected to make lots of edits to multiple subjects within a very short space of time?Bamboobreeze (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bamboobreeze: - statements like this make it look as if you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are a single-purpose account with an agenda and with the intent to engage in advocacy. Take care; according to Wikipedia blocking policy, "not here to build an encyclopedia" is an often-used blocking rationale. Advocacy can also provide the basis for blocking an editor. Instructions on how to properly use the {{ping|username}} and other reply templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Notifications and here: Template:Reply to - Epinoia (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@epinoia. I have only just joined as an editor and you are expecting me to add lots of content immiediatley. I am still writing my recent new section. I have knowledge of several subjects , including Osho rajneesh and the history of Osho rajneesh and sannyas, from many years of study , and interest, as well as other spiritual teachers from Osho's lineage. To have a page about Osho Rajneesh without mentioning the main spiritual fundamental , 'his heart to heart communion 'which was his main way of working, would be like having a page on the history of automobiles without mentioning petrol or gasoline. And the same goes for his intentional contradictions in his statements. I have added content to the page about several things , and you have objected to all of it and attempted to sabotage it. you are policing this page but it is clear you have a bias against Rajneesh . And you would not tell me if you are an administrator. Now I can see you are not. I happy to share my knowledge on different subjects, and other new contributors here should not be scared away by editors such as yourself who are objecting to all of their content. Bamboobreeze (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

“it is a historical fact that the press conference took place and was recorded - that does not mean that what was said in the press conference was true.”

I have not said ever that what he said was true or not, I have only tried to,add content which is factual, which you have blocked. There are anti- Rajneesh writers who are adding content which is unproven, and is not facts. You are not concerned by this so it appears biased. These things are also contested by people, that were actually there and this had not been mentioned on this page, which gives a very unbalanced account, so far of the events which is also confusing.

- but what you have written is fine because it reports on what he said without stating that what he said is true:
"Osho held a press conference on Sept 16, 1985, in which he accused Sheela of several crimes including illegal wiretapping, poisoning and the attempted murder of three members of his household. He said that he had been informed that Sheela had taken some tapes with her to Germany, but he knew where they were hiding and had already contacted the authorities and would be contacting Interpol."<ref>(add a ref link to the press conference)</ref>

I am still deciding exactly how to phrase that. Bamboobreeze (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC) — Bamboobreeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Bamboobreeze: - again, this sounds like you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are a single-purpose account with an agenda and with the intent to engage in advocacy - also, you wrote, "You are not concerned by this so it appears biased." - I have asked you before not to make up false things about me and not to make unjust accusations - see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." - also see Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - Epinoia (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bamboobreeze: - I have asked you several times previously not to make up untrue things about me, make false statements about me and do not to make unjust accusations such as, "it is clear you have a bias against Rajneesh" and "you have objected to all of it and attempted to sabotage it" - behaviour like this is against Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." - also see Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
- what I have objected to in your edits is your failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines
- if you wish to learn how to use the {{ping|username}} and other reply templates properly, instructions can be found here: Wikipedia:Notifications and here: Template:Reply to - Epinoia (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is my link to kundalini wiki page being moved- misunderstanding

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@Epinoia, I have linked the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini wiki page to my section because it is completely relevant to the text. You misunderstand- it is actually useful for people who have kundalini activity, to read in-depth information on kundalini, especially someone who has experience and can articulate it as well as Osho and some of the other masters mentioned on the kundalini page. It is nothing to do with the Osho kundalini meditation which is linked on the meditation section, which you have mentioned as the reason it doesn’t need to be in my section.

That is because the ‘Osho kundalini meditation’ is an active meditation consisting of four stages that Osho developed. The link on kundalini, which is a reference to the kundalini energy itself, not to Osho’s active technique which is simply named ‘kundalini meditation’, is out of place as a link next to Osho kundalini meditation, and should be removed. It has been put there in the wrong context.

The kundalini itself is a spiritual energy that propels people into higher stated of consciousness. It is the energy that develops into enlightenment. It can cause a lot of problems and that is the whole point of being with an enlightened master, someone who has passed through their own journey.

