Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was deported from the United States

Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments4 people in discussion

This key distinction appears to have been removed from the article yet again. Even more of a stark example of major POV problems going on here. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See e.g. He pled guilty with the understanding that he would be allowed to leave the country (Gale Encyclopedia of World Biography), see Carter p. 237 (Cambridge University Press) and other high-quality sources. Jayen 466 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Equally so in The New Yorker (1986b, p. 111), the publication with – then, at least – the best fact-checking department in the world. Jayen 466 05:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2 sources you cite are not wrong, but they do not state "he was not deported", they simply omitted the wording "deported", which is used by many many other sources. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources stating Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was deported from the United States

Bolding is emphasis added to quotes :

Staff (2007). "Oregon History: Chronology - 1952 to 2002". Oregon Blue Book. Directory and Fact Book compiled by the Oregon State Archives. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
"1985 - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh deported and fined $400,000"
Staff. "Wasco County History". Oregon Historical County Records Guide. Oregon State Archives. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
"The Bhagwan was indicted on federal immigration charges and deported to India."
Staff (September 25, 2006). "Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene". U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
"In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."
According to Rajneesh's biography in Thomson Gale :
Nevertheless, Rajneesh's activities were brought to the attention of the federal government. The religious leader was soon charged with 35 counts of deliberate violations against immigration laws. On a plea bargain, he admitted his guilt in two of the charges and was deported back to his native India in 1985.

"Acharya Rajneesh". Contemporary Authors Online. Thomson Gale. September 5, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Here is the wording in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology :
The authorities were never able to connect him with crimes on the ranch, but he was found guilty of immigration violation and conspiracy to evade visa regulations (charges his followers claimed were entirely bogus). He was fined $400,000, given a suspended prison sentence of ten years, and ordered to leave the United States for a minimum of five years.

Staff (2001). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Newsmakers 1990 :
Rajneesh arranged a plea bargain and was deported as a result. After being rejected from 21 other countries, Rajneesh settled again in Poona. He had changed his name in 1988 from "Bhagwan," which is a deity's title in Hindi, to "Osho," a Buddhist term meaning "On whom the heavens shower flowers."

Staff (1990). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Newsmakers 1990. Gale Research. pp. Issue 2. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Almanac of Famous People :
Cult leader known for preaching blend of Eastern religion, pop psychology, free love; deported from US, 1985, for immigration violations.

Staff (2007). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Here is the "deportation" of Rajneesh, as per a Forbes article from 1991 :
Rancho Rajneesh collapsed following the deportation of the guru to India in 1985 and the subsequent guilty pleas of top lieutenants on charges including arson, attempted murder, wiretapping and immigration fraud. Several Rajneeshee leaders are wanted for conspiracy to murder a U.S. Attorney. Rajneesh died in India last year.

Stern, Richard L. (June 24, 1991). "Bhagwan Washington? (Dennis Washington's purchase of ranch owned by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". Forbes. 147 (13). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Gross, Jane, Special to The New York Times (January 25, 1989). "Seattle Journal; With Guru Deported, Disciples Struggle On". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-111-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The commune's leader, owner of scores of Rolls-Royces and diamond-studded Rolex watches, exited soon after, deported after pleading guilty to immigration fraud.
Dean, Paul (November 22, 1985). "He'd Do a Headstand to Make the Rajneesh Deal". Los Angeles Times.
Within hours of the announced sale of the 86 Rolls-Royce sedans owned by deported guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh...
Staff (April 24, 1988). "FOLLOW-UP ON THE NEWS; Rajneesh Haven: A Legacy of Debts". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
Except for a handful of caretakers, Rajneeshpuram, once occupied by 5,000 disciples, was deserted last August. The guru, once noted for his fleet of 85 Rolls-Royces, was in India, having been deported in 1985 for immigration fraud. The 64,000-acre ranch was up for sale.
Waldman, Amy (December 10, 2002). "Pune Journal; Old Rajneesh Commune Lightens Up in Afterlife". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
He and his followers set up a commune in Oregon, taking over the town of Antelope, where he acquired 93 Rolls-Royces and news columns of controversy before he was arrested and deported for immigration violations in 1985.
Staff (June 17, 1990). "Followers of Rajneesh Keep Faith". The Philadelphia Inquirer.
American authorities arrested Rajneesh in 1985 on charges of violating US immigration laws and deported him.
Associated Press (December 21, 2002). "Last fugitive in case against Oregon cult members appears in court". CNN. Time Warner. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
Thousands were drawn to the compound by the group's charismatic leader, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, known to the outside world for his obsession with flashy Rolls-Royce automobiles. ... Rajneesh was deported in 1986. He died in India in 1990.
Staff (December 3, 1988). "Bhagwan's Commune Sold For $4.5 Million". The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The crowd included about a dozen of the guru's followers who remained in Oregon after Rajneesh was deported.
Ostrom, Carol M. (December 11, 1995). "Years Later, Bitterness Endures At Rancho Rajneesh". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
Where are the leaders of Rajneeshpuram now? -- Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: Deported after being convicted of immigration fraud. Changed his name to Osho before he died in 1990 of heart failure at his commune in Poona, India.
Staff (January 5, 1989). "Rajneesh No Longer Bhagwan". Wichita Eagle.Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the self-styled "rich man's guru," was convicted of immigration fraud and deported. He died in 1990 in India.
Rajneesh was deported three years ago from the United States after he leaded guilty to immigration fraud and closed his 64000-acre commune of Rajneeshpuram...
Dodge, Lauren (Associated Press) (September 13, 1998). "Christian Camp Transforms Rajneesh Compound -- Opening Planned For Next Summer". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the self-styled "rich man's guru," was convicted of immigration fraud and deported. He died in 1990 in India.
Staff (November 23, 1986). "Paradise For Sale The Guru Is Gone, But Former Commune Remains". San Jose Mercury News.
The white-bearded Rajneesh, who calls himself the "rich man's guru," was deported to his native India last November
Associated Press (April 10, 1994). "Rajneeshee Plot Left Its Mark On Former Prosecutor". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
Rajneesh moved his sect to a central Oregon ranch in 1981. By the time he was deported to India four years later, the Rajneeshees had been accused of crimes ranging from wiretapping to mass poisoning.
Staff (January 28, 1990). "Investigators Wonder About Guru's Riches". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
The central Oregon commune of Rajneeshpuram - once home to 4,000 of the guru's red-clad followers - was disbanded in 1985, when Rajneesh was deported for immigration fraud.
Special to The New York Times (August 9, 1987). "Guru's City in Desert Sits Nearly Empty". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
The guru, famous for his fleet of as many as 85 Rolls-Royces, pleaded guilty to immigration fraud in 1985, paid a $400,000 fine, and was deported. He is back at his ashram in Poona, India, after a round-the-world search for another residence.
Lattin, Don (June 15, 2005). "10-hour wait, 3-second hug: Motherly guru draws throngs of seekers to East Bay temple". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
Rajneesh was known as the "free-sex guru" and famous for his fleet of Rolls-Royces. His communal city in central Oregon collapsed in 1985 after revelations of bizarre poisoning plots and widespread wiretapping. Rajneesh pleaded guilty to charges of immigration fraud, was deported to India and died there 1990.
McCafferty, Dennis (October 20, 1999). "Old Bhagwan, new bottles: A "new" spiritual guru turns out to have a past that includes lavish spending, orgies and bacterial terrorism". Salon. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
During a conflict with Oregon authorities, the followers were accused of arson and attempted murder. In perhaps the most notorious incident, some members of the Rajneesh crew were linked to a 1984 case in which salmonella bacteria was sprinkled on the contents of local restaurant salad bars and sickened 750 people. Rajneesh was deported on immigration fraud charges and died in Pune on Jan. 19, 1990.
Staff (August 2, 1991). "'Holy Madness': An Enlightening Guide to Gurus". Boston Globe.
After a series of scandals and crimes among his lieutenants, Rajneesh was deported to India, where he died in 1990.
Staff (December 25, 1987). "In India, His Cult Is Jumping and Bhagwan's Complaining". The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Rajneesh, revered as a living god by his followers, was deported from the United States two years ago after pleading guilty to immigration fraud.
Melton, J. Gordon (June 19, 2008). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
In 1985 Rajneesh pleaded guilty to immigration fraud and was deported from the United States. He was refused entry to 21 countries before returning to Pune...
Staff (January 3, 1988). "Ailing Guru Moves His Commune To India". St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Rajneesh, revered as a god by his followers, was deported from the United States two years ago after pleading guilty to immigration fraud.

Cirt (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd rather stay with the most detailed and best-researched sources on the matter. A page like [1] or this does not compare to a New Yorker article that has been vetted by a team of 5 fact checkers (Cites on a Hill, p.8). Here the New York Times article published on the day he left the country. Jayen 466 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Gordon, who goes so far as to name the judge, says, "Under the terms of the agreement he made with the U.S. attorney, he received a ten-year suspended sentence, and paid a fine of $400,000, including $160,000 in court costs. He agreed to leave the country within five days and not to return for five years without written permission from the U.S. Attorney General." Jayen466 07:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather use both, including all of those I have cited, above, all of which are WP:RS/WP:V sources. You have yet to present any source to dispute that he was "deported". Cirt (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

hello Cirt.

you seem a bit obsessed here with the term deported. I have been deported from a country and deportation works as you are returned to the country that you came from .(the passport you entered with) Osho was more what could be described by "expelled" from america.due to a visa technicallity . whereas they didnt care where he went as long as he left america.. he was in fact able to choose his own destination . this is unheard of in deportation cases. and adds weight to the story that the americans were agressive towards osho and only cared to destroy the commune.

dear cirt you seem quite aggressive in your position here. 20 odd quotes just to push forward your position of deportation... I'm sure we can clean this article up to represent the bare facts if you are prepared to be less emotional. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

- - I wouldn't argue that a badly spelt official's resumé on a website e.g. is on a par with the New Yorker. The fact-checking and editorial oversight do not begin to compare. Jayen466 07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    - - Picking apart what you believe to be minor issues with one source out of the above list I have cited does not negate the fact that there are many, many other WP:V/WP:RS sources that plainly state that Rajneesh was quote "deported" from the United States. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even Osho's own books authored by Osho admit he was quote "deported" from the United States

Osho (1997). Meditation: The First and Last Freedom. Macmillan. p. 281. ISBN 0312169272.
On the advice of his attorneys, who feared for his life, Osho allowed himself to be deported from the US...
Osho (2001). Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic. Macmillan. p. 265. ISBN 0312280718.
As my jet moved to the small airport, an American representative was there with all the stamps and the official whose business it is to deport people. I was delayed there, because they had to fill in all the forms, and as I left the country, I said, "It doesn't matter. In fact, my passport has become a historical document! I have been deported from so many countries without any reason."

Cirt (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, the second of these quotes above discusses his deportation from Uruguay in June 1986. Jayen 466 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Osho loved the idea that he was deported... from 21 countries no less. Being deported from the US sounds so much better than being allowed to leave, and supported his claim that he was a threat to the Christians there. So, I vote for sticking with "deported" jalal (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is the victim scenario that he liked to play, the "enfant terrible". Likewise, his ideological opponents like to wave the stick and say, "Look how BIG our stick was." If he simply agreed, as part of his plea bargain, to leave the country, and was asked not to come back for five years, then I'd be happy to say just that, without all the drama. ;-) Jayen 466 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm perfectly aware those Osho publications state that. That does not make them the most reliable sources on this. It's about getting the facts right, using the most reliable sources that we have, and those are explicit in stating that his agreement to leave the country was a part of the plea bargain arrangement, and that's what the article says. Jayen 466 07:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the end result was that he was "deported" from the United States. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps we should check at the Law portal to see if there is a difference. Until we know whether there is or isn't, I'd rather stick with the wording we had. Jayen 466 07:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Until you can cite WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that state specifically that he was not deported, as opposed to the myriad of sources that clearly and plainly use the word "deported" to state that Rajneesh was in fact "deported" from the United States, we should use the wording deported to refer to his deportation from the United States. Cirt (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, I'd rather use the description given in the most reliable sources. Jayen 466 07:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, I'd rather use the description given in the greater majority of reliable sources. I can cite hundreds more. I will add to the list here on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quality, not quantity. Please don't bother to cite further sources, I am quite aware they exist. Jayen 466 08:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quality and quantity. We should further examine what the preponderance of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources says specifically about Rajneesh being deported from the United States. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've seen what the New York Times said on the day it happened. That's in agreement with sources that we are required to rate highly, based on the amount of fact-checking they employ. I honestly don't know if there is a technical difference between deportation and a plea bargain agreement to leave the country. All I know is if we're saying what those sources say that I cited above, the article can't be wrong. Jayen 466 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Added some more sources which state Rajneesh was "deported" from the United States, including several from The New York Times. I will add more later on and expand the list later. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in here... I think you may be making too much of what is, essentially, a semantic issue. I remember at the time the word used in the press was normally deportation, especially in the headlines and then the articles may discuss the finer details. The subtleties were mostly lost on those outside of the legal profession. Plus the PR factor: deported sounds a lot better. Maybe there is some way of saying that he was deported and allowed to leave? Possibly the final proof will be with the court documents, available at the Portland courthouse, maybe someone reading this could check? Although from memory, the court decision made no mention of him leaving. He got a suspended sentence, a fine, a few other agreements. Then he went, literally, from the court house to a waiting Gulfstream. Any agreement as to leaving was probably made in chambers between the government and the defence beforehand. So in all likelihood it's down to the number of cites, and here the 'd' word definitely wins out. jalal (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, Cirt. Looking through them, they are typically 1-sentence references; none are scholarly sources. Sources discussing the question in detail tend to use the other wording, for whatever reason. But okay, I accept "deported" is verifiable, including some scholarly sources. Jayen 466 14:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad we are now in agreement. "Deported" is the proper word usage here. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC

Greetings......I just don't get it as to why jayen redhaylin and jalal are so full of resistance here?

the wiki here is a place for cold hard facts and Osho was mystical and mysterious , no cold hard facts are ever going to represent him.The sannyas movement was secretive in its nature and no one knows the whole truth ,some people know parts of the story but no more than that.(except perhaps Osho himself) So why not let go of the resistance and just allow the page to unfold. imo. keeping it simple is a good idea. here is my simple synopsis.. guru claims enlightenment.. guru starts to initiate diciples.. guru and friends move to poona.. ashram grows around guru.. indians want their cut and demand payment.. guru and friends go to india to avoid paying.. friends buy ranch in america and commune grows around guru.. after a few years of attempting to build a utopia things get out of control and to avoid arrest guru and friends flee with as much money as they can carry.. they get caught and brought back.. guru is deported for minor imigration charges.. america takes money in fines and tax.. guru and friends fly around world in attempt to find new home and try to avoid going back to india.. finally they are forced to return to india .. indians demand taxes be paid from previous avoidance.. deal is struck and commune again begins to grow in poona.. guru's health starts to fail and accuses american goverment of poisoning him (unproven).. guru leaves his body.. after death guru becomes more acceptable.. these are the cold hard facts.all easily sourced. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)) (Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Hi Off2riorob, feel free to contribute to the article, especially if you feel it can be improved. Keep in mind that Wikipedia accepts 'cold hard facts' that are academically verifiable. This is not the same as the truth. Also, you've kind of 'attacked' (in a mild sense) myself, Jayen422, Redheylin and Cirt at the very start of your editing time on Wikipedia and that is not an auspicious start. Try to focus on the content, not on the editors. jalal (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry if you feel 'attacked'. you must mean my saying 'I don't get it why your so full of resistance'

(mild!more like a relish than a mustard)

ok i'll remember to be respectful to your sensitivities. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Page number confusion

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Semi, re [2], what Mullan says on the cited page is,

Another problem has been writing in a context which is almost totally hostile, cynical or sarcastic about the movement.

(He then proceeds to give an example.) Contrary to your edit summary, there is no problem with the sourcing for that sentence. Jayen 466 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

what you had written originally was "Osho attracted many hostile, cynical or sarcastic comments" followed by the Mullan cite, but he has not said this, the statement goes beyond the source. The context of the statement is clear in Mullan, all of this is lost and instead we are getting a generality. Plus, he says 'movement' not 'Osho'. I recall some editors on this page being adamant about differentiating 'the movement' from 'the man'. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, on page 9, Mullan adds, "Of course this is all very amusing but, as with James, it hides prejudice." So I think on balance, I prefer the intro with the "hostile, cynical" etc. Jayen 466 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

in Mullan's opinion, he believes James is exhibiting prejudice, but let's be clear, it was in Private Eye, James was being paid for offering outlandish cynical commentaries on contemporary life - that was his job. If you want to detail Mullans opinion of James's opinion by all means do so but attribute it correctly. There is a similar issue with the Belfrage quote, in the act of paraphrasing the quote we are also getting Palmers opinion of Belfrages entire book. Surely both of these are instances where WP:ASF applies? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited comments by James were published in the 9 August 1981 edition of The Observer. Re Palmer, if you object to the "rather disparaging", feel free to select a more neutral paraphrase. Cheers, Jayen 466 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, thought he was writing in Private Eye, must be the other guy he mentioned that I was thinking of. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

strangely, Palmers original citation appears to be incorrect, I cannot find Belfrages comment on page 131 of her book (1981, The Dial Press) and Palmer provides no information about which edition, if there are a number of them, she is referencing. Perhaps using another critic as an example would be better until this cite can be confirmed, Gordon perhaps, he also appears to be impressed by Osho's charisma, despite his scepticism. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps she is citing a different edition; the 1981 edition appears to have been published by Doubleday. (Actually, Palmer doesn't give a title either, at least not in Aveling). At any rate, I doubt she made it up. Jayen 466 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting she made it up but the original 1988 paper clearly states the source as: Belfrage. Sally. 1981. Flowers of Emptiness. New York:Dial Press. The page number she gives is 131, and she appears to be referening the first printing on Dial, but it just doesn't tally. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious. The References section in Aveling (just noted all the refs are together at the end of the book ;-) ) cites yet another edition, by "The Women's Press, London". Could your perhaps have a look through your edition? With the capitalisation of the cite as per Palmer, the typography is likely to stand out on the page. Jayen 466 19:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already skimmed through but didn't spot the quote, will take another look when I get a chance because I would like to see the actual context. Personally, from the bits I've read, I don't feel 'disparaging' is a word I would use to describe the book, there is evidence of her being almost seduced by his charms, and there are candid exchanges with Osho, but any ill will she has seems to relate to a sense of loss she feels as her friends become disciples (and what she sees as their abdication of personal responsibilities). There are some valid observations throughout Semitransgenic (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope to have the Belfrage book later this week. Semi, as you have deleted Palmer's citation of it, are you satisfied that the passage cited by her is not present in it? Jayen 466 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also question the encyclopedic relevance of the "rebarbative dingbat". We have established that cynical views were expressed, we do not have to make an orgy out of it. See WP:TONE, WP:QUOTE. Jayen 466 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see an issue here, it reflects exactly what Mullan states, and keeps the context clear. The real issue relates more to going beyond the sources in the original editorial tone, prior to the change. It's the "manipulates the manipulatable" that is of relevance, it reflects a view expressed by a number of more serious commentators, Gordon being one, it is a valid observation. Also, James is widely known for his idyosyncratic language usage and cynical tone. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "manipulate the manipulatable" adds value, but disagree on the "rebarbative dingbat". We have already give plenty of space to James' "idiosyncratic language". :-) Jayen 466 11:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that the previous version went beyond the source; Mullan says what's above on page 2, on page 8 he says it's hardly possible to read anything not simply dismissive, then he says he'll quote James and Private Eye "for amusement value", and concludes by saying that it is all very amusing but hides prejudice, and that he will adopt a different approach, which is neither "Levine's overinvolved approach" nor "some clever piss-take". But okay. Jayen 466 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a rebarbative dingbat, I agree that "Ashram" should be consistent, but ought it be capitalised? I was rather making a move in the opposite direction... another thing; I was thinking of cropping a few dozen redundant commas. And another thing; casting around for earlier sources I came up with Chinmaya's manifesto for neo-sannyas, printed as an appendix to "I am the Gate". It's a useful and interesting document, but is it secondary enough? Thoughts? Jayen, I really ought to get back to old Cheraman Perumal before working on the other pages you mentioned. Thanks for your clarification re Joshi, though I am still "does not compute" - never mind, but there are no early sources for the reaction to "From S to S" and to the introduction of therapy. We tend to see the 70's through the glass of hindsight. Redheylin (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Joshi's bio appeared in 1982. He said,

