Talk:Rajneesh movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversies

Some of the controversies mentioned in the Osho page should be expanded upon here. Some might also be moved PROVIDED the articles are suitably cross linked and no serious allegations are missing in the Osho page (62.47.2.150 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Wan't about mentioning how the Rashnishees (pardon my spelling) forcefully took over Anteloupe Oregon and that it was their massive food poisoning effort (that I believe killed some citizens) that finally got them kicked the hell out of here. Remember? Anyone? They were growing bacteria, and viruses for use in biochemical warefare. They got caught after they went and spritzed ecoli on the town's salad bars,etc. Shouldn't that sick shit be in here?-Lisa R.

There is a separate article for that at 1984 Rajneeshee bioterrorism attack. I've added a mention and link to it here. -- Jayen466 14:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh

The Indian prime minister "reveres" Osho? That is news to me, and is not borne out by the source. Singh has said that he enjoys reading Osho's books, and has done Osho book launches, but he has done the same sort of thing for Sai Baba and others. Please tone down. Jayen466 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466, the information which you have seems to not be present in the currently cited article. I cannot profess to know all that you do on the subject, all I can do is attempt to convey a source's interpretation as much as possible. My usage of the word was merely an interpretation of the word "admire", which is used in the source. According to Merriam-Webster, revere means "to honor and admire profoundly and respectfully." This is the definition which I based the word choice on. However, as you have pointed out, "revere" can also carry connotations of religious preference, which I had not originally considered. I have changed the article to use the word "admire", to more closely match the source and avoid any confusion. Also, if you have such qualms in the future, I remind you that you may attempt to correct the word usage yourself just as easily as I can. All that is necessary is to adequately state your case in the edit summary and make the change that you believe best suits the article. ←Spidern→ 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Spidern, if you want to do some work expanding the article, two scholarly sources summarising the movement's history, including developments since the guru's death, are [1] and [2] Jayen466 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal invitation, but I would request that any future invitations addressed specifically to me be made on my talk page, as this is a page for all concerned editors to comment on the article itself. I cannot guarantee that I'll have time to work on the article, but the sources you have provided should be useful in the case that anyone else would like to do so. ←Spidern→ 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Jayen466 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the second source recommended above by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) refers to the movement as Rajneesh movement and the first as Osho Rajneesh movement. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Article moved

I've moved the article to match Osho's name. Osho never uses Osho movement to describe themselves.[3]

• Their contact page says they use Osho International and Osho International Foundation.
• Their copyright page uses OSHO International and OSHO International Foundation.
• http://www.osho.com/oshointernational uses OSHO International in the banner and Osho International in the text.

Osho International seems to be their American publishing arm and Osho International Foundation is the name for the group itself. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Osho International Foundation is a registered business in Zurich. Osho movement is a collective term used to describe people who subscribe to Osho's views, I'm not sure that there is any overlap between the two. OIF is currently doing all it can to distance itself from the person Osho, while the Osho movement is (by definition) not. It's clear that there is no connection between the two. FWIW, I think that Osho movement doesn't really need an entry here anyway, so moving it to OIF is probably more useful, just so long as it doesn't turn into an advertisment for a business. It will mean extensive rewriting of the article though as currently the text is about the movement, not about OIF jalal (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I started writing the new article but it means completely deleting the old article and replacing it with new text and that seemed rather drastic. I suggest we keep the existing article and if you want, you can create a new article for OIF. As such, I've attempted to revert the change. If you insist on the move, maybe we can look at a) what text to use in the new article and b) what to do with the existing text. jalal (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that it was moved back. Your explanation about the movement vs. OIF makes perfect sense. I had not realized the group had splintered and thus was surprised to see so little reference to Rajneesh on the OIF web site. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See also one section down, Talk:Rajneesh_movement#Rajneesh_movement. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh movement

Moved to Rajneesh movement. This article has always been about the movement, not the organization, and the term Rajneesh movement is the most predominant used in WP:RS sources. For example: 360 hits in books, 152 hits in scholarly sources, 19 more in news sources. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

1. Neo-sannyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. Rajneeshee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two pages should be merged here into this page and be one comprehensive page discussing the various terms for the Rajneesh movement. The term Rajneesh movement is the most predominantly used term in books and scholarly sources, whereas the other terms are not discussed nearly as much in and of themselves in WP:RS sources, in a discussion independent of the Rajneesh movement. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with merging the other two articles with this one; there is very little substance in them. As for the article name: The movement was established in 1970, and covered in many reliable sources. In 1989, the founder changed his name from Bhagwan Rajneesh to Osho. He died about a year later. The movement survived his death. RS (in both google scholar and google books) presently have a 2:1 preponderance of "Rajneesh movement" over "Osho movement". "Osho movement" naturally only occurs in sources published after the name change, but it is by no means rare: [4][5]. And my sense is that "Osho movement" is the preferred term when referring to current affairs involving the movement, rather than matters of 20 or 30 years ago: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. In addition, as the movement is ongoing, I would prefer using the present self-identifying term, rather than the historical term, in line with Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms. Needless to say, there should be a redirect from Rajneesh movement to here, and there should be a strong reference to the name Rajneesh movement, explaining the historical development. Jayen466 10:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merge, disagree with a name other than Rajneesh movement, because as you note, reliable sources use the term Rajneesh movement much more than "Osho movement", which is not used as much in sources, as we both have noted, above. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Even in recent times, Rajneesh movement is still the more predominant term: 87 hits vs. 48 hits. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, as it happens, I performed exactly the same searches as you, using the 2004 OR 2005 etc. :) But doesn't the WP preference for self-identifying terms take precedence? Jayen466 10:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We should use as a model which term is used more predominantly in a preponderance of reliable sources, books and scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia:Naming conflict also notes that reliable sources should be relied upon: see A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources). Cirt (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Rajneesh movement is also the more predominant term in encyclopedias: Rajneesh movement vs. Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And, this also strengthens Cirt's push to have Osho renamed to Rajneesh, so it makes sense from that point of view. jalal (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's please keep each discussion separate, and keep comments focused on the discussion at hand, as opposed to individual contributors. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are no objections to a merge of the above two articles. Multiple comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower also were in favor of a merge here. I am going to go ahead and do it, as it seems like the majority of this discussion is focused on this page itself. Cirt (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was some pretty strong consensus for a merge like this, and thanks for moving ahead with that.