So , it is actually helpful to have it at the point where I have linked it, as a reference point. There it is being used in the correct context.

So I would like it back please. Bamboobreeze (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

- the link [[Kundalini]] links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini no matter where it is in the article - MOS:DUPLINK says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article" - if it is already linked in the Mediation section, there is no need to repeat the link in other sections - the link doesn't imply any special association with Meditation or with Contradictions and "Heart to heart communion", it's just a link to another Wikipedia article - following MOS:DUPLINK, the link doesn't need to be repeated, once is enough
- there is no article on Kundalini meditation and there is no section on "Kundalini meditation" in the article on Meditation, and there is no dedicated section on meditation in the Kundalini article, so [[Kundalini]] links to the general article on Kundalini. This is not an attempt to distort or limit the scope of Rajneesh's teachings, or to sabotage edits, it is following Wikipedia guidelines - if there were an article entitled Kundalini meditation, that could be linked in the Meditation section and Kundalini linked in the Contradictions and "Heart to heart communion" section, but at present that is not the case, all we have is the one article to link to - perhaps we need a section on Kundalini in the Meditation article and a section on Meditation in the Kundalini article to explain the differences you mention
- ps Bamboobreeze, if you wish to ping me, instructions on how to properly use the {{ping|username}} template and other reply templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Notifications and here: Template:Reply to - simply adding @Epinoia does not work - Epinoia (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@epinoia , the section on Meditation states, 'Rajneesh developed other active meditation techniques, such as the Kundalini "shaking" meditation and the Nadabrahma "humming" meditation' .

This refers to the active meditation that Osho developed, 'Osho kundalini meditation'(which is actually trademarked. It consists of four stages. Osho got the idea for the meditation from a disciple who was shaking as a biproduct of kundalini activity , when she met Osho in a darshan. (Most of these meetings have been recorded in "Darshan Diaries" books. Anyhow, he developed an active process which is considered a sister meditation to dynamic these active meditations were meant to be a preparation for the real meditation But the link to 'Kundalini' , which is a page on a specific term which is used in various schools of yoga , is out of place in this context.

It would be better to use it in the context I have linked in, where Osho is speaking specifically on the phenomena of the kundalini and its journey upwards. Bamboobreeze (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

- [[Kundalini]] links to the same article no matter where it is in the Rajneesh article - because it is in the meditation section does not mean that it is dedicated to meditation, it is a general article on Kundalini - see the guideline at MOS:DUPLINK that states "a link should appear only once in an article"
- ps Bamboobreeze, if you wish to ping me, instructions on how to properly use the {{ping|username}} template and other reply templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Notifications and here: Template:Reply to - simply adding @Epinoia does not work - Epinoia (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: The active meditation ‘kundalini meditation’, https://www.newearthrecords.com/music/osho-kundalini-meditation/ which is mentioned in the meditation section on this page, should not be linked to the wiki kundalini page, because that page is a general description of the kundalini energy, and does not apply directly to the four part active meditation which is being described in that section. Osho also mentions that in one of his descriptions of this particular meditation: “ This is not the old traditional process of awakening the kundalini. This is the process of imparting a dance to the kundalini. It is something very different altogether.” – Osho Whereas, in the text that I put in the section below, he is specifically talking about the kundalini in the same context as it is being used in the kundalini wiki page.

As I said earlier, it is appropriate to link it in the right context which is where it is being used to directly describe the kundalini phenomenon, as it is in the text I have put in the section below.Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Bamboobreeze - the link you cited to newearthrecords.com is an external link - the link to [[Kundalini]] is an internal Wikilink, see Help:Link, "A wikilink (or internal link) links a page to another page within English Wikipedia" - but "External links use absolute URLs to link directly to any web page." - they are entirely different things - there is no Wikipedia article on Kundalini meditation, there is only an article on Kundalini - so whichever section the link is in, it will link to the same place - for example, if an article called Secrets of the forest mentioned Forest fairies and Forest climate, those are two separate subjects, but because there is no separate article for "Forest fairies" or "Forest climate", the link Forest links to the Forest article regardless of the context - in this fictional article, Secrets of the forest, the link to the forest article would be with the first usage, "Forest fairies", and there would not be a link at "Forest climate" because according to MOS:DUPLINK, "a link should appear only once in an article" - you can't say that the link is more appropriate at "Forest climate" than "Forest fairies" - the same applies to the Rajneesh article, if Kundalini is linked in the meditation section, it doesn't need to be repeated in later sections - if you have difficulty understanding this you can ask for help at WP:Help desk or WP:Teahouse - if you want to question the guideline, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking - Epinoia (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Jeremiah Films: Fear is the master

