Talk:Ma Anand Sheela/Archive 1

She's a widow?

How did her husband die? 76.21.8.213 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

the article...needs working on ..

EncMstr .. the changes to this that you just made .....and a bioterror attack on The Dalles, Oregon which made 750 sick.[1][6]well the first link is to a rick ross anti cult site so I would like to see a stronger factual link to a ref to 750 people...and perhaps some figures about how sick they became .. there is I think a bio terror page already! (Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)) and most of the other links are not working..

photo

what I feel would be beneficial to this artile is if the photo in the infobox is removed to somewhere in the article under a section about the crimes and a person infobox with a portrait photo .. perhaps more recent as like sheela's crimes the mugshot is over 20 years old. are there any objections?(Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)) [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

criminal infobox.

someone who commits a crime in the past and pays the punishments and then reintegrates themselves into society should not be refered to as a criminal . the commited a crime in the past ..that doesnt mean you can call them a criminal for the reat of their life .. they were a criminal and they did commit a crime ....all in the past.. I want to remove the criminalinfobox if none disputes my comments.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

attempted murder?

in the criminal box it claim sheela was charged with attempted murder... wasnt it only a conspiracy?or who was it she attempted to murder? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

United States Law

In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. For example, shooting at a person would be attempted murder, while simply pointing a gun at someone would not be attempted murder.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

disputed sources...not reliable..

the cite here have been disputed on other pages .. are they WP:RS (Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

infobox criminal?

why has this infobox been used when she is not exactly a career criminal is she!(Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

It's a surprise to me that {{Infobox Criminal}} is is generally reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, convicted murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals (from the template documentation).

However, it doesn't seem a stretch that attempted murder, first and second degree assault (poisoning) of public officials, planning an assassination of the district attorney, immigration fraud, wiretapping, and a bioterror attack on The Dalles, Oregon would qualify her as several of those. It's not like they are a bunch of parking tickets. —EncMstr (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

yes serious charges... not I suspect all realistic as her punishment was a couple of years in a low security prison ..which in america is a light sentence as american penal sentences are some of the most severe in the world.. I feel her criminal events would fit better in the article and just a person infobox would be fairer representation of her life as a whole.. and the photo with the crime number .. the article could at the moment be called sheelas criminal conviction and isn't it supposed to be a biography..?(Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Rob, she orchestrated a mass poisoning. If she had done something else notable in her life, then maybe, but the only thing she's famous for doing is plotting assassinations and biological attacks.24.241.230.194 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

She's mainly famous here in .au for saying 'tough titties' on national TV. That phrase redirects to her page for some reason. Grassynoel (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

that is so funny, if you type in tough titties it links to this page. amazing ...how encyclopediac is that! (Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Tough Titties . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

A Passage to America

Regarding [2] - Source fails WP:RS, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#1985Rajneeshee_assassination_plot.. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is verifiable elsewhere as well: [3]. Note that the other two books have the spelling Marc; this is also the spelling used in Sheela's autobiography. Jayen466 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[4] = Chicago Sun-Times, article is from 1986, closer to the time period itself. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

although Brecher's book has a lot of POV opinion, much of it is interviews and quotes from legal and government who were involved in the events, plus the interviews were made within a year or two of said events. As such, it is an interesting document. I wouldn't suggest pushing the opinion parts, but the interviews are definitely of interest to any article about Rajneeshpuram and many of the quotes are repeated in other sources. jalal (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In her autobiography, Sheela describes living in New Jersey with her husband, Silverman. Jayen466 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Then if those other sources are WP:RS, we should use those, and not this poor source. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For this sort of stuff it is actually quite good, and more detailed than anything else, giving precise marriage dates etc. Jayen466 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If by "it" you are referring to A Passage to America, then it may give precise dates, but the source itself is a poor source that fails WP:RS, and should not be used. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

link 5 is a poor source.

which leads to this magazine [[5]] is a poor source.. this magazine the people is not worthy of being a respected wikipedia reliable source. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Are you disputing People magazine as a WP:RS for this info? Cirt (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

what info is it a reliable source for? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Its not needed and a poor source and should be removed. jayen added it in reference to the year of marriage and that her husband suffered from hodgekinsons disease . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

I am removing the poor source and reverting the related edit. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

merge this page with the bioterror page.