However, I think there's still a legitimate discussion going on about what the best name for the merged article is. Since there's a similar discussion taking place on the Talk:Osho page, I suggest we just discuss the whole issue over there (maintaining separate sections for the name of this article and the Osho article). Any objections? -Pete (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

it makes sense to discuss the name for the article in one place. but note that it wasn't really discussed here, and the consensus was to not change the name of the article. it happened anyway. jalal (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth - These are two separate discussions now that there were no objections to the merge - one about naming of this page, the other about naming of the page currently located at Osho. Best to keep the two separate on each respective talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Back in January 2009, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) himself recommended two scholarly sources for use in this article. One refers to the movement as Rajneesh movement and the other as Osho Rajneesh movement. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It would probably help us all if you kept your personal vendetta against Jayen out of the WP editing process. I find it a little disturbing that you are more motivated by dissing another editor that you are about improving Wikipedia. Maybe you could challenge each other to a duel and settle it that way? Something that doesn't involve WP? jalal (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if you misinterpreted the statement - but I was commenting on the referencing recommended above by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) - not on the editor himself. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what I mean. But enough... jalal (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jalal (talk · contribs), in the future please take care to WP:AGF. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough... jalal (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Move was premature, no consensus

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names expresses a clear and unambiguous preference for the self-identifying term. The movement has not referred to its founder as Rajneesh for 20 years. As the name Osho movement is used in a substantial proportion of RS, I see no reason not to use it. The move from Osho movement to Rajneesh movement was premature; there was no consensus on this talk page for it, and it is not supported by the naming conflict guideline. Jayen466 10:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought about asking first for consensus but saw that active editing had stopped in January, there were no conflicts/discussion regarding the name on the talk page, and so moved it per WP:BOLD. I have no problem with that the article was moved back as I had not realized at the time that the "movement" was entirely separate from the "organization." I think I understand the territory a little better now though am confused about Osho vs. OSHO. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Rajneesh movement supported by large majority of RS sources

360 hits in books, 152 hits in scholarly sources. Most WP:RS sources, and also, most other encyclopedias, do not predominantly use the phrase "Osho movement", but rather "Rajneesh movement". We should take our lead from these reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Title for this page

Title for article describing movement associated with guru Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Cirt

There are basically three options we can go with:

1. Rajneesh movement
2. Osho Rajneesh movement
3. Osho movement

The term Rajneesh movement is the most predominant used in WP:RS sources. For example: 360 hits in books, 152 hits in scholarly sources. Even when limiting the search to more recent results, "Rajneesh movement" is still by far the more predominant term used in books: 87 hits vs. 48 hits.

Back in January 2009, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) himself recommended two scholarly sources for use in this article. One refers to the movement as Rajneesh movement and the other as Osho Rajneesh movement. I would be fine leaving this page as is as "Rajneesh movement" (the term used most often in WP:RS sources to refer to it) or as a compromise I would also be fine going with "Osho Rajneesh movement", which was the original title for this page, and is a term used in one of the scholarly sources proposed above by Jayen466 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

The Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names guideline gives clear instructions on how to name articles. I'll quote the relevant section:

How to make a choice among controversial names

Article names

Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Proper nouns

The key principles in summary are:

• If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
• If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself.

  [...]

Self-identifying terms

Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name). Articles should report the objective fact that such names are used; if another nation or group disputes the right to use that name, then information about that dispute (if it is notable) should also be given in the appropriate place. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Here are matches from a prominent Osho movement website: 122 matches for Osho movement, 1 match for Rajneesh movement (from an old book title). Jayen466 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent RS coverage of the Osho movement

An editor commented below that the movement had faded into a historical curiosity. Having researched this topic area quite thoroughly, I don't agree. There may have been less current affairs reporting on Osho and his followers in the West, but there is a lot in India and Nepal.

• Osho's writings are regularly featured in quality Indian papers, naturally under the Osho name. This appeared two days ago on the Times of India editorial page, this is a similar article from earlier this month.
• Members of the Osho movement are often called "Oshoite(s)" in the Indian press: [12]
• India had an Oshoite minister of external affairs a few years back (Vinod Khanna) [13]. Previously, he was briefly minister for tourism, wanting to promote "spiritual tourism" to Indian locations. Etc.

I gave a few examples of recent Western RS coverage earlier:

• [14][15][16][17][18][19]
• The so-called "Osho judgment" (2002) by the German Supreme Court mentioned in some of the above sources has set a much-quoted legal precedent in Germany: [20][21] It is never referred to as "Rajneesh judgment" ([22]).
• The Osho movement is ongoing as described here and here: 'The Osho group continues to make between $15 million to $45 million per year in the USA from corporate clients such as BMW, providing opportunities for stressed executives to "release anger from their systems"', from Selling Spirituality: The silent takeover of religion, Taylor & Francis.