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Removed the film's self-description : "which contains rare footage that was shot behind the closed doors of Rajneeshpuram" :
The film only contains well known footage.
The "behind the closed doors" refers to footage of a therapy group from the film Ashram in Poona: Bhagwans Experiment (1979) (that film is mentioned in the same section).
The film does have (public) material from the Rajneeshpuram period, but the Ashram in Poona was shot much earlier... in Poona.
The doors were not closed, as the film was taken in cooperation with the management of that Ashram, see for sources Ashram on sannyas.wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensor66 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Blasphemy

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Blasphemy only exists in religions. Rajneesh hated religion. See WP:CRYBLASPHEMY. Since established religion is their boogeyman many cults hate religion, and many religions hate cults. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Salmonella attack

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The documentary Wild Wild Country makes it clear that the salmonella attack sickened over 700 people, some very severely. Salmonella is a deadly pathogen. Why isn't this explained in the section? Dynasteria (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Now I see there is a separate article. Nevertheless, a simple mention of the number would be appropriate here. The way this reads it seems like some misguided prank aimed at throwing an election. Dynasteria (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

W rgd book Rajneeshism

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

oregonian[30] - ". . [former Rajneeshpuram mayor] Knapp described a meeting in late 1984 in which Rajneesh said that it would be difficult to counter prosecutor David B.] Frohnmayer's challenge 'because the state was correct: There was no separation of government and religion at Rancho Rajneesh.' . . / / / . . 'Now there is no religion,' he [Rajneesh] told his followers. 'So while you were burning Rajneeshism, the book, in the crematorium, you have burned also poor Frohnmayer.' . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a mystic

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I dispute the label "mystic". The basic thesis of mystics is: there is some divine being which mystics are channeling. Rajneesh wasn't channeling any divine being. If anything, we has not a mystic, he was an atheist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

the term is used loosely, check the sourcing in the article, if you can't find a WP:RS for the term in the references, remove it, however you'll see Rajneesh is discussed in the context of eastern mysticism in a great many sources. Also, not sure that mystics are necessarily required to have to channel a "divine being" to be described as such. It is entirely possible to believe in the existence of certain supramundane aspects without believing in "god." Acousmana 12:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yup, on one hand: Rajneesh talked all the time about illumination (enlightenment); on the other hand, the message of that enlightenment was that there is no message. His ideology was basically secular humanism plus hints of incoming illumination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
well, it's Rajneesh, lots of theory, very little practice, his first "profound" experience was down to nitrous oxide, that kinda sets the tone. Acousmana 17:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved - there is a clear consensus that Osho is not the most widely used name. (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


Rajneesh → Osho – Osho is what he is known among the masses. It is appropriate to move him to his public name. Even his books are published under as and his organization is named after Osho AppuSunkad (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @AppuSunkad and Amakuru: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is very far from uncontroversial. See the article talk page for a lengthy litany of past move requests. I'd hesitate to even list this one for discussion, unless someone thinks there's a genuine chance that consensus or the evidence has changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Across most of the notable literature on the subject, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is by far the most widely used title for this individual.We generally refer to the best secondary sources to ascertain appropriate titles, those sources, in this instance, are mostly academic publications.
Google Scholar usage 1993-2016 (2,180 hits). Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is still widely used.
Many encyclopedia entries, including Encyclopedia Britannica, use "Rajneesh" in title:
  1. Melton, J. Gordon (2009), "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", Encyclopedia Britannica, retrieved 2009-04-23
  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
  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
  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
  11. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2009.
  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.
Examples of wiki article naming across other territories:Italian Wikipedia - "Osho Rajneesh", Dutch Wikipedia - "Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh", and Portuguese Wikipedia - "Rajneesh".
Majority of biographical materials [reliable secondary content] cited in the article have "Rajneesh" in the title. Acousmana 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