As A biography of a living person this person's life is totally unworthy of her own page. The page as it is reads like a 'rap sheet'. She is only noteworthy for the 4 or 5 years she was in charge in rajneeshpuram and only then in reference to the bioterror crime so I would respectfully suggest this page should be merged with the page that is specifically about the only thing that makes this woman memorable 1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack.The picture is also only fair use and not free use. The article is already tagged with a request to develop it but there is no chance of this as there is nothing else memorable about her, the next memorable thing about this woman will likely be her death.. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose, subject of the article easily satisfies WP:NOTE. There is much more biographical material in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that can be used to expand the article further. See also Oregon History Project - Biography of Ma Anand Sheela. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cirt. There's no way Sheela's life can be reduced to a bioterror attack. She's way more interesting than that. —EncMstr (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

to user EncMstr. Well, I hear what your saying but Sheela's page doesn't bear that out. I notice you have only one reverted edit on the page, could I ask you what "way more" interesting stuff you would be talking about and if you have any intention of adding any of it to the page? It has taken two years and four months for the page to get to this state. to user Cirt. I have had a look at the Oregon article and see little or no additional material there that could be added. Do you yourself propose to add some of the , as you call it "much more biographical material"? I find myself wondering that if as you say you feel that there is so much more to add to this ...what is basically a start class, rap sheet , stub .. why after two years and four months the page is still in this state? I still assertain that this woman's notability is only in respect to the crimes in Oregon and that whatever is here would be better merged with the related pages. For example of my rap sheet claim and the fact that apart from the crimes there is nothing else of notable worth, the article ends like this .. 'she got out of jail 21 years ago and now lives in Switzerland'...(Off2riorob (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob, Please read the essays WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:DEADLINE. Sheela's history before 1981 and after 1988 does not belong in the bioterror article, and could be expanded: this is about half the material in the article. —EncMstr (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

user MncMstr . Rubbish. You have not answered my question at all..Sheela has no history b4 1981 and after 1988.All Sheela's notable history is related to these crimes in Oregon .There is nothing after 1988 and nothing previous to 1981.You have added nothing to the page and yet you claim there is " way more " interesting stuff ..so where is it? Are you going to add anything to the article or not? where is this "way more" interesting stuff you would be talking about? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Articles about people notable only for one event

I would like to draw your attention to this for further discussion regarding my request to merge with the bio terror page.

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Further information: WP:NOT § NEWS, WP:BIO1E, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

• In accordance with the comments above I would say that Sheela fits into this group where she essensially remains a low profile individual and is only covered by wikipedia reliable sources in relation to the crimes at rajneeshpuram and that previous to that she was unnotable and after that low profile and unnotable,therefore a seperate biography for her is unwarranted and that a merge with the relative pages is the way to go. If you have a look at for example the John Hinckley, Jr. article you'll see it is incomparable to Sheela's article. Also I would say that the coverage of the event could in no way be descriibed as persistent. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

She is notable for more than just one event, rather, multiple different events, as well as being notable in her own right. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

She is only notable for the events that happened at rajneeshpuram, previous to that and after that she is totally unnotable and this page could quite happily be merged with the bio terror. Do you mean as this page resembles a rap sheet that she commited multiple crimes? for which she received one sentance and was released.... and then nothing at all , this could easily be interpreted as one notable event. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

another poor wikipedia reliable source.

I also dispute this Chicago Sun Times is the kind of source that is reliable , verifiable or that it could claim to have a neutral point of view. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

The Chicago Sun-Times satisfies WP:RS, and the cite satisfies WP:V. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have replaced the source I dispute. What actual information is the source applicable to? and is the source accessable to read on line? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand, I asked you if you had checked the source before you removed it [6]. You said that you had [7]. Are you now saying you have not? Cirt (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at what I could,which was the wikipedia article about the chicago sun and to me it looks weak. things like this make the tabloid appear less than reputable...