The Osho (not Rajneesh) Meditation Resort has substantial contemporary news coverage, both in India and in the West: [23] Jayen466 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On balance, I think I am in favour of reverting to "Osho movement" and explaining the historically based name "Rajneesh movement" in the lede, with a redirect from Rajneesh movement to Osho movement. I'd support Osho/Rajneesh movement as second choice. Jayen466 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Though "Rajneesh movement" is the term predominantly used in reliable sources, I would not object to "Osho Rajneesh movement", the term used in the book Controversial New Religions which was recommended by Jayen466 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be Osho movement (Rajneesh movement) in analogy to Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Jayen466 10:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really - the term "Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)" is used as a title for biographical articles on Rajneesh in reliable sources but "Osho movement (Rajneesh movement)" does not show up anywhere. However, "Rajneesh movement" and "Osho Rajneesh movement" do. Cirt (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And so does "Osho movement" ... which is demonstrably the self-identifying term, and used in a good third of RS. But enough. Jayen466 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... how about "Osho (Rajneesh) movement"? I've found that in European census data. [24] Jayen466 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The analysis presented by Abecedare (talk · contribs) Talk:Rajneesh_movement#Comment_by_Abecedare is quite compelling. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not once you take a closer look at it, in my view. I've commented below. Cheers, Jayen466 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jalal

Another option is to have two articles. The Rajneesh Movement would describe the movement up until 1990 covering early Pune, Rajneeshpuram, orange clothes and such and Osho Movement which would cover the current state of the game. jalal (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That thought occurred to me as well. It would be tricky to handle though, given that the sources mix and match both the terms and the relevant time periods. Jayen466 09:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Except the various splinter groups don't really use the term "Osho movement", but have corporate/promotional business names "Osho International", "The Osho Experience", "Osho World", "Osho Meditation Resort", etc. I doubt whether any of those individual organizations or companies have received enough coverage from independent WP:RS sources to satisfy WP:NOTE and have their own individual article. Cirt (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are probably enough sources for Osho World and definitely enough for the Osho International Meditation Resort to satisfy WP:NOTE, but I have never felt a great temptation to start an article on those. The fact is, both of them operate under the moniker Osho, and hence we should have Osho in the name of this article. Jayen466 09:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the moniker in these instances seems to be in the sense of marketing of a company and a product, which does not get away from the fact that the vast majority of WP:RS sources use Rajneesh movement, even when limiting to the more recently published books. We should follow the usage in the preponderance of reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Spidern

Both the terms "Osho movement" and "Rajneesh movement" have been used, and neither is any more "correct" than another. We should not be definitively ruling what the group is to be called; both terms hold significance. Popularity contests don't really invalidate the usage of either term, and a person researching the movement should be made aware of the historical relationship between the two different names for the group. I therefore agree with Jayen466's alternate suggestion that the article be renamed to Osho/Rajneesh movement, because it serves as a compromise and also because it acknowledges both names of the movement. Using a slash is important, because instead a dash or a space, it denotes "or". This name effectively says "The Osho movement, formerly known as the Rajneesh movement", or "The Osho movement, also known as the Rajneesh movement." ←Spidern→ 12:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Off2riorob

I believe people are coming here (to the wiki)in the majority looking for Osho, you'll see that actually the only article with a decent edit count is the Osho page. People from Oregon see only Rajneesh and rajneeshee as those where the term applied by them during the events that occured there 25 years ago. Rajneeshee is imo a derogatory term used only in relation to the crimes commited in Oregon 25 years ago. Within the people that are interested in Osho ( which imo are the vast majority of the people visiting the Osho page ) there is no such expression as rajneesh movement, they consider themselves as individuals and as sannyasins or neo sannyasins, the Neo sannyasin page has recently been removed on the grounds of merging here, whereas perhaps I would work to improve the neo sannyasin page , I would never work on or read any page involved with rajneeshee. You would see if you create two separate pages , totally separate pages and see where the trafic flows. imo Osho has moved on and so have his Neo sannyasins. Why not allow the Oregonians to create their own separate pages about the rajneeshees and the rajneeshee movement, with a link to the Osho pages and see where the trafic flows, It seems strange to me to rename pages that are against the flow of traffic. so...if you insist on movement then rajneesh movement is the least realistic. the Osho movement is the one that in reality exists now , the Osho foundation in pune and osho world in delhi and tapoban in nepal could all be described as parts of the present Osho movement. so I am for that... and links can be put to bhagwan shree rajneesh . (Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by Marc Kupper

I'd call it the Rajneesh/Osho movement. Of the existing references listed in the article four use Rajneesh alone, one uses Rajneesh/Osho, one uses Osho Rajneesh, and one uses Osho alone in their titles. All of these articles were written in the past ten years and well after the organization, and perhaps the movement itself switched to using Osho or OSHO.

I would not use use Osho movement as the article title as the movement seems to have been centered around the personality of Rajneesh/Osho himself and with his death has faded into being a historical curiosity that was known as the Rajneesh movement. Starting with this Google News search I see that only mainstream coverage is about the criminal trials and convictions of former members, the old commune site in Oregon, internal conflicts over copyrights and other property, occasional features on the late Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and more recently, the Guru of Sex movie. Mainstream news coverage of the movement itself has been nonexistent. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper (talk · contribs) - You have previously moved this page [25], commented at this page [26]. You have also previously commented at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) [27] and [28]. All of that took place prior to this RfC. That is why I had moved your comment into the Previously involved editors section - you were not a respondent coming to this discussion because of the posting at WP:RFC, and you are not previously uninvolved. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Abecedare

Looking for reliable scholarly sources:

Database	Rajneesh Movement	Osho Movement	Osho Rajneesh movement
Google books	360 hits	94 hits	24 hits
Google scholar	160 hits	66 hits	6 hits
JSTOR	55	5	1

• Based on the above results, I would recommend using Rajneesh movement for the article title.
• OR (based on Osho): Osho was known as Rajneesh for a most his life as a guru (20+years), and as Osho for <1 year; so it is not surprising that most of the articles about the movement(s) he created refer to it as "Rajneesh movement". It's true that his following didn't suddenly disappear following his death, but a quick (unscientific) survey seems to indicate that most of the sources and a bulk of this article deals with event when he was alive.
• Since he chose to call himself Osho before his death, it's proper to give that name primacy in Osho's biographical article. However since neither the "Osho movement", nor the "Rajneesh movement" are proper names of any formal organization^†, I don't think self-identification trumps common use for this article. (†: Let me know if I am wrong about this, since then I'll flip my preference.)
• I would strongly recommend against using constructs like Osho/Rajneesh movement since they have no currency off-wiki. I think there is a guideline against such compromises, but I'm too lazy to look it up. :)
• General comment: I think there should be less emphasis on article naming on wikipedia. For most readers, including alternate names in the first sentence of the article is sufficiently informative; and readers who don't even bother to read the first sentence ... well, what can we do ?
• Disclosure: I came here after seeing this announcement at the Hinduism noticeboard. Previously, I have commented at an RSN and an AFD related to Osho. If any of the involved editors feel that this makes me involved too, I'll move my comment.
  