godman

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

do verify this he never claimed he is incarnation of lord Jesus * Anamadhey (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he called himself. What matters is what reliable sources called him. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is clear consensus against the proposed move. Note that, per WP:NOTMOVED, editors are notified that "they should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change". Given that the same move was proposed just two months ago and also found consensus against, a repetition of this request within the next year is very likely to be speedily closed, barring any major change in circumstances.

There was some support for a move to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Given this page's long history of naming controversy, I decided against moving to that name based on the relatively brief discussion it received. (Also, the last RM proposing that move was unanimously opposed). But no prejudice against a new RM being opened specifically to discuss that name. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


Rajneesh → Osho – For all pragmatic reasons, this page should be moved to Osho. Time and again there have been nominations regarding this but as far as how I see it, it has been opposed by people with very little knowledge about the subject. In my opinion, the consensus could never be moved in favour of the move simply because the opponents outnumbered the supporters, but it is obvious that the pro-move people have much better reasons to support their argument than the disagreers who have been shallow the majority of the time.

As to publishing, Amazon.com shows 4677 results for "Osho" as an author, plus 275 results for CDs music and meditations and about 100 albums under his name. By comparison, there are only 1,565 results for "Rajneesh". All of his books, published in 62 languages, are now – and have been for over 25 years – published and sold under the name "Osho." In 2015 alone, there were 484 book-publishing contracts (new and renewals) worldwide for "Osho," bringing the total number of active publishing contracts for "Osho" to 2668. Sellers and licensees for works by "Osho" include Apple/iTunes, Audible.com, St. Martin’s Press, and Penguin Random House, none of whom sell anything under the author name "Rajneesh." Amazon.com: Osho has his own author page “Amazon’s Osho Page” under the name “Osho” and 4677 results for books, and 379 results for digital music, including meditations. [31] The great majority of listings were published since 1990. The results in English are similar in other language editions. "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" has Amazon an author page without any author details listing two antiquarian titles published 30 years ago. These titles are not anymore in print. By contrast "Amazon’s Osho page" shows 4,677 titles. Another Rajneesh author page is "Bhagwan, Shree, Rajneesh" again without any author details with only one title that was in print 30 years ago. And the search for "Rajneesh" produces 1,565 results, almost all for books by the author published in before his name change in 1989. The sales confirm that all current publishing is under the name Osho, and has been for many years. 318&spIA=B014H7HG3K Other Online Sales of Osho’s Works in English are Audible.com, Apple (iTunes) Penguin Random House, St. Martin’s Press, and many other publishers, publish extensively and exclusively under the author name "Osho." AUDIBLE.com, the largest audiobook publisher in the world presents all his works only under "OSHO": [4] APPLE (iTunes) publishes works only under the author name "Osho": [5] Penguin Random House, the world’s largest English language publisher publishes works only under the author name "Osho": [6] St. Martin’s Press, New York publishes works only under the author name "Osho": [7] The results for Foreign Language Publications of Osho books parallel those in English as shown above: India. English & Hindi publications on www.Amazon.in (India): [8] German publications www.Amazon.de: [32] Spanish publications www.Amazon.es: [33] French publications www.Amazon.fr (one book here with name Rajneesh): [34] Japanese publications www.Amazon.jp: [9] Italian publications www.Amazon.it: [10] Portuguese publications [www.Amazon.com.br] (Brazil): [35] Osho’s Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic is published in 20 languages: [36] 2.3India Publishing 63 English and 84 Hindi books published by OSHO MEDIA PUNE Whatever is found listed under Rajneesh are mainly second hand books from a time before the author changed his name to Osho. Rajneesh on Amazon [37] All of Osho’s Meditations – internationally known as "Osho Active Meditations" are published exclusively under the name Osho, presented by more than 500 Osho Meditation Centers only under the name Osho: http://www.newearthrecords.com/music-store/all-products/osho-dynamic-dvd/ [38] [11] Osho Meditations (a search for "Osho Active Meditations" on Google shows 74,300 results). All of Osho’s meditations are only found under "OSHO". A search for "Rajneesh active meditations" brings up just two results. [12] Osho.com The osho.com website is solely for Osho and his work, and is reported to rank 362 in India, with 6.8 million visits a year from 160 countries. Google average monthly searches for "Osho" in June 2016 are 301,000. Google average monthly searches for "Rajneesh" in June 2016 are 6,600 which is 2.19% of "Osho" searches. Youtube: OSHO’s official YouTube Channel at www.youtube.com/oshointernational has 270,000 subscribers and 54,000,000 video views All exclusively of talks by "Osho": [13] YouTube with "Rajneesh" shows 92,000 hits. Many of the "Rajneesh" hits are "Osho Rajneesh" or not related to Osho, the article subject, at all. Different people, different subjects. The first result has 201,000 views; the third result is an "Osho" video with over 2,000,000 views. While difficult or impossible to compute with certainty, Rajneesh (relating to the article subject) is less than 1% of the "Osho" YouTube channel. [14] Facebook: The official and verified Facebook page for the author "OSHO" [15] shows 2,365,829 likes or followers and is part of a series of related official language sites with an additional 3,000,000 likes on the Facebook platform. :* Facebook lists all 400+ groups related to "Osho" and "Osho Meditations" [16] Facebook pages search “Rajneesh” (search on 15-May-16). Summary: “Rajneesh” fans/members are less than 1% of “Osho” fan/members. A Facebook search of "Rajneesh" under "People" lists 9 other persons, neither Osho nor Rajneesh, before listing anything using "Rajneesh." Data: [17] Press: Osho is particularly popular in India, his country of birth. India is #1 in the world in newspaper readership, and Osho is covered daily throughout India in the two largest languages English and Hindi and as well in many of the addition 17 languages published in India. Over 1000 articles a year appear in the India press. Statistics and examples of articles about Osho and/or the Osho International Meditation Resort from 2005 through 2015 are presented in the linked document. All of these articles refer to Osho, not Rajneesh. :* Osho by the press: [18] Osho in Indian Media: [19]