After a Sun-Times article by Michael Sneed erroneously identified the perpetrator of the April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech massacre as an unnamed Chinese national, the People's Republic of China criticized the Chicago Sun-Times for publishing what it called "irresponsible reports". The newspaper later silently withdrew the story without making any apologies or excuses.

and as the link is of little or no value to the article I request it be removed. Is the article accessable on line and what information in the article is it actually supporting ? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

RSN

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Chicago_Sun-Times. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable enough?

I was asked to take a look at this. Is this person notable enough for a stand-alone biography per this section of BLP? That is, has the coverage of her -- her alone -- been persistent and extensive enough to warrant it?

Also, I would say it's inappropriate to have a lead image of her with that sign around her neck. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she was a significant figure and second-in-command of the Rajneesh movement at Rajneeshpuram for years, and was a primary orchestrator of 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack and 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. She is notable for much more than simply one event - but rather for her role within the Rajneesh organization over a period of years. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there persisent and extensive news or other coverage about her specifically? Is there is, can some more of that be added to the article? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

She frequently providedwas used for soundbites on radio and television during her time in the commune. Unfortunately, that was long enough ago that it's quite difficult to find any of those now. —EncMstr (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Yes, there is, and yes, that could be pretty easy. If you want to help out, simple searches for "Ma Anand Sheela" will find lots of sources. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those articles need to be added here, either as Further reading, or preferably as sources, because otherwise it looks as though almost no one has written about her -- and they need to be articles that highlight her in some way, not just articles about the group. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we could limit searches to articles with "Ma Anand Sheela" in the title of the articles, and books that dedicate significant chunks of material to information about the individual. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking around, there does seem to be quite a bit about her. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sheela Defects to Europe; Rajneeshism Is "Dead"; Whether Ruse or Anarchy, the Shakedown is Serious at Oregon's Commune - Crimes and Confessions —EncMstr (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict..::::: I have on more than one occasion attempted to discuss this , I have called into question the image which is only a disputed fair use image. The page is a rap sheet. If as you say Cirt that this person is so noteworthy then please tell me why you have not added anything of these sources? The page has been in existance for two and a half years and has only come to this rap sheet stub. I ask you what benefit is it to the encyclopedia that is so much more beneficial than a merge would be ? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Because most people would agree the main topic is Sheela, not the events. You didn't read WP:NOTDONE did you? —EncMstr (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's to be a biography, it needs to contain more than just information about the criminal events. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point . Apart from the criminal events there is no notability at all , either previous to the events or in the 25 years since . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

If this is being discussed somewhere else I would request access to the discussion (Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

See notice given earlier, above, at Talk:Ma_Anand_Sheela#RSN. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such requirement, see WP:BIO. There are plenty of articles such as Denny Zager which has been around for almost five years. She's notable for her Rajneesh involvement, so that's what the article covers, including a long string of legal trouble and controversy. It would be silly to rename this from Ma Anand Sheela to Legal history and allegations for Ma Anand Sheela. —EncMstr (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why not just merge/redirect this page to the article about the one notable event she's associated with? Durova^Charge! 06:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Because as a leader of the Rajneesh movement for years, she is notable for more than simply one or two or three notable events. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If as you say Sheela is notable for being the leader of the rajneesh movement then why are there no other pages about the other so called leaders of the rajneesh movement? In fact someone holding the position that Sheela had in the movement does not in itself make you notable , as I have said , Sheela is only notable in relation to the crimes she commited and a merge with those pages would benefit the encyclopedia. I see some padding of the article has occured by a mysterious ip address of what is basically irrelevant information in an attempt to make it look like a biography of a living person , which to anyone with a critical eye it most certainly is not.