Finally, if anyone can suggest other databases to search for sources, I can try that too. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this excellent analysis by Abecedare (talk · contribs). A note: I had left notices about the RFC at the relevant WikiProjects related to this page [29], [30], [31]. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I disagree with the method of analysis by User:Abacadare (with respect.)As these sort of searches do nothing of value to account as to whether or not the numbers are wikipedia reliable sources. This topic is discussed here. [[32]]. Also could I just point out that any new items of news about the 'movement' are going to be reported in the 'handle' that the movement has taken since almost twenty years are going to be in the name of Osho , to me it would seem silly adding items to the page that have been reported under the 'tag' Osho and rebranding them on wikipedia under the now defunct Rajneesh. The movement is not contained by the death of it's guru and is you could easily make a case that it is in growth , with it's biggest ever book and video deals and the video clips on the Osho International site on utube has had over 5 million views. These people didn't go there looking for Rajneesh they went there looking for Osho and that is what the vast majority of people come to the wikipedia related articles looking for . One of the video clips has had in two years 951,615 views, none of these people were looking for the Rajneesh movement. it was Osho and the Osho movement they are looking for. I can see of no reason worth its salt for wikipedia attempting to continally keep refering to a movement that is alive and for the last twenty years has been refering to itself and in the press under the tag Osho.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

• Comment: In my view, we should adopt the usage that the most authoritative sources being written today employ. The above figures reflect sources dating back to the 1970s, years before the name change from Rajneesh to Osho occurred. In addition, they include all books that quote passages or titles of books from yesteryear. Looking at the books published this year and last (2008/2009), we get the following for Rajneesh movement in google books: [33]. There are 11 matches (the first page says 13, but the second page only adds one more). Five of these are "Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases" corpuses, which quote Wikipedia. They are irrelevant for our purposes. Let's examine the 6 hits that remain:

1. This one quotes a study whose results were published in 1994. It is irrelevant for illustrating current usage.
2. This one uses "Rajneesh movement" in the title of a cited book, a book published in 1993.
3. This is a collection of abstracts published in 1996, and the term "Rajneesh movement" occurs in the abstract of a 1995 publication. (2008 and 2009 only occur as page numbers.)
4. This has the term "Rajneesh movement" occurring in the title of a 1986 publication: Judith Thompson (Fox) and Paul Heelas: The Way of the Heart: The Rajneesh Movement.
5. This again cites the same 1986 publication by Thompson/Heelas.
6. This cites the same book, Thompson/Heelas 1986.

We see that not a single 2008/2009 occurrence marks contemporary use. We also see that the book by Thompson and Heelas seems well cited, suggesting it would make a useful source for this article.

Now for comparison, the 2008/2009 google books hits for "Osho movement". There are 6 hits.

1. This is contemporary writing about the movement.
2. This refers to another 1989 (?) work using the term.
3. This is a contemporary reference to the movement.
4. This is a contemporary scholarly reference, applying the term retrospectively to the movement.
5. This is the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2007 by the United States Congress House, using the term "Osho movement". It is a contemporary reference in an official context.
6. This is the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2006 by the United States Congress House, again using the term "Osho movement".

To summarise, five of these hits reflects contemporary rather than historical writing on the topic, including scholarly and government use. The United States State Department has several references to "Osho movement" on its website: [34]. It has none for "Rajneesh movement": [35] This is a clear indication that contemporary usage prefers Osho movement. Just like our article is called Mumbai and not Bombay, despite sources using Bombay vastly outnumbering those using Mumbai, this article should be called Osho movement, in line with present-day writing. 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Jayen466

• Contemporary usage prefers Rajneesh movement:

Database	Rajneesh Movement	Osho Movement
Google books (January 2000 - February 2009)	143 hits	74 hits

• Nuff said. We should stick with Rajneesh movement, the more commonly used term in WP:RS sources, no matter how you slice it. :) Cirt (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I would say there was quite a fair bit of debate here pointing to the authoritative modern usage being Osho movement. WP:WORD (Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Updated comments

• Reponse to Off2riorob
  • Yes, page hits is not a perfect tool since it mixes in sources of variable reliability and also gives equal importance to a whole books or chapters on the subject written by a scholar (eg, Thompson/Heelas, 1986) and casual mention in works that are devoted to other subjects/fields. However it is often a useful tool if (1) we have a large enough hit-count, (2) we choose a search database that is at least dominated by reliable sources (eg, general google search results are useless), and (3) we don't over-interpret the result (eg saying 120 hits establishes more common usage compared to 100 hits). In such a case, the unreliable sources inflate the hit-counts of all the contenders, and do not significantly affect the relative statistics. An advantage of comparing raw hit count is that being machine-generated it does not suffer from human selection bias (cherry picking).
  • In our case, I think the 3 conditions are satisfied. In fact, the JSTOR hits (which are almost surely all highly reliable) are even more skewed towards "Rajneesh movement" than Google Books/Scholar databases.
  • That said, source hits need not be the only analytical tool that we use. If you have a better or complementary tool in mind, do present the results. Unfortunately talking about utube (Youtube?) video views is absolutely worthless in this discussion.
• Response to Jayen466
  • I agree with the principal you propose that we should "adopt the usage that the most authoritative sources being written today employ" if by written today you mean sources consistent with the modern scholarly standards. That would generally include books published by mainstream/academic/university presses over the lest 50-100 years (will vary somewhat with subject area of course - with medicine, for example, being especially fast changing, while sociology and religion, which are relevant here, are slow moving fields). I think that principle is consistent with a commonsensical reading of "common name" prescribed by wikipedia guidelines.
  • However, if by "being written today" you means sources published in last 1-2 years, then I disagree because, (1) it is too close to WP:RECENTISM and not suitable for a tertiary source like an encyclopedia that is supposed to be stable and timeless, (2) it allows the tail to wag the dog in that a couple of publications can dramatically skew the results (which itself may change every year or two)
  • To expand on (2) above: You'll note that not one of the the linked works published in 2008-09 is a focused study of the Rajneesh/Osho movement. To let such relatively casual usage outweigh in-depth works (eg, Thompson/Heelas, 1986 or Puttick, 1993, which have been cited), just because the former are more recent, doesn't sound right to me. Publications from the 1980s, 90s etc are not historical (as in "dated") for an organizations that had its heydays in the 70's-80's.
  • Comparison with Mumbai: As I said in my original statement, I do think official names, though not necessarily determinative, should be given significant weightage in making article naming decisions. Can we establish if "Rajneesh Movement" and/or "Osho Movement" is the official title of an organization, perhaps by searching trademark or company incorporation databases ? If that turns out to be the case I will support a rename. However, if they are just convenient labels, then we should go by common usage that IMO supports "Rajneesh Movement" by quite some margin.

Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • The movement is obviously not an organisation, but encompasses various organisations, some of them at loggerheads with each other. However, in present-day official contexts, the moniker "Osho" is used as a matter of course. This applies to recent trademark disputes, to case law, and to US human rights reporting, as per examples above. For examples of recent scholarly studies using the Osho moniker, see [36], [37][38]; [39]. We have to agree to disagree; I think we should use the modern term that has supplanted the old one. As a compromise, I have previously indicated that Osho (Rajneesh) movement or Osho/Rajneesh movement (see here for example) would suit me as well. JN466 23:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Abecedare - (edit conflict) There are a few organizations that in the past have fought over use of the term "Osho" to primarily to sell "Osho" books and promotional materials, but most of those fail WP:NOTE. However the movement itself has always predominantly been referred to as Rajneesh movement. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Abacedare. I feel your reference to my opinion as worthless to be a bit severe, however that is your opinion. My reference to the 5 million video watches in two years on the Osho Internation Youtube site is totally relevant. Osho is what people are looking for now and rajneesh is in the past, the movement is alive and not stuck in the past. Why would Wikipedia or anybody want to insist on calling a movement that has for years been refered to and refers to itself under the Osho umbrella tag? and this from year to year will only get stronger. I suggest that we could try something to decide ... totally seperate the two, duplicate the article and remove the links, create one stand alone Osho movement article and the same article with the title rajneesh movement and let the public decide, you will see what the public are typing in the boxes and it is not rajneesh it is Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

YouTube is not a WP:RS. As opposed to these books, which for the most part are. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorib, I thought I was quite clear in not labeling your "opinion as worthless" - else I wouldn't have spent the time considering and responding to it it detail. But yes, youtube hits, are worthless as far as this discussion is considered. You can confirms at RSn if you wish. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Osho http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Rajneesh http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Osho_movement http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Rajneesh_movement (note DYK spike on 2 May) JN466 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In looking at those figures you would discount an anomalaty like that spike. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

In reply to Jayen's comment. I would be quite happy to accept also Osho (Rajneesh) movement or Osho/Rajneesh movement. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Traffic statistics are irrelevant and a poor measure - as traffic can be manipulated by Wikipedia articles that refer to each other. WP:RS sources are the best measure. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you insist on calling an article rajneesh ... when trafic was only coming to the article by linking it up to Osho ...? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Traffic was coming to the article because for a time it was named with "Osho". Over time, the traffic will adjust to the more appropriate name. Again, it's a poor measure to use. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard it all now, "the traffic will adjust". Do you really think that your insisting on taging this article under rajneesh that the traffic flow will adjust, you can't hold back time cirt, the world has moved on since rajneeshpuram. I think it is a strange thing to do when people are coming here typing in the Osho tag that you insist on directing them to the rajneesh movment. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

It is a frivolous argument in any regard, as WP:RS sources trump analysis of "traffic". Cirt (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rajneesh movement. The times I've seen the movement referred to in sources it has been the "Rajneesh movement". That may not be entirely logical, but it does appear to tbe the more common name.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordon 1987

The Gordon 1987 cite does not work. Cirt (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gordon "opined" ?

Says who? Cirt (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio inserted into the article by Jayen466

[40] and I removed it: [41]. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) inserted blatant copyvio here, inserted "According to Urban", and then quoting directly from Urban, without using quotation marks! The part that was in quotation marks making it seem like Urban is saying this, is not even Urban's words himself but rather Urban quoting someone else. Highly inappropriate. One begins to wonder how much other blatant copyvio exists in the same fashion on articles like Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Cirt (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, please. I forgot to add the closing quotation mark. Mea culpa. And the sentence I inserted said quite clearly: "According to Urban, his followers had succeeded in portraying Rajneesh ...". Jayen466 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the most surprising feature of the Rajneesh phenomenon lay not in the scandalous events in America... = one or two words replaced, but virtually a verbatim quote from Gurus in America. If not blatant copyvio, it comes uneasily close to WP:PLAGIARISM. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Source

Another useful source: [42], compares the Rajneesh commune and Jonestown etc. Jayen466 20:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

no comment/ bot removed tag.

The bot has removed the tag, after so long with no-one wanting to get involved. I think this request was filed at the wrong place, as a comment would never have sorted this out. I suggest raising this up to a higher level , it,s a complicated decision and perhaps Arbcom ? let me know what you think?