In September 1989 the author and mystic known until then as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931-1990) changed his name to only “Osho” and instructed his foundation (to whom he had assigned all the rights to his work including his personality rights and representation rights) to publish his work and to refer to him only as “Osho.” He not only changed his name to Osho but also specifically instructed his foundation and his followers not to refer to him any more under his previous names. Osho personally oversaw the re-naming of his works and from September 1989 onwards all his works were published under the author name “Osho”; the “Rajneesh Times” magazine was changed to “Osho Times”; his famous “Rajneesh Active Meditations” are renamed “Osho Active Meditations” and more than 500 “Rajneesh Meditation Centers,” teaching his meditation techniques are renamed “Osho Meditation Centers.” [Osho name change information: http://www.osho.com/pdf/Osho_Name_Change_Information.pdf] During a transition period all his published works carry a note of this name change: “Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is now known simply as Osho. Osho has explained that his name is derived from William James' word “oceanic” which means dissolving into the ocean. Oceanic describes the experience, he says, but what about the experiencer? For that we use the word “Osho.” There are articles about Osho published on Wikipedia in 49 languages, 27 languages are published under the name “Osho,” some under combinations or his previous name, showing the mess this is creating and the need to clarify this name issue. Wikipedia was founded in 2001 at a time Osho was already known exclusively as Osho already for more than a decade. For some reason an original article was started by mistake under the name Rajneesh which has been causing confusion since then. In fact, Wikipedia is the only major information source using this wrong name for Osho, which is then perpetuated in other languages making it unnecessarily difficult for people around the world to find information about this world-renowned figure, known only as Osho for the past 27 years. Osho International Foundation, the source of all licensing and publishing agreements has licensed his works since 1989 exclusively under the author name Osho. There are literally thousands of such agreements with more than 200 publishing houses, in 62 languages around the world, all of whom publish his work exclusively under the name Osho. Apart from Wikipedia, the transition from previous name to “Osho” is essentially complete, and its use vastly outnumbers the name “Rajneesh” throughout the world. Since Osho changed his name in 1989, he is now known worldwide – and almost universally referred to – as “Osho”: 1) As an author of hundreds of books on spirituality and meditation, 2) As the creator of unique meditation techniques, particularly the Osho Active Meditations, and, 3) In connection with the Osho International Meditation Resort. [Osho in the World 2015: http://www.osho.com/pdf/OshoMedia_2015.pdf] Appu (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Credits: User:DavidWestT Appu (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The problem is that he changed his name after his period of greatest notability, and possibly somewhat motivated by a desire to separate himself from the negative aspects of that notability. He also died not long after changing his name, so the new name (if it would have persisted had he lived) never became common knowledge outside of his group of followers. His common name among the general public didn't change – so if you write an article for general readership, if you refer only to his new name, people don't know who you're talking about. It fails to be WP:RECOGNIZABLE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem lies in your lack of knowledge. It is only after his death that his name has become most well-known to the public. The above explains it. Yes, he changed his name shortly before his death. But is there a rule that says the name of the Wikipedia article has to be 'Rajneesh' for that reason? I am just one reader of his books. I have never seen 'Rajneesh' or 'Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh' as an author except second-hand books which were published at least 30 years ago. I think English Wikipedia gets the most traffic as compare to other languages. 'Osho' is well known globally. The name of the article needs to be changed to reflect the reader's perspective.MegKT (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that despite being called Osho in most countries, the English version is often opposed to the Osho name. And those who oppose it are anti Osho. Anti-Osho is an enthusiastic Christian, or an Indian who doesn't want to be called Bagwan shree Rajneesh. Bagwan means God. It is strange that the English version of wikipedia is simply Rajneesh due to various religious sentiments. まらかいとまっくす (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I suggest not jumping to conclusions about people's motivations. I think it is simply Rajneesh on the English Wikipedia because we ordinarily avoid attaching honorific prefixes in the names of Wikipedia articles. In the United States, I think people mostly have heard of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his followers, but have simply never heard of Osho. He was not known as Osho until after he returned to India from the United States, and his name change was only shortly before his death. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Do me a favour. Would you please google ‘Rajneesh’ and ‘Osho’ and let me know how many results you can get? Google gathers everything from all over the world, the United State of America included.MegKT (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have read through the above and can only say that it was a waste of (considerable) time. There is no attempt to provide any rationale in terms of our article title policy. Much of it appeals to primary sources. I had a look at the supporters and it's much the same... for example, this is English Wikipedia, and what he is called in other languages is irrelevant. And we have more appeals to primary sources. Lots of words but absolutely no case to answer. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know about old stories, but I'm sure there are many people like me who don't think the name of this article is appropriate. That's why people question and propose name changes over and over again.You say “this is English Wikipedia, and what he is called in other languages is irrelevant” Think about it from a different perspective. As I wrote, in Wikipedia ‘Osho’ is used in 45 languages. This indicates ‘Osho’ is world widely accepted don’t you think? By the way, Wikipedia has ‘Rajneesh’ as the article name in 6 languages and three of them from India. (according to Wikipedia, there are 22 different languages in India)MegKT (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern about bias