I agree with Durova's succinct comment..(Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, is there anything significant in this page that couldn't be merged with other articles about the Rajneesh movement? Durova^Charge! 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It could all be merged into the several articles in which she is involved. Then there is the problem of what to do with this article: Delete it? Redirect to one of the incidents? Which one? These aren't viable because Wikipedia is expected to have a biographical article on the woman. —EncMstr (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why if as I have suggested that this woman fails to meet the conditions for notability is wikipedia expected to have a biography of her? (Off2riorob (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Writing and editing

Writing style

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material). (Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Is it ok to link to utube in the article.?

Is It ok to link to external utube as I have had links removed to utube? Can I add some more Utube links? As far as neutrality goes in respect of Pov pushing are utube videos ok ? As anyone can upload anything they want to utube. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Links to YouTube videos are acceptable if they abide by the external link guidelines; see WP:YOUTUBE. momoricks 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

infobox criminal

As this apparently is a biography of a living person WP:BLP and people here are claiming that Sheela is notable as a person and not only for her rap sheet then I politely request the removal of the criminal infobox, to be replaced with a standard biographical infobox. If you want to say to me that Sheela is only notable for her criminality then a merger with those pages is in order, if not then please remove or allow me to remove the criminal infobox. The reality is that this woman was only imprisoned for two and a half years which she served in a low security prison in America, where the incarserations for criminals are some of the most severe in the world. Sheela was also released early for good behaviour and the attempts to portray her here as some kind of mass murderer reflect badly on the project. This is a living person who has spent a small amount of time in jail in america and her biography should reflect that reality.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I would appreciate a response to this please. (Off2riorob (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Comment: I agree with the above comment in subsection Talk:Ma_Anand_Sheela#infobox_criminal.3F by EncMstr (talk · contribs), here [8]. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

do you agree with the other comment from there [9] (Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

No. She was effectively simultaneously chief of staff plus many other high ranking roles (acting CEO, treasurer, publicist, press secretary) for the commune. She appeared on 60 Minutes, Dateline, Australian national television, and numerous other television and radio outlets as spokesperson for Rajneesh. Those alone are plenty for an extensive article. However, the notability of several crimes greatly overshadows those, and the article is appropriately weighted toward those. —EncMstr (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read my post just above here which starts..as this apparently is a biography of a living person...I would ask you to please read it now and give me a direct answer to my question.

An extensive article you say! May I ask you what you have added to the article?Would you mind me asking you why you are bothered about any of this? and do you have any COI ? I ask you this in reply to your asking me the same question here [10]

Being on 60 minutes does not make you notable or there would be a lot of I was on 60 minites articles. I would also like to ask you why you reverted my edit without any discussion? This edit in particular, [11] The cite I removed had the title " A pistal packing Sheela" My edit summary was this... Toting uziS with sub machine gunns,... Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. EncMstr, to you think that the material that I removed and you reverted and replaced is reporting the situation responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone?

I would also like to ask you do you think being in jail for two and a half years in america that warrants a criminal infobox?

I'm sorry EncMstr ,Sheela had her position in the commune and it was not for example the treasurer, the treasurer would have to disagree with you you have said nothing to change my opinion that she is only notable for the crimes, I could agree with you that the fact that she was once on 60 minites is greatly overshadowed by crimes as being on 60 minites is not noteworthy at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I did read it, and disagree. Your logic is nonsense. She was convicted of several felonies. While {{Infobox Criminal}} says it is intended for serial murders, etc., almost everyone who has given an opinion (besides you) agrees that Infobox Criminal is appropriate. We could create and use {{Infobox Multiple Felon}}, or {{Infobox Felon}} instead, but that's unproductive and pretty silly. A felon released early for good behavior is still a convicted criminal and felon.

My interest is protecting and expanding valid encyclopedic content. To date, I have contributed little content, but have checked references and ensured that principles of the Wikipedia Pillars are followed. I have begun reading the sources and the more I read, the more I will contribute. So far, I've seen that much worse could be written about her: the contributors so far have been admirably even-handed, rising above dirty details in evidence. I have no COI other than listening to the media in the mid-1980s and eventually moaning along with others every time another item came out about Sheela. I did laugh when the "zoo format" radio station compared her speaking style to an air raid siren.

There has been plenty of discussion, and you've been warned repeatedly [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] not to disrupt Wikipedia or remove properly sourced content. So you know you should not have removed a properly sourced fact. In my readings so far, I've found many sources which say much worse than what you took out. —EncMstr (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like the infobox changed, sheela is not a mass murderer so it is incorrect, and I would like an independant opinion on your revert of my edit [[23] The cite I removed had the title " A pistal packing Sheela" My edit summary was this... Toting uziS with sub machine gunns,... Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. where would be the best place to get perhaps a third opinion? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Please allow me to draw your attention to this ...biographical material about a living person

WP:BLP (Off2riorob (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Copyedited

I edited for style, spelling, punctuation, grammar, and so on, and will add citation templates for format consistency, as well as clarity, considering the controversial nature of the subject. momoricks 04:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Cirt (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. A few things stuck out at me while I was going through it:

• The charges and convictions in the infobox appear to be the same. Perhaps the charges parameter should be removed as the infobox is a bit beefy at the moment.
• The last paragraph under "Flights and convictions" and the first one under "Release and later life" contain mostly duplicate information and could use some rewording/consolidation.
• Does the YouTube video abide by the external links guidelines? I have limited internet access and am unable to verify this.

momoricks 02:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rationale

Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.

A statement of principles specifically related to such articles was resolved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board on 21 April 2009. The full text can be found at foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people.

Appropriateness of Infobox Criminal

The use of {{Infobox Criminal}} is challenged by one editor who wants to replace it with a more generic biography infobox. Other editors think the present infobox is appropriate given her conviction for multiple felonies. —EncMstr (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor requesting a more generic biography infobox for this Biography of a living person.

This is not a request for a straw poll WP:POLLING. It is a question of Wikipedia policy WP:BLP , WP:LIVE and WP:BLPSTYLE . What I would like here is an independant comment from a person with experiance in WP:BLP policy. On the page {{Infobox Criminal}} It gives usage for the template and states that Misuse of this template may cause Neutral point of view policy problems and Biographies of living persons policy problems and gives catagory types of people where the template could be used, I have a strong feeling that this woman does not fit this template. Thank you. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

• Appropriate: I support use of {{Infobox Criminal}} because it appears to be the most appropriate one based on why she is notable on Wikipedia and beyond: she is a former Rajneesh movement leader who pleaded guilty to numerous crimes, including attempted murder, and was convicted in Switzerland of "criminal acts preparatory to the commission of murder". Its usage is not meant to convey to readers that she is a "bad" person; it is meant to provide a summary of her crimes and convictions. momoricks 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Appropriate: I agree with Momoricks (talk · contribs) that the use of {{Infobox Criminal}} is appropriate - the individual is not simply notable for one crime or event, but for orchestrating multiple crimes including attempted murder of government officials, mass poisoning and bioterror attacks, immigration fraud, wiretapping, etc., over a span of years. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Appropriate: She is mostly notable for crimes. The article lead should mention the convictions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Appropriate: Basically, the only reason as far as I can see that she is on Wikipedia is the criminal aspect of her life. The first results after being googled relate to these activities.Alaphent (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel I have requested this comment in the wrong place and have requested a comment from, [[24]] (Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

This woman plea bargained these crimes 25 years ago and spent only two and a half years in a low security gaol in America, this info box is for mass murders and such. as it says {{Infobox Criminal}}. This is not a rap sheet, it is a WP:BLP (Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment: Seems like WP:FORUMSHOP after not getting the response you wanted from this Request for Comment. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

It is never appropriate to use a mugshot as the lead image in a BLP, for the obvious reason that it's a photograph that's inherently demeaning. BLP apart, it's against Wikipedia policy to use fair-use images of living persons, because a free one could be taken instead. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2, point 12. I'm going to remove the mugshot again, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't restore it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I seem to have remembered wrong. The consensus was over the infobox type, not the photo. Discussion elsewhere covered the mugshot and I don't remember there being a definitive consensus one way or the other. —EncMstr (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots are not ok, please see or join in the discussion here..Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Mugshots_and_BLP (Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

toting?

Is this a place in London? Tooting

this is a bit unencyclopedic......

and known for her "acid tongue" as well as toting a .357 Magnum handgun; she also created a Rajneeshpuram police force armed with Uzi submachine guns and a Jeep-mounted .30-calibre machinegun.[8][9] ..

Biographies of living persons should be written conservatively, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. (Off2riorob (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Mugshot

Regarding this revert. Saying that there has already been a discussion is not very helpful, unless you provide a link. That discussion should be here on this talk page, or should be linked to from here. Please do provide a link, and I'll take a look. I did read some discussion about this some time ago, on another talk page. I don't recall where that was, though, and at the time there was no consensus on the mugshot issue.

This article seems like a case where a mugshot is entirely appropriate. There is no other photo of her currently in the article, and she is notable only as a criminal. The mugshot was presented in the section of the article dealing with her arrest. It is certainly relevant, and the article is simply not complete without a photo. If a better photo is available, I would accept that being put in the article in place of the mugshot. Otherwise, the mugshot belongs in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons:

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. This is particularly important in the case of police booking photos ("mugshots"), which can carry additional connotations beyond the record of an arrest.

I read this as implying that mugshots are acceptable when they are not used out of context and do not present the person in a false light. This will almost always be the case when the individual was convicted of the crime for which they were arrested. There is no false light then—a court has found that the person was guilty. If the mugshot carries a connotation of guilt, it does not matter, because the connotation is not false.--Srleffler (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Having now done some searching around, I don't see a discussion anywhere that shows consensus for removal of the mugshot. The most extensive discussion I found was at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 22#Mugshots and BLP, where there was little agreement with Off2riorob's position. There is certainly no consensus there for removal of the image, and possibly a consensus for retaining it. Further discussion on the same page led to the writing of the text I quote above, which clearly allows mugshots to be used when they are in context and do not present the person in a false light.--Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these above comments by Srleffler (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I will reply to these comments in the near future as I am busy in real life. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained tags added by Off2riorob

I see no explanation for these tags, therefore, removed. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the templates, please do not remove them again, the templates do not take much understanding of what I have issues with, this is a bi of a living person and should be written in a neutral non titillating way, the article clearly is not written in that way, with excessive tabloid style comments, also there is excessive use of weasel words which should be removed, like the references to guru and gun toting, I will enlarge more soon enough, it wouldn't take an expert in Wikipedia biographies of living persons to agree with me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. The information is properly sourced to WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I intend to bring this article up for wider discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When, and where, do you intend to do this? Cirt (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am doing it by adding the tags and expressing my issues, any good faith editor is welcome to look at the article and improve it as they see fit, and I also intend over the next few days to give some of my time to rewriting some of the very poorly written sections of what is a Biography of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tags were never specifically explained, therefore, removed. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the tags there, the issues are still there and actually I was working on the issues slowly, Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It has been one month. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to leave the article tagged in this fashion when the purpose of the tags has never been specifically explained. Continually replacing them is tendentious. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No more tedious than your removing them and not listening to my issues with the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to give any specific issues. Cirt (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My issues are clear..This article contains weasel words and This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia... Have a read of it, my claim is not a leap of faith, it is easy to read and to agree, insisting on removing the templates is not making the article any better at all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What words? What style? What tone? Where? Which sentences? Why? Cirt (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of context info by Off2riorob

[25] and again this time reverting admin EncMstr (talk · contribs) at [26] - these edits by Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are inappropriate. They remove context information necessary for the reader, and replace with less descriptive text. The info removed was not "weasel words" as described in the edit summary by Off2riorob. It should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the edit? What info has been removed? Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now... Upon returning to India in 1972, Sheela and Silverman became followers (or "sannyasins") of the guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, now commonly known as Osho.

my edit.. Upon returning to India in 1972, Sheela and Silverman became followers or disciples of Osho. She took the name Ma Anand Sheela; her husband became Chinmaya.[7] Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is missing, if you look in the lede you will see the two names are explained there, there is no need to repeat the explaination every time. I fail to see you points here at all, removing the template issues is not going to make the article any better. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what admin EncMstr (talk · contribs) thinks before this is changed. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My objection was mostly the misleading edit summary tidy when there was much more than punctuation, arrangement, and formatting changed. Disciple isn't the first word I associate with a Rajneesh follower, however, some Googling supports the use of the word in this context. —EncMstr (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I agree it was a misleading edit summary. In any event, I have done and continue to do a great deal more expansion of this article. ;) Cirt (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good source: An entire book chapter devoted to Ma Anand Sheela

• Collins, Catherine Ann (1992), "Chapter Nine: Ma Anand Sheela: Media Power through Radical Discourse", in King, Andrew (ed.), Postmodern Political Communication: The Fringe Challenges the Center, Praeger Publishers, pp. 115–131, ISBN 0275938409

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy on Mug Shots

Shouldn't her mugshot be on the top ? i.e. in the box, after all it's the "infobox criminal". or is it a rule that a mugshot should not be on top ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it, -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick release: reasons?

Was there any specific policy under which she was released from prison so quickly, compared to the length of her sentence? For example, was there a policy of early release if the prisoner could then be forced to leave the US (as happened in this case with the revocation of her Green Card)? Or was it normal for female prisoners to serve such a little part of their sentence? -- 92.226.0.55 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Blame it on liberals in Oregon and their absurd policies for convicted criminals.

Arson, attempted murder, bioterrorism that sickened hundreds of people, and she did less time than someone who cheated on his taxes or got caught with a pound of weed. And she did it in a minimum security "country club" prison, since apparently arson, attempted murder and bioterror are not "violent crimes" in the eyes of the Oregon justice system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.73.33 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, she did time only for the federal crimes, then, according to the article, upon release skipped the country for Switzerland before Oregon could put her back in the pen for the state crimes, which I believe would have had the heftier sentences. Basically, she got away with (attempted) murder. 108.246.206.139 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

I've placed a POV tag on this article for the following reasons:

1. Instead of being about the Ma Anand Sheela, the focus is often Osho and the history of his movment
2. Coatrack issues
3. Infobox photo
4. Undue weight to information or events that only received minor coverage in sources.
5. It needs to be rewritten in a neutral and disinterested tone. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks I've edited and trimmed the article to address the issues described above. As a result I've removed the POV tag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot in the infobox

The mugshot of the subject was removed by another editor per consensus at the BLP noticeboard.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ma Anand Sheela. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929120439/http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5721 to http://wweek.com/story.php?story=5721

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Status

She is no longer on parole. According to [27] "Parolees are subject to sanctions including revocation back to prison for the remainders of their sentences." Her sentence ended in 2005 so she has not been subject to parole conditions since then. She has served her sentence in full. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal

Ma Anand Sheela is notable because of her criminal activity. Had she not committed crimes she would not pass the general notability guidelines and she would not qualify for an article. Her role working with Rajneesh would be mentioned in his article or in the Rajneeshpuram article. It is only because she committed serious crimes that she merits her own article, and therefore we refer to her as a criminal. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder from where comes the unending stream of IPs and SPAs pushing this whitewash. Why, it's almost like she's got a bunch of blindly loyal devotees willing to make fools of themselves in defense of some phony "spiritual leader"! Maybe they'd prefer it if we changed "criminal" to "felon convicted of multiple counts of assault and attempted murder". EEng 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's because of the recent Netflix series. I have asked a couple of times for the page to be protected because of both the heightened awareness of the subject and the resulting "interest", and now see that it's been done. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

She certainly had charisma [28]. EEng 10:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

First Line of the Entry?

The first line of the entry currently reads:

"Ma Anand Sheela (Gujarati: માં આનંદ શિલા; born 28 December 1949 as Sheela Ambalal Patel in India, also known as Sheela Birnstiel)[2] is an Indian born American–Swiss criminal."

This line does not say who Ma Anand Sheela is. It passes a judgment and includes information that belongs elsewhere. I recommend instead:

"Ma Anand Sheela (Gujarati: માં આનંદ શિલા; born 28 December 1949 as Sheela Ambalal Patel in India, also known as Sheela Birnstiel)[2] is an author and the proprietor in Switzerland of two government-licensed homes ("Wohngemeinschaften") for mentally and physically handicapped people."

For verification, see: http://www.matrusaden.ch/ http://www.matrusaden.ch/publikationen-books/

After this improvement, the article would still contain information about her crimes and their punishments.

Thank you for your consideration.

2601:249:C00:4B49:82F:5D1D:F554:6672 (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)mjt

She's not notable as the owner of a nursing home (as frightening as that idea is); she's notable as a criminal / felon with multiple attempted murder convictions / multiple attempted murderer (and I'd be happy with any of those phrasings, if you have a preference). We're not passing judgment on her -- the courts in two countries did that. EEng 14:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP has gone ahead and made this change [29], and I've reverted it. EEng 04:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that labeling her a criminal as the first description does not seem right. Although the crimes are obviously completely different, on a page like Bernie Madoff it describes what he was initially known for before becoming a convicted criminal. I would suggest changing the opening to something like: "... is an Indian born American–Swiss former spokesperson of the Rajneesh movement and convicted criminal." I agree with EEng that she is not at all notable as owner of a nursing home and so that should not be mentioned in the opening sentence. And as far as her being an author, I don't see any mention of books she has written.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with Mr. Madoff's suggested wording. I think it's great they let you contribute to Wikipedia from prison, by the way. Must really break the monotony. EEng 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha... alright I will make the change.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dates?

Just skimming this article and won't take the time to make fixes. Does anyone notice the dates don't seem to make sense: fled on September 13, 1985; arrested in West Germany in October 1986; pled guilty in July 1985...? Also I notice a reference (one or more) to Collins 2002, but the only Collins I see is 1992. alacarte (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Dispute the neutrality of the article mentioning 'Sheela referred to local government officials as "bigoted pigs" and "fascists"' and not showing the easily found video links to people in the local government displaying that bigotry. The Wild Wild Country documentary has many of the clips. The fact that there was bigotry from the local government leaders and community is a direct link to why she held those views. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I have also several interesting comments for Devotee Ma Sheela.  She states categorically that she does not believe in turning the other cheek.   She accuses others of bigotry while she herself  proceeds to act out a different form of bigotry in the way her views are expressed. Her philosophy Clearly stems more from the Torah Law:  “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” 

It didn’t work out so well, did it? One big Gerdchiefian (sp?) ;) device orchestrated by the master of the show, Osho!

*as was postulated  in the documentary “Wild Wild Country.” 
FoxFactChechChick (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

US Nationality? No evidence for it

There is no evidence presented in the article to show that Sheela ever held US nationality. In fact, a Los Angeles Times report describe her as giving up permanent residence as a result of the US legal proceedings in 1986. She could not have been required to leave the USA if she were indeed a citizen. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-23/news/mn-21578_1_ma-anand-sheela Marchino61 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ma Anand’s actual prison sentence

Good afternoon. This is an excellent informative article; however, I believe I found an inaccuracy re: Sheela’s Prison sentence. Firstly it is first declared that she had been sentenced to three consecutive 20 year terms, yet later disclosed that she had served two years of a 20 year term. Could someone in the know please elucidate? Thanks! FoxFactChechChick (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

---- 

I think there is a mistake here. She was sentenced to 20 months. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-22/news/mn-30934_1_ma-sheela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.192.70 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ma or not Ma?

Ma is used as honorific among osho sanyasins for female. Same goes with Swami for male sanyasins. I believe that the page name should be simply Anand Sheela Accesscrawl (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And here I thought it was like Ma Barker. EEng 21:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.. Now you know Accesscrawl (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)