I find it hard to believe there can be much opposition to .. Osho(rajneesh)movement.. in the way of following the Osho page...

my suggestion is just to go with that..it's simple, easy and the wheels won't drop off . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment: Consensus among previously uninvolved editors that responded to the recently closed RfC supports keeping the current name of this page, as Rajneesh movement. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

the Rfc was not closed, the bot just took the tag. I totally dispute there being any kind of qualified consensus as to inserting cirts idea. This is not a vote, there are a ream of well explained opinions here that are more worthy than claiming that there is any kind of consensus...well to be honest I can't tell you what I think about this. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

[43]. The RfC ran its course. Consensus from previously uninvolved comments is clear. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

7 editors commented. 2 (Abecedare, Cirt) were in favour of staying with "Rajneesh movement" alone. 4 (Marc Kupper, Off2riorob, Spidern, Jayen466) advocated having both names in the title, separated by a slash. 1 (Jalal) suggested having two articles for the two time periods. JN466 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Request for Comment process is specifically meant to draw in outside opinions from editors previously uninvolved in the topic. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Abacadare was asked to move to involved as he had previously commented on Osho pages. There is a consensus on the page as Jayen says to use Osho(rajneesh)movement. The idea that one uninvolved editor is a mandate to keep a name for which there is no consensus at all is beyond belief. Therer is a consensus for Osho(rajneesh)movement and that is what the title should be immediatly changed to.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

The purpose of the WP:RfC was to resolve this issue, and that is why uninvolved editors weighed in and supported use of Rajneesh movement, which is the most commonly-used term in reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

who are these uninvolved editors ? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

There is no consensus for this at all. I can't stand to discuss this in this way. If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be funny. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC))(Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Especially in topics where there are contributors that have been previously involved in the topic, and may vested interests related to the subject matter, financial or otherwise, with possible conflict of interest, it is best to utilize the WP:RfC process to rely on comments and input from previously uninvolved editors to get some fresh eyes on the matter. This is what we have done here, above. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I asked you b4, who are these uninvolved editors? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)) There are none are there? It was you who changed the name of this page without any consensus which has caused this dispute. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

The page was moved to the name of a non-notable organization which sells Osho merchandise, I moved it back to the name of the movement, and the name used most in WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What? what are you talking about? I ask you again..Who are the uninvolved editors you are talking about? Do you mind if I speak freely to you? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)) Are you confusing this disputed renaming with the christian cult disputed renaming that you are also involved in? which is here Talk:Christian_new_religious_movements#Title_discussion (Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

See above: Talk:Rajneesh_movement#Previously_uninvolved_editors. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Factions

Is this a reliable source? Sannyas News It describes copyright disputes between factions within the movement. In particular, this article: "Attack on Availability of Osho Videos". The bigger question is: Are we properly describing the current state of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that is a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. But I do think we are a bit stuck in the past in this article. JN466 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That site was being used as a source for related articles. Regarding this article, I see it doesn't mention groups like Osho World or Tapoban, and doesn't mention the OIF by its full name. Perhaps a paragraph on the current set of groups and their relationships would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This, Will Beback, is exactly what I am banging on about. I agree with you that these sections of the movement are notable enough now for inclusion in a page about the followers of Osho. In doing so, adding them here, you will be adding groups like...Osho Tapoban, Osho International and Osho World to a page title by a name that these organisations have never been involved with or left behind over 20 years ago. In fact Osho world and Osho Tapaban didn't ever exist under the tag rajneesh and anyone looking for the Osho World section of the group will be typing in Osho World ... all of the news about the group from recent times and in the future will be in the Osho tag and all the factions are to be redirected to the ragneesh tag here on wikipedia...if it wasn't so ridiculous it would be funny. Do you, Will Beback, have any objection to this page being titled.. Osho(rajneesh)movement. This I would suggest is a middle of the road solution that also reflects the title of the Osho(Bhagwan shree Rajneesh) article.(Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

If reliable sources mention the "Osho International" group and its various "Osho" merchandising efforts significantly, it might be notable enough for its own article. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

POV changes and weasel wording

These changes by Redheylin (talk · contribs) to the lede introduced lots of POV and weasel wording. Let's please avoid that and stick to secondary sources and wording they use. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:WEASEL. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, Redheylin (talk · contribs) introduces WP:WEASEL wording [44], after this was specifically pointed out to him. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material

This edit by Redheylin (talk · contribs) added completely unsourced material to this article. This is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll put back what I wrote. You are presumably referring to "some commentators" etc. so I will substitute the name of the stated authority - and I'd welcome your suggestions here as to how the usage can be given a broader definition, including any references that show the term being used:

1. inside the "movement" itself.
2. other than by commentators cited

and references showing in whose terms this is a "new religious movement" - a statement that has no source at present.

Regarding the definition of "free love" - do you require that article itself to be modified, are are you prepared to await the addition of citations to both articles? Redheylin (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is inappropriate of you to introduce WP:WEASEL wording to the article. And as the material is supported by multiple WP:RS sources, it would be way too specific to attribute every single thing in the WP:LEAD. And please do not add completely unsourced material to articles, especially articles on controversial topics. Cirt (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it controversial? I did not realise that. In what way? I have removed the ref to "new religious movement" as it is unsourced. I have never come across the term Rajneesh movement myself, and actually doubt its notability. Can you find a source describing the extent of its use, please? Please respond on this page, it is pointless to have two identical conversations. Redheylin (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed info that was sourced. Every single sentence in the article was sourced, prior to your changes. The lede is generally sourced to dup material as it is a summary of the body text, per WP:LEAD. But as this is a controversial topic, it may be best to cite every single sentence in the lede as well. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would kindly revert your changes to the lede, I will work to cite every single sentence in the lede, to show you the sources. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind that - every single sentence of the lede itself, was also sourced, prior to your changes. Please revert your changes. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it is best to use cites in the lede. There's no need for duplicate material and I'll remove improperly sourced material, just as you do. Co-operation is a wonderful thing.Redheylin (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, if you know of cites for removed material replace it. I'll follow your modus operandi. Revert and request..... Redheylin (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed material from the lede that was sourced. And instead chose to add POV WP:WEASEL wording. Please revert these changes. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article is being turned into a puff piece. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Details, please? John Carter (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of WP:WEASEL wording changes to WP:LEAD of this article. Change of subsection title from History to "Values and practices" (the subsection is still a chronologically-ordered history, with lots of puff stuff inserted). Cirt (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On a quick look I can say that at the least the lead needs to mention notable controversial elements too (WP:LEAD) such as "His death in 1990 resulted in further divisions and infighting within the movement" (or anything else). Thats one problem I see right now and I hope that Redheylin will recognize this problem and fix it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article I found was in chronological order, following incidents in the life of Osho - mostly in America - as recorded elsewhere on wiki. This article needs to focus on the "movement" - the hundreds of thousands and what they do. Everything else is off-topic. That's why I retained and strengthened, for example, the bit about divisions mentioned by Matt. There's no doubt that Osho's stay in America opened up a difference of perception between the west and the India, both in and out of the movement and that's valid information. Also important is the essay that sets out the aims of the movement and the data about its growth. The chronological order has a certain validity in the introduction of topics as things unfold, but it has already become more topical - the Poona ashram's inception is followed by its re-opening, which the sannyasins call "Poona 2". Details about the Rolls Royces and "rich man's guru" come next to details of "the movement" running businesses. This is preceded by ideas about "free love" and "women's liberation".