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, forgive me if I make any stylistic slip-ups since this is my first time using this feature. I'm a little concerned that this article is biased, given that it skirts around any sort of mention of the pretty intense controversy surrounding Osho and particularly the violence and abuse perpetrated by him and his first-in-command. I don't claim to be an expert on this particular subject, but the tone of the article is sort of unsettling. It seems like whoever wrote a majority of the content here is a pretty big fan, and wants to avoid any mention of the cult aspects of Rajneeshpuram. Does anyone else feel the need to reevaluate the language and maybe at least add a "controversy" section? Mountainman5280 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Mountainman5280

There is mention of bio-terrorism, there is mention of violence, what do you want more? tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mountainman5280: If you think the article is lacking important details, the easiest way forward is for you to edit it yourself. Be sure to read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sourcing, and original research first. Look for good quality sources, craft your content, and add it to the article. Other editors may revert your work, in which case you'll need to get consensus here (on this talk page). Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Image date

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Talsh Empire: re this edit ...

The image in the article was extracted from another. The latter is apparently a photo taken in January 1983 - but the photo is of people carrying a "poster" of Rajneesh, and we can't tell when the poster photo (i.e. the image used in the article) was taken. I suggest that without specific evidence, we ought not use the caption "Rajneesh, in January 1983".

(Disclaimer: I can't read the language in the Summary at [39], or the original source. Perhaps the information is there, but there are no obvious other dates.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved excessive details about political views to body

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An editor recently added three sentences worth of detailed text to the lead which are solely devoted to Rajneesh's views on socialist theory. This subject is only mentioned once in the body article and so adding three sentences to the lead is clearly disproportionate to the portrait provided by the sources. (His views on this subject are also quite complex, and cannot be simply communicated in the space of the lead without oversimplification.) I've simply moved these details to the body, where I think they clearly belong, and perhaps can be expanded on to give an accurate picture of his views and criticisms (i.e his view, that socialism could not succeed without first allowing for capitalist development, is actually a very orthodox socialist viewpoint that dates back to the Mensheviks in Russia. This wouldn't make him a "critic of socialism" so much as a critic of a particular style of socialism which took root in India at a particular time.)

I've also consolidated the paragraphs so that the first paragraph discusses his general reputation as a spiritual leader, which is obviously his primary claim to fame. Mentions of his specific views on other issues are included in the second paragraph, which describes his history/career in more detail. Kkollaps (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Kkollpas, will you stop attempting to revert my sources edits. This is not meant to be about our personal political views but it should reflect Rajneesh according to accurately sourced material. Rajneesh’s argument in 1969/1970 was that in India socialism would evolve out of capitalism and he also argued that communism would evolve of socialism and anarchist would evolve out of communism. The header should not only state that he was a vocal critic of socialism , as he was a vocal critic of all political systems at one time or another. Jewelthief5000 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kkollaps I agree that the detail I had put on the header was a bit too long, and I am happy that you removed it to the main bio. I am also happy with your recent update and last edit to the main header. I think no political system should be named in the header unless all are mentioned as he criticised them all in his lifetime.Jewelthief5000 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

NPD?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Only writing this because I wanted to add Rajneesh into the category of having NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) but the article is locked. Within the "Appraisal as charismatic leader" section of the article, it states that scholars suggest he [Rajneesh] had a narcissistic personality, those even adding he had NPD. That's really the only change I'd add, nothing more.

This is the category I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_narcissistic_personality_disorder

Someone please add him [Rajneesh] into that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.41.118 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ppallavi20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parth Darji 25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Osho®" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Osho® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Osho® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Saint

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In an article about Osho Rajneesh, calling him a saint is character assassination. Believe me, I've read his speeches, saint is much worse than godman. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1985 CBS interview and subsequent expulsion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I seem to remember him telling Mike Wallace that he had his immigration cases so tied up with the INS and courts that he could be here as long as he liked. Very soon after that he went to court and found himself on a plane to parts unknown after being escorted by federal agents. Pissing off the INS: not such a good idea. KrisCollino (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About "Was Osho murdered for money? Is his will fake? Are foreigners looting India's treasures?" —there is no logical link between Osho's death and the looting of India's treasures. He might have been very rich for Indian standards, but he did not own India's treasures. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ The last Testament vol 2 press conferences no.1 https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/watchfulness-power-significance-2ad20cd4-e32?p=724a20b6773db4eedd43149ddeb607d6
  2. ^ The last Testament vol 2 press conferences no.1 https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/watchfulness-power-significance-2ad20cd4-e32?p=724a20b6773db4eedd43149ddeb607d6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajneesh/Archive_12&oldid=1258002334"