His outspoken and critical discourses have aroused a great deal of anger and opposition against him around the world. His ideas on such sensitive issues as sex, marriage, family, and relationships attack the conventional view of these things. But the greatest target of public disapproval is the full freedom he allows his disciples. He encourages his disciples to go deeply and totally into all the experiences of life. He extends this freedom to sex as well as mental states such as violence, jealousy, possessiveness, greed, hatred, and others that make up the whole range of human emotions.
— Joshi, p.2

Those were the issues related to the perceived excesses of the cathartic therapy groups and the "permissive climate" referred to in the lede, which got substantial news coverage, along with the "provocative lectures". He called the pope a polack, maligned Morarji Desai and Mother Teresa, etc. – all things that brought him media attention.

I think the commas are fine, but hey, views on punctuation may differ. :-) (Ashram is now lower case throughout.)

I am not aware of the manifesto you refer to, and I haven't see any references to it in the secondary literature. What might be worth including somewhere are Osho's "10 commandments"; those I've seen around. Cheers, Jayen 466 11:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Antagonism on both sides

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

This wording just reinserted: "With increasing antagonism on both sides the conflict escalated to bitter hostility, and over the following years, the commune was subject to consistent and coordinated pressures from various coalitions of Oregon residents." strikes me as unnecessarily clumsy and verbose. A "conflict escalating to bitter hostility" always involves two sides. If we want to make it clearer that there were hostile feelings on both sides, I'd suggest we could say "The land-use conflict escalated to bitter and mutual hostility between the two sides, and the commune was subject to sustained and coordinated pressures from various coalitions of Oregon residents over the following years." Jayen 466 10:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

this omits the communes systematic intimidation of the local community. If you want supporting sources I would be happy to provide them here. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see what you mean, but I can't shake off the feeling that "increasing antagonism on both sides" and "the conflict escalated to bitter hostility" are somehow tautological. But I'm happy to put this on the backburner for now. Jayen 466 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can have conflict without overt hostility, conflict can simmer, or it can escalate. If each side behaves in an increasingly antagonistic, tit for tat like manner, then conflict can reach the level of bitter hostility. Maybe the wording doesn't express this, in which case if you have wording that demonstrates the point more succinctly by all means change it but please keep the context clear. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

the term "antagonism on both sides" is good. Please take the time to google it if you doubt that it is used widely. The antagonist/protagonist duality relates to use in narrative or drama. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I prefer Redheylin's version, simply on grounds of style. IMO, it is clear, readable, and conveys all of the required sense without redundancies, including the two-way antagonism. Jayen 466 21:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen466, Redheylin's version is simply better english and more readable. Sorry. jalal (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue, I will provide additional material to add context. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not about context – just about English. Redheylin's version clearly says "increasingly bitter hostility on both sides", which is what we all agree happened. I appreciate your self-revert, tx. Jayen 466 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

sustained and coordinated pressures from various coalitions of Oregon residents over the following years gives the impression that they were persecuted by the local community; yet the paragraph details nothing of the multiple instances of harassment, legal intimidation, and various guerilla style tactics the commune engaged in to try and get their way, irrespective of the rights of the local citizenry. They used excessive financial and legal muscle to achieve their ends. Numerous sources support the view that the commune leadership made its own trouble in Oregon (discounting the trouble with evangelicals, that is a seperate issue). As such the paragraph should be rewritten to account for this. Again, I am happy to provide relevant sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am working on the Rajneeshpuram article, which, I hope, will in time reflect the various sides of the conflict in greater detail. To respond to your comment above, Lewis F. Carter, who wrote the most widely respected and detailed study of Rajneeshpuram, summarised the conflict thus:
Rajneeshpuram was an attempt to transplant an exotic religious system and social structure in Eastern Oregon. The area has been the site of many transplants, each accompanied by some resistance and conflict, as is well-documented in the collective memory of the Warm Springs Confederation of Tribes. The short life of Rajneeshpuram is attributab le to consistent and coordinated pressures from coalitions of existing residents, each group of which seems to have been offended by different facets of the Rajneesh[ees] (e.g. environmentalists focused on land-use and water issues, the Albany group on tax issues, some Christian groups on moral issues). Each of these groups, and others, seem to have had a different threshold, and the coalitions formed sequentially as new groups were alarmed or offended. The basic incompatibility of the Rajneesh[ees] with Eastern Oregon can be accounted for in terms of the cultural orientation of the movement, the social structure of Rajneeshpuram, and the personal orientations of Sannyasins. The tension produced by these orientations was exacerbated by tactical errors.
— Carter (1987)

Carter then adds more exhaustive comments about the tantric aspects of Osho's movements, which raised opposition in surrounding societies, in turn leading to defensive moves that eventually went beyond the pale of what society is prepared to accept; its highly stratified, totalitarian internal control structure; the desirability of abandoning social norms within the movement; and sannyasins' view of outsiders as inferior and subhuman which led to a fatal tactical mistake – essentially underestimating their opponents, who were characterised as "hicks" or "monkeys", but who eventually mustered countermoves which goaded the Rajneeshees into excessive defensive responses for which some of them came to serve prison sentences. These unacceptable defensive responses are covered in some detail in this bio. Jayen 466 17:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Carter also outlines other details which you seem to want avoid touching upon. Aside from that, Abbot provides background to the land use issues in that state, and why it became such a pivotal issue.

The building of Rajneeshpuram brought international scrutiny of Oregon's hard-earned reputation for tolerance. The state had supported a strong anti-Catholic movement and a strong Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and had joined the anti-Japanese frenzy of the 1940s.Since then, however, it had grown substantially more open-minded in the public arena, a process assisted by the small size of its urban minority population and the tendency for counterculturalists to shelter quietly in the forest. Rajneesh and his true believers, however, were eminently visible and uninterested in compromise. They were impatient, insistent, implicitly threatening, and often directly confrontational. Whether intended or not, the repeated changes in their stated plans looked like conscious deception.

The initial response in Oregon was an uneasy balance in which tolerance tended to outweigh hostility with increasing distance. Nearby residents were caught between disapproval of a nontraditional lifestyle and an ingrained commitment to an individualistic ethos that would allow people to do what they wanted on their own property. More cosmopolitan residents of Willamette Valley cities and university towns were torn between commitment to freedom of belief and behavior, embarrassment over expressions of bigotry, and the fear that Oregonians were being conned by a set of tricksters.

Much of the conflict between commune and community arose from different assumptions about the nature and functioning of local and state government. In seeking their understandable and utopian goal of complete self-determination, the Rajneeshees found that battles with bureaucracies in one area often led to new conflicts or problems with another part of the regulatory network. In summary, the Rajneesh leadership repeatedly operated as if Oregon were a broker state in which influence was up for grabs. In their first two years, the newcomers made a variety of efforts to identify allies within Oregon. A strong public relations effort targeted the state's large (albeit unorganized) community of "ecotopians" by emphasizing Rajneeshpuram as a social and environmental experiment. The Rajneeshees also used their local economic impact as a potent argument during Oregon's timber recession of 1981-1983, expecting to trade contracts and purchases for political influence. At the same time, the Rajneeshees attempted to identify the points of access to governmental power. They looked for levers of influence on individual Wasco and Jefferson county officials. The city's leaders engaged Robert Davis, a prominent and respected Oregon lobbyist, to represent their interests in the state capital, although they were unwilling to follow many of his recommendations and terminated the contract in 1983. They also used the Oregon courts to influence or intimidate. In a take-it-or-leave-it approach, the Rajneeshees acted as if government institutions and regulations were tools without inherent value. They used the legal and regulatory system when expedient, ignored it when inconvenient. Rajneeshpuram was located, however, in a state with a political ethos that accepts the rational bureaucratic state at something like face value. Within the spectrum of American political cultures, Oregon exemplifies a moralistic and issue oriented approach to public affairs. As defined by Daniel Elazar, moralistic states accept the limitation of private activities by the intervention of community or government in behalf of the public interest. Their citizens accept the idea that government should and can be a neutral arbiter and that well run bureaucracies can protect the general welfare. An example with direct relevance is Oregon's statewide system of land-use planning, which requires that all cities and counties develop and periodically review comprehensive plans that further a set of statewide goals. Planning initiative rests with the localities, but the state Land Conservation and Development Commission retains the power to acknowledge or reject the local efforts. Oregonians complain that the addition of a state layer to land-use decisions is cumbersome and that specific state goals may need revision, but a clear majority accept that the effort as a whole is legitimate and administered honestly.

The tenacity of the challenge by 1000 Friends needs to be understood in the context of 1981, when every precedent and victory in the cause of land-use planning seemed vital. Oregon's land-use planning system had survived referendum challenges in 1976 and 1978 and would face another in 1982. Although metropolitan and Willamette Valley counties and cities had developed responsive comprehensive plans relatively quickly, several rural counties were strongly resisting the state mandate to restrict natural-resource development. In particular, one of the currently active issues was the potential proliferation of ill-planned recreational developments of the sort that former Governor Tom McCall had damned with the phrase "coastal condomania and sagebrush subdivisions." Rajneeshpuram looked like a dangerous precedent for more ordinary resorts and subdivisions because it was less a real city than a sort of New Age theme park or (or to quote Frances FitzGerald) "a year-round summer camp for young urban professionals." It was also located in a county where 1000 Friends could count on local opposition to, rather than support for, large-scale land development.

By their own claim, the Rajneeshees came to central Oregon to be alone. According to Ma Anand Sheela, they were seeking "a desert kind of land, away from the people so people's neuroses did not have to bother Bhagwan's vision or work [,]... [a] place which was our own." Nevertheless, they found themselves in the midst of a fully articulated institutional framework. Once the Rajneeshees decided to invoke the regulatory and governmental system on their own behalf, they found it increasingly difficult to opt out when regulations proved limiting. It also became clear to many Oregonians by 1983 and 1984 that the Rajneeshees understood the formal rules but not the informal public consensus that governed their use. They lost potential supporters when they abused the openness of Oregon's political system by violating assumptions about honest elections, the neutrality of public schools, or the evenhandedness of state land-use planning decisions.

Semitransgenic (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my belief, I summarised all the key discussion points that Carter used to elaborate the views quoted above. Much of the above material cited by you may be useful in Rajneeshpuram. Is it all from Abbott? Jayen 466 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I have found it. For other editors' convenience, it's from Utopia and Bureaucracy: The Fall of Rajneeshpuram, Oregon, Carl Abbott, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 1990), pp. 77-103. Jayen 466 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, important points raised by Cater have been omitted in what you present. I will address this and the other oversights once I have completed a source review. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi, please note that these two edits are a copyright violation – they inserted word-identical copies of two sentences you cited from Abbott above. We cannot use sentences verbatim; please try to find a suitable paraphrase that avoids the copyright concern. Jayen 466 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I will deal with it, it fitted appropriately at the time and solved the issue of balance. Will reword within the next day or so. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bump to keep the thread active: should automated archiving attempt to remove it. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Charisma

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

This sentence: Most people who saw Osho in person, whether detractors, admirers, sannyasins or disaffected followers, appear to agree that he was possessed of extraordinary charisma is problematic in its current form and is not supported by the cite. Palmer says: These discourses have had an extraordinary effect on his followers. Several sannyasins I interviewed said they fell in love with Bhagwan through exposure to his discourses. Even his critics attest to the power of Rajneesh's presence. She then provides one example, Belfrage, with what appears to be an incorrect cite. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the sentence: Many sannyasins and ex-followers have stated that hearing Osho speak, they "fell in love with him." cites Palmer as above and Mullan but there is no mention of ex-followers on the cited pages. Mullan says: perhaps it is worth noting that many rajneeshees talk of 'falling in love' with Bhagwan, and also worth noting is the extreme predominance of women in the movement over men - although this is less so today than in the Poona days. This leads some to argue that many women join Rajneeshism through falling in love with Bhagwan, and the men join to meet the women! Without specific cites to support the editorial proposition set forth what we have is cleary WP:SYN in it's current form. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the sentence is an adequate summary of the overall literature.

For one, even though Palmer only cites one critic, she clearly uses the plural "critics". (Re the apparently incorrect cite by Palmer, see my response above; I don't have either edition of Belfrage's book to hand. Perhaps Palmer got the page number wrong.)

You have already quoted a passage from Mullan above, although there is more in Mullan: on p. 52 he states that nearly everyone who took sannyas fell into the "conversion by charisma" bracket, on page 68, he cites a male who says he "fell in love" with Osho; another man is quoted on page 70 as realizing when he sat close to Osho that "this guy was amazing"; on page 73, Mullan quotes a man recalling his first personal meeting with Osho, "I looked at him and burst into tears, it was so beautiful", etc.

Other cites could be added:

Fox, p. 11 (citing Prasad): "There is something really powerful and extraordinary about him. His indomitable personality never fails to exert a strange fascination, even over people who do not agree with his views." On page 49, Fox adds that critics accused him of using hypnotic methods to explain the effect he had on people, providing indirect evidence that critics perceived something akin to charisma.

As far as other critics are concerned, FitzGerald's comments are cited later on in the paragraph; James Gordon, another critic, describes several personal experiences of Osho's charisma, being reduced to tears etc. upon meeting him.

Milne, a disaffected (male) ex-follower, spends several pages (46–50) describing the effect meeting Osho had on him, describes holding hands, the sensation of time standing still, a "huge energy source he had just been uplifted by, been privileged to share" and plenty of other such effusive expressions.

Franklin, another disaffected ex-follower, describes fainting (despite her firm intent not to do so) and having to be carried back to her seating place when she first met Osho face to face (p. 28), and states that she was in love with him (p. 32), adding that it was not love in a romantic or sexual sense.

Guest (p. 8) recalls his mother crying herself to sleep in the UK for four days after she had listened to a tape by Osho, and then sending a letter to India asking for sannyas.

Storr, a critic (who never did see Rajneesh in person but bases his study on the published accounts of others), writes that "Rajneesh, like Gurdjieff, was personally extremely impressive. Many of those who visited him for the first time felt that their most intimate feelings were instantly understood, that they were accepted and unequivocally welcomed rather than judged. He seemed to radiate energy and to awaken hidden possibilities in those who came into contact with him." He cites Milne as saying "I had the overwhelming sensation that I had come home. He was my spiritual father, a man who understood everything, someone who would be able to convey sense and meaning to my life" (p. 47).

In fact, I am not aware of any ex-follower's account that does not refer to a charismatic presence and/or experiencing something they describe as love. I don't believe it's a controversial issue in the literature. Jayen 466 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps try to reflect all of this in the section with evidence to support the claim. Assuming readers are equiped with specialist background information is not the best way to deal with this, making general statements and hanging them on a couple of weak cites adds to the problem. It may appear pedantic, but as you have stated, the literature on the subject does corroborate the point so please be more specific; rather than saying: Most people who saw Osho in person, whether detractors, admirers, sannyasins or disaffected followers, appear to agree that he was possessed of extraordinary charisma. In its current context this expresses your opinion, again a potential WP:ASF issue. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still not sure if this is a case of WP:SYN or not; at some point, if something is generally undisputed, it can be stated as a fact, and I am not aware of any author stating that Osho lacked charisma or presence. And we have to arrive at smooth, readable prose at the end of our effort, that is part of our job in summarising sources.

I suppose of the cites given above, Storr is perhaps most to the point, and could be used to construct an alternative lead sentence for the paragraph. FitzGerald and Milne are examples of critics and disaffected followers respectively; as such they could perhaps make the point I was trying to make with the lead sentence without straying too far from any given source. If we can confirm the accuracy of Palmer's Belfrage quote, I'd like to keep that in, too. Any thoughts? Jayen 466 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the context of writing an encyclopedic article on wiki, it is your opinion, not a statment of fact, if you can find someone who has already made this assessment and published the findings, then you can say this, and cite them, otherwise your conclusion is the result of WP:OR. Perhaps this section should also touch on claims made by a number of critics regarding his alleged use of hypnosis. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the use of the word appears that makes it a potential WP:ASF, the sentence would be better as Most people who saw Osho in person, whether detractors, admirers, sannyasins or disaffected followers, agree that..., this is more a statement of fact than opinion. jalal (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

agree that gives the impression that consensus has been arrived by an independent - verifiable - source but this is not substantiated by the citations that are currently in place. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jalal, as it happens, that is the version we currently have. I've left a note on Vassyana's talk page requesting his feedback. Any views on including Storr? Jayen 466 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Urban (1996) provides the cite that can tie it up:

"In many respects, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh appears to fit in nicely with Weber’s classical image of the charismatic figure: as we read throughout the accounts of his disciples, Rajneesh was regarded as possessing an extraordinary supernatural power or ‘grace’, which was essentially irrational and affective: ‘Bhagwan began to acquire for us the character of a supernatural being . . . Bhagwan was a Godlike person who could influence events—the weather, financial matters, relationships . . . He had paranormal powers’. [46] Moreover, like Weber’s pure charismatic type, Bhagwan rejected all rational laws and institutions claiming to subvert all hierarchical authority. It was this same kind of charismatic, supra-rational freedom and enlightenment that he promised to bestow upon his followers. But on the other hand, this very principle of charismatic power and the promise of absolute freedom also became the basis for a new, more powerful form of bureaucratic organization and institutional control."

the cite [46] is: Bhagwan, p. 72. Strelley provides another example of Bhagwan’s charisma: ‘all the time he was talking I forgot planet earth, forgot everything. He spoke so beautifully, his words touched me so deeply that I felt he had always known me . . . he was communicating directly to my spirit. . . I heard him as an angelic spirit speaking directly to some angelic part of myself . . . Bhagwan’s look displayed the timelessness, the power, the wisdom’ (The Ultimate Game, pp. 71-2). Semitransgenic (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention – Semi, Vassyana shared your concern about SYN in this section and suggested rewriting it with closer adherence to the sources (hence the rewrite). Jayen 466 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the third opinion, but it's not so much about my concern as it is about following the guidelines when dealing with subject matter that can easily become muddied with POV. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A Note on Sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have before me a copy of "I am the Gate", published "Life Awakening Movement, Bombay 1972". It contains the appendices "BSR - A Biographical Glimpse" by Ma Ananda Prem and "NSI: visions and activities" by Sw Yoga Chinmaya" These are useful documents for an important phase that currently occupies a tiny fraction of the "Oregon" years. By the way, it lists "The Mystic of Feeling" as currently in print (also pub LAM). Redheylin (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could look at what it covers; some of it can possibly be cross-referenced with Joshi. (Just in case there is any misunderstanding, Joshi's book, which I quoted above, is "The Awakened One", published by Harper Collins in '82; I don't have a copy of "The Mystic of Feeling" at present and have never used it as a source here).

And btw, good edit on the antagonism sentence; I hope we can all live with the wording as it is now. Jayen 466 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx. Now, YC says that, then, there were 3,800 Indian sannyasins and 134 foreign; 56 in America, 16 each in England and W Germany, 12 each in Italy and Philippines, 8 Canadians, 4 Kenyans, 2 Danes and 1 each in Japan, France, Holland, Australia, Greece, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. There were ashrams in New York (2), Gujarat, M Pradesh, Nairobi, London and Manila. The "permanent world headquarters" was not to be Poona but "Ananda Shila", to be built on 254 acres "at Trimurti Hill, between Ambernath and Kalyan, 37 miles from Bombay". It was to contain the International University of Meditation, a psychic research centre, a yoga therapy centre, naturopathy and acupuncture research centre, research library, publication centre, a "temple for understanding which will represent ALL religions of the world, visibly manifested as sixteen gates opening into a central VOID space", Hostels, guesthouse, 300 cottages and one for Osho, a hall for meditation and conferences and "underground cells for deep meditation" (!!). Redheylin (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to America 2

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I was in the process of trying to improve the current paragraph but would first like to bring attention to a rather significant anomally, and again it relates to WP:SYN. The current version is pushing the view that the move was for medical purposes. A number of cites are provided to support this position but none of them, except perhaps Fox explicitly support the assertion, a number of them in fact question the reason for the move and provide balanced interpretations. We are then told "Other authors have attributed the move to etc.etc." yet a number of these authors are the same ones cited to support the first hypothesis. In a recent summary of this we are told, in Lewis & Petersen (2005), pp. 124-125, The first period of extreme controversy, 1976 to 1980, created an impetus for Rajneesh to relocate to the United States...The flight from India represented an attempt to deal with increasing external pressures, as the host society confronted Rajneesh's hostility to traditional rules and values...Rajneesh could have minimized friction and risked losing some of his charismatic appeal. Or he could have held his ground in India and faced painful sanctions against him and his sannyasins. Instead he fled in order to rebuild his movement in North America, where large numbers of sannyasins resided. I find it strange that the review of sources provided above has been largely ignored. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources used for the "Other authors" sentence are those you brought in above, i.e. Wallis and Lewis & Petersen. (These are not cited in the first part reporting that the subject had a health problem.) Basically, these sources are speculating about Osho's motives, and no one really knows what went on in his head when he decided to move to the U.S. The fact is that he was ill – notable in itself for his bio – and that he obtained a medical visa.
I think that the paragraph as it stands is fairly in line with FitzGerald, who is a very highly regarded source. FitzGerald confirms that Osho was ill and that several doctors, including a renowned Western specialist, testified to that; she cites ex-sannyasin testimony that Sheela proposed going to the US; she mentions that INS officials suspected that Osho was not as ill as he made out; she then – at least partially – rebuts the INS opinion by drawing attention to previous severe health crises that Osho had suffered; and then reviews a number of comments by Osho about India – some where he stated that he would never leave India, and some made shortly before he left, where he called India "ancient and rotten", but still said he would stay: "I have nothing to lose. At the most they can kill me". She concludes, "Conceivably, Rajneesh was ready to leave India." I think all of those angles are reflected in what we have. We are not citing Fox's opinion at present, who feels there is "ample evidence" that Osho had not intended to stay in the U.S. long-term. I think it's a fairly good balance. Jayen 466 23:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a circular argument, one that ignores other perspectives. The mounting tension with authorities in India is not based on speculation, it is fact. Osho's failure to evidence genuine need for medical treatment upon arriving in America is fact, that the INS noted this anomaly and refused him residency status as a result of this is fact. That Osho had an intention to build a commune is fact, that he had an intention to build it in America, is, based on the sources above, seemingly irrefutable. You can choose to ignore the published sources and gravitate exclusively to the ones that support a particular view, but ultimately, in line with guidelines on WP:POV, all views on the matter will to be represented, irrespective of other considerations. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the current wording of the paragraph:

On 1 June 1981, Osho travelled to the United States on a medical visa; he now also suffered from a persistent and very painful back problem, attested to by several doctors, including James Cyriax, a leading orthopaedic surgeon flown into India from London.[63][64][65] The move seems to have been instigated by Sheela, who said she wished to ensure the availability of good medical facilities in the event of any further deterioration in Osho's health and generally considered America a more suitable location for the new commune; she had apparently urged Osho for some time to move to the United States.[63][64][66] Other authors have attributed the move to mounting tension, criticism and possible punitive action by the Indian authorities in connection with some of these disputes, which may have created an impetus for Osho to relocate to the U. S.[67][68][69] The U.S. authorities believed that Osho had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States.[65]

The only POV that is excluded, as far as I can see, is the one by Fox, who states categorically that Osho had not initially intended to stay permanently in the US, and possibly the one by Meredith, who states that Osho was "reluctant" to go to the US. Jayen 466 00:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bump. will be returning to this. Do not archive. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome in Oregon

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Further to the Carter quote posted above, I'll try to put together some more sources detailing various observers' assessment of the welcome Osho and his commune received in Oregon. I'll start off with Latkin (to see the publication, click on the author name).

The Rajneeshees did not receive a cordial welcome to Oregon. Soon after the Rajneeshees arrived in Oregon, church leaders began denouncing Rajneesh and his followers. Petitions were circulated to rid the state of this supposed public menace. Letters to the editors in newspapers around the state reviled the Rajneeshees. One such letter on 15 April, 1982 state, "Are we going to stand by and see another Sodom and Gomorrah rise, or are we going to make a stand for morality and our children's futures?" Another letter in March of that year declared, "It [the Rajneeshees] is a cancer in our midst and like a cancer will spread beyond control throughout the whole state." Hostility arose out of Rajneesh's daily drive into the town of Madras, which is about 50 miles from Rajneeshpuram. Awaiting his arrival at the edge of town, where Rajneesh would turn around and head back, was a group of protesters led by a local fundamentalist preacher.
— Latkin (1992)

Jayen 466 23:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, is it correct that the lede says that the conflict was "primarily about land-use"? "Primarily" can mean first in time as well as first in importance. Redheylin (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We could change it to "mainly". Jayen 466 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the sources leads me to conclude that the land use issues were first and foremost among the list of troubles. As far as I recall the "primarily" is from one of the sources, it's not mine, if I can find a cite you can add it. The evangelical/religious conflict is a side show, and I'm not prepared to go down the Reagan/Evangelicals conspiracy route just yet. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that section is quite good now as it stands with the insertions from Abbot, and considerably improved from what it was before. Thanks. Jayen 466 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

Semi, please note that you have reverted the lede three times now. Per WP:ASF, I'd rather not state this opinion as fact in the lede, given that some sources take a more differentiated view, in particular ascribing a key role to Sheela in the decision to go to the U.S. Jayen 466 23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the number or reverts made, that is my daily quota now accounted for. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that 3RR does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. But I'm confident we can sort this out amicably. Jayen 466 01:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position, no one (I believe) denies that there was bad health, mounting tension, disputes and perhaps even the threat of punitive measures by the authorities. What I feel less certain about is the "provided the impetus", since this involves speculation and is disputed by some sources. If a fact is disputed, we should not state it as a fact, and the lede is not the place to present the various opinions. Hope that helps. Jayen 466 23:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement is made by Goldman, arguably a sympathetic scholar, and is made some 25 years after the fact, I think, considering she is an academic, has had time to read the available sources, and has most likely considered all perspectives, that we can safely conclude that her view on the matter is authoritative. Can you please outline exactly what sources dispute the impetus aspect? Semitransgenic (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, (1) FitzGerald, who appears considerably less definite in her assessment, (2) Palmer, who says it appears to have been a unilateral decision on Sheela's part, (3) Fox, who says that he went for medical reasons, at Sheela's insistence, and followers in India were instructed to keep looking for a site in India, (4) Joshi, who cites medical reasons. Carter (1990) does not appear to make a definite statement on Osho's motivation regarding the move (at least I have not been able to find one so far); his account of the move appears to concentrate on sannyasins' activities. Jayen 466 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

of those, Carter is the only one I would assess as having a neutral position, the others are all sympathisers with FitzGerald swinging away, Palmer and Fox towards, and Joshi, the official biographer (mythographer), 'official version' only. Again, reading Goldman, she leans toward sympathetic, yet she is offering the above statement as her summary. From what I have seen, there are more sources supporting Goldmans view than the "medical reasons" hypothesis. Also, from what I have seen to date, I find it very difficult to accept that events in India did not provide an impetus when it is in actuality a self evident truth; its simply a denial of 'reality' to suggest otherwise. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Being sympathetic to a subject does not preclude neutrality. SemiT, you consider any source that is sympathetic as being non-neutral and therefore of less value and any source that is not sympathetic as being 'neutral'. However, this is simply an extension of your 'if it supports my opinion it is neutral' POV and I don't see that as helpful to moving this article forward. Your opinions tend to get in the way.jalal (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt exclusively with information presented in a wide range of sources, as posted on this page. If I expressed a personal opinion it was contextualised as such. Editors can have opinions, not an issue at all, for instance, you clearly have an opinion, so please decline from engaging in hypocrisy. However, personal opinions should not mainfest themselves in the content of the article, I am well aware of this. Other editors on this page have also made disctinctions regarding sources, and other editors 'opinions' are proving problematic when it comes to allowing the article to represent multiple view points (supported with verifiable sources). Again, please note: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree (apart from the personal attacks). I'm not dissing your source research, which is excellent, it's your insistence that it be presented in a particular way to reflect your opinions. You were called up about this in January and what was said then still stands. Otherwise I appreciate your contributions to the article and do note that you are editing more responsibly than you were then. Thank you. jalal (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

that was then, this is now, deal with the present. My 'opinions', as you call them, relate to the fact that a number of sources have not been given due consideration or representation; this is essentially a reemergence of the earlier resistance that both you and jayen exhibited - when faced with source material that challenged your 'collective opinion'. The efforts displayed in trying to redress the imbalance can be interpreted as an expression of 'an opinion', if you so desire, but it is not exclusively 'my' opinion. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As you are aware, that is a sword that cuts both ways. I could as easily have written that about you and your resistance to the facts etc. etc. Lets try to move on. jalal (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

who opened the wound? this is circular. moving on. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that perceived "sympathy" or "hostility" is not in and of itself a good reason for disregarding a source. Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view does not mean allowing only sources that appear "neutral" to an individual editor, quite the contrary. Jayen 466 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this, I have never suggested disregarding sources that meet the verifiability criteria, the point is that there is bias towards a particular perspective based on an editors source preferences. Resistance to the inclusion of contrary views exists, that is the reason for the current assessment of sources, it is not for the purposes of excluding any. I also note that the number of citations provided for Fox indicates that there may be a weighting issue. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a reword that may, I hope, serve as a compromise. Jayen 466 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

two points about the following: In 1981, suffering from bad health and faced with mounting tension, criticism and possible punitive action by Indian authorities, Osho relocated to the United States. His follower established an intentional community, later known as Rajneeshpuram, in the state of Oregon. That he was suffering from bad health is disputed. The suffering from labours the point, yet again, as it does in the main section where we have significant weight given to an alleged back problem. The other point relates to his followers established it ignores another self-evident truth, namely that Osho generated money, be it through book and tape sales, retreat fees, or donations. RFI dealt with cash flow and RIC with investments. Inner circle members made purchases using RFI money, at the behest of Osho, therefore it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise, and serves only to obscure the facts relating to the establishment of the commune. This is back to the 'Osho floating on a cloud hypotheses'; strange that he remembered his jewelery when heading to Bermuda. Please note again the words of Osho regarding Oregon. We have again denial of self-evident truth in an effort to distance 'the man' from 'the movement'. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial to state that his followers established a community in Oregon. The literature is awash with accounts of how hard they worked in order to do so. Osho arrived six weeks later; thereafter, he did nothing but sit in his house, take long showers and go on drives in his Rolls-Royces. Jayen 466 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we be clear regarding the source of funds? or do we need to run a source expose on the Rajneesh Corporation's financial dealings? Saying his followers 'established a commune' is a little simplistic considering Osho provided both the vision and the capital, we can hammer that view out also while we are at it. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have a source expose on financial dealings, but I'm not sure how to go about it. As for Osho supplying funds, there is no indication that he had a bank account, let alone any capital to support a city in the desert. All indications are that the funds came from donations from followers, the initial seed capital coming from Sheela and her husband. jalal (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Capital came from RFI, a break down is supplied in Carter, a shorter overview in Mullan, there are other sources that detail the growth of the coporation from it's early days. Again, what you suggest is simply a strategy to subtract the man from the movement; therefore negating culpability. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to turn any point of view that disagrees with yours into an attempt to promote a POV, rather than a simple statement of the facts that it is. jalal (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, again you accuse me of WP:POV offences when it is not 'my' point of view, that's what you keep missing, it is a documented view, one that sees Osho and his movement as undifferentiated, one that sees Osho as a director who made decisions, who generated capital, and had a say in determining its usage. Stating 'he never had a bank account' does not remove any connection with RFI capital, it is an intentionally over simplistic analysis and is an expression of 'your' point of view.Semitransgenic (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)