So the section can now be divided into topic subheads even though those topics occur in the order I found them. There's still space for all the negative views, but this article has to be about various sides of the "Rajneesh movement", not an account of his life. And that's a parallel account. Russian people were having quite another experience because Osho's books were banned there. Meanwhile Buddhist countries were responding to his talks on Buddhism. At the moment, one corner of Australia has so many people in and half-in the "movement" that there's almost an Oregon situation. There's a therapy commune in Holland that simply told Sheela to get lost and kept on going to the present day. And there are thousands more, just living privately here and there. So it's about the movement and what it's supposed to be about and what people have said about that. I think that's clear and cannot be gainsaid. A situation once arose at Orgone where, similarly, a few people think that a bald statement of what Reich thought orgone was is a "puff". Much more important is that Reich got busted in America. Well, yes, that happened, but the page is called "orgone" (and it needs fixing again too, because Reich, like Osho, is a guy that American right wing obsessives hate. And they're right, they should, but let's keep it balanced and factual.)

The lede at the moment simply defines, does it not? But the sentence is out of control, work is needed. Redheylin (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the lede is now filled with POV, and WP:WEASEL wording. The article should be a straight History presentation, in pure chronological order. If subsections are needed, it should be broken down further into time periods, perhaps by decade, not by topical theme. Topical theme introduces too much POV pushing through choice of labeling of subsection headers, as we already see from the edits by Redheylin (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I explained, in a world movement many things happen at the same time. To mention your favourite theme, while 5,000 sannyasins were working in Oregon, knowing nothing about what 12 administrators were up to, a million were wandering around doing other stuff. The events in Oregon are well-covered here but need to be supplemented by other stuff. And there are contradictions between articles. I was reading the other day about how Osho was mega-rich while "his followers" were mega-poor. Here the mega-poor disciples were rolling in money, opening businesses... The material I introduced mentions the guiding principles of the movement: stuff like "free love" and "money", "meditation" and "therapy" cannot be treated chronologically. Redheylin (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can. But anyways that info is way too much weight in this article - the sources and text you added was admittedly from another wiki article and not directly relevant to this one. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the article is bound to be about these people's POV - that's what defines them. Would you like to give an example here of how you'd work any of those topics? They were present, all the stuff about sex and business. They're presented as characteristics of the movement; please show how you can present them as a history. Redheylin (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just for reference, in the hope that this may be helpful, the chapter on the Rajneesh movement in Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America has subsections titled "The Founder", "Teachings", "Organization", "Current Status" and "Controversy".
• Melton is a useful source. Another good one, very widely cited, is Thompson/Heelas, The Way of the Heart. The Rajneesh Movement. One that has just come out is Goldman. There are useful earlier writings by Goldman, especially Passionate journeys: why successful women joined a cult‎. There is also Moon sisters, Krishna mothers, Rajneesh lovers: women's roles in new religions‎ by Susan J. Palmer. --JN466 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayen! Bloody "controversy" again! I thought Melton's kind of approach is the way to go - I suppose those headers also break down into topics a lot of the time. It makes sense to start with the founder and his ideas and then show how these were organised, and how things have worked out and the effect they've had - and I was aiming for pretty much that. I always think that it's best to organise your article more or less after the style of some notable authority so I am glad it came close. And, having that Life Awakening "manifesto" written by a third party, it seems the most succint way of stating the overall aim of the "movement" as it came together. It does not seem, though, that they put a great deal of stress on sex and business, though there are statements about life-affirmation, celebration, leela and communal self-sufficiency. So it's obvious that this is a multi-religious movement that rejects ideals of celibacy and poverty - and that's "controversial", of course - but the central binding force is not a load of people come together to have orgies in piles of banknotes, but that they break off for meditation now and then. And so, when those books found their way into those Zen monasteries, the Zen people of Korea and Japan did not have orgies in banknotes either but they high-tailed it to Poona when Osho got back to India; so did all those Russians that could suddenly get passports. That's more the kind of material - is there anything like that, or should we ring up Heelas and ask him to write something? Redheylin (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you simply go by what the existing literature says, per WP:NPOV. :) I think Thompson/Heelas, although dated, are essential, as are Goldman and Palmer. Urban in Forsthoefel/Humes is useful for more recent events. They all discuss the role of meditation in the movement.

Due to what transpired in Oregon, the neosannyas movement has also spawned considerable coverage in terrorism literature; to be NPOV, that too must be reflected here, with a link to the featured article on the bioterror attack. James T. Richardson in Regulating Religion has a long chapter on the legal aspects of Rajneeshpuram.

I am not aware of recent literature on the reception of the movement in Russia or Korea. There are one or two recent studies of the movement and its headquarters by d'Andrea, and Basnet has written one or studies in this century on the status of the movement in Nepal.

Some of these books can be researched online in google books, but others can't. And I myself have very limited wiki time at the moment ... --JN466 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that.... about your time, but also about the literature. I don't know about NPOV, though: it's simply being aware of different facets and events and that

Nepal is interesting, as is the growth of "senior disciple as guru" communes in India. I am sure that various shades of opinion have been expressed, but not so much in western books, obviously. I take your point that the latter are good as sources for meditation. Heelas will have info on Medina, but still that can overemphasise large Western communes. And also, like I grazed Osho for well-cited statements on the movement as such, I shall look over the terrorism-related articles too in the course of time, and all these articles can be linked - but the point is, for a worldwide movement, even the relative amounts that come up on Latin-alphabet Google are not a sure guide of weighting. In a country like Nepal, something like the Tapoban commune can have a considerable social impact: I am not suggesting that everything written about it is going to be good, or we should obtain the good bits, just that academic coverage is thin, so I do not understand why it would be NNPOV to seek it. Maybe all we need are translators. Anyhow.... any more detail on d'Andrea? Redheylin (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is; notable people related to movement, btw. Redheylin (talk)

I suppose, to sum up the layout debate, that an approach like Melton's is "causal", which has to reflect chronology to some degree but which nevertheless most be analysed into various elements. "Out of this idea comes this activity which gets this result and causes this reaction". Redheylin (talk)

Still without clear details as to non-neutral POV here... Redheylin (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indication of weasel wording is enough. There is also the valid complaint that the article does not reference significant external events, such as the death of Rajneesh/Osho. Particularly in movements which tend to be rasied around particular indviduals, and the subsequent fragmentation of the movement is clearly extremely relevant. Also, virtually every "religion/religious movement" article I have ever seen has a prominent history section clearly marked as such. There is no reason this one should not. Lastly, copying material from other wikipedia articles is really not a good idea. It distorts seriously the questions regarding weight and other matters, and I have never before to my knwoledge ever seen anyone actually try such actions. I have to say seeing it here does not cause me to think highly of the editor who did such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

If the above editor would sign? Redheylin (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Red, it was John Carter and I used the unsigned template for him. You replied to me above that "There's still space for all the negative views" and by that we mean controversy. According to WP:LEAD, the lede must mention controversy as well to make it balanced. There may be more issues but I'm concerned with the lede right now and want to know if you find it problematic too or not. Could you add something there to balance it and summarize the controversies? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he ought to know that weasel is not NNPOV, ought to check changes since made, and definitely ought to spellcheck - and factcheck. So I shall ignore it. Anyhow - Hello Matt. No, by "negative views" I do not mean "controversy". I'll tell you - a while ago I had to point out that the word "controversial" occurred so many times we had to go hunting. Controversy does mean that there are opposing versions of things. In the context you mention I was talking about the effect a large commune might have on Kathmandu. I'd find it "problematic" alright to sum up every facet of this movement from two viewpoints in the lede, and I was minded to go the other way and have JUST the definition, since even this is incomplete. I'd say that the defining feature of the movement is meditation. Could you sum up the "controversy" around this, for example? Or do you just want to say "the movement is controversial"? Or do you have some pet controversy you want there? I mean - every ideological system is "controversial" - there are those in it and those against it. Should we, for example, label "Republican party" and "Democratic party" as controversial? Maybe the way to go is to write a couple of sentences here outlining what you'd like included. Otherwise, just to say "it is controversial" is a bit of a cliche - it's best to deal with the POVs topic by topic, I'd suggett. But please, you suggest, I am not clear what you want. I cannot see that there's any controversy over what the title means, so I cannot understand what you mean about "Balance". Redheylin (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"every ideological system is "controversial" - thats why every lede of a good article about any idealogical system has a complete lead that also talks a little bit about the controversy. I'mnot saying we should just mention its controversial. I'm saying we should summarize the controversy. "I cannot see that there's any controversy over what the title means" -- the lede is never simply about what the term means or what its defining feature is and you know that. I was hoping you would see what I'm saying but ok - I'll give some suggestions later about what I think should be added. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Red, ok for one the lede says "the movement has survived the guru's death". Is that really true? Not according to one view: "the movement has declined since 1985". The lede is misleading then (and incomplete). We can all make it complete but I'm hoping that you would see the problem yourself. We're not trying to muddy the subject or pour dirt over it, we're trying to complete the article by providing all notable views in a balanced form. Thats balance. A few more things that have to be summarized or mentioned in the lead in some way:

-"the movement later also caused controversy"

-"The Rajneesh movement clashed with Oregon officials and government while at Rajneeshpuram, resulting in tensions within the commune itself" (important because this is the situation of the movement when it was here)

-"the movement has declined since 1985"

These important things need to be mentioned in the lead in some way because right now the lede is making the movement look very rosy and without any issues when infact the above issues are serious and important to mention in the lede. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that "survived/declined" IS controversial! That's why I said, lose that sentence from the lede. However, OIF is claiming 20,000 visitors per year, which is far greater than 1985 - they are pretty much all "new" people. This needs balancing up - you understand: I have not added much except right at the top, but I have just obtained some material so watch the space. I saw the info about "Rajneeshism" you added and it is v important and thanks v much - I hope you will agree that this fits into its own little mini-chronology, which I marked "religionless religion", adding quote that that was not supposed to happen. This is unsourced, but what I gather happened was; it had been stressed to the new disciples of the west that trust and selflessness were needed in order for thousands to live together. So a lot of people ignored things that they basically did not like (others left the commune as the article says) But people, say, in India were not affected, they just carried on, I doubt anybody ever told them they were "Rajneeshees" and then not. Redheylin (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But you write; (important because this is the situation of the movement when it was here) Where? You are saying that stuff that happens in the USA is intrinsically more important? Please see the tag above, this IS a POV issue. USA is not "here" to me anyhow. This is British, Australian, Canadian and Indian wiki too, you know!! (Likewise with "later caused controversy" - what is non-notable about the earlier "controversy"?? There'd been several attempts on his life before he set foot in Oregon.) Redheylin (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The movement was tremendously controversial both in India, and in the States, for as long as Osho was alive. Since his death, it has become somewhat more mainstream in South Asia. The 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was an extremely notable event in the movement's history, with half a dozen of its leaders jailed. At present, there is nothing of that in the lede, which represents a clear shortcoming. --JN466 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayen. The lede has pretty much the same info I found in it, though I sharpened up the definