Osho edit
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a solid B class article that needs direction to be taken to the next level.
Thanks,
TheRingess (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article is not neutral in the slightest. It reads like a blatant puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash. Some specific points:
- It seems as if distasteful information about "Osho" is pushed down into a "Controversy and criticism", whereas this info would be better off incorporated chronologically into the article itself, and expanded upon, instead of briefly mentioned in passing in couple lines.
- The immigration violations are covered in one sentence. This was a major United States Federal Government investigation. This needs to be elaborated upon, instead of just skimmed over as if this was a minor incident. See [1], and [2], [3] for some more info that is barely covered in the article at all.
- Several legal cases and cases from United States Federal courts are not covered at all. These should at the very least be mentioned and summarized within the article. To name a few notable ones:
- United States of America v. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, et al.
- Rajneesh Friends International v. United States
- Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International
- State of Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram -- This one was a landmark case involving a discussion of a potential violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- In addition to the bioterrorism attack, the first in United States history, which is only covered in eight words of the entire article, the other incidents listed briefly, (serious and criminal misconduct by the commune's management (including conspiracy to murder public officials, wiretapping within the commune, the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician), conspiracy to murder a United States attorney is not even mentioned or discussed at all.
- In summation, coverage of the above extremely controversial issues is glossed over, and barely discussed. These sections of the article are grossly in need of expansion, unless editors wish for the article to read like a praising hagiography piece which lauds over its subject and skims over unimportant details like conspiracy to murder federal officials, and bioterrorism, all of which are heavily covered and available in both government sources, books, media/news, and reputable websites.
Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
Having had a major hand in revising much of the article earlier this year, I have for some time been aware that it relies too much on direct evaluation of primary sources, rather than on the available secondary sources. So I had planned to re-write much of the article, based on the available academic literature. – As for the comments by Curt Wilhelm VonSavage above, the space given to Sheela's crimes in the article is roughly equivalent to the amount of space accorded them in the most recent scholarly treatment of Osho's life and work (Judith M. Fox, Osho Rajneesh). In this context, it should be noted that the American authorities never brought any indictments against Osho in connection with these crimes or even named him as a co-conspirator. To the extent that some of the crimes were directed against persons who enjoyed Osho's closest trust, that would have been absurd anyway (Sheela got twenty years for trying to murder Osho's personal physician, a man that Osho made one of the main administrators of his estate at the time of his passing).
The recent article review by WP Admin/Bureaucrat User:Nichalp did not raise major neutrality issues. -- Jayen466 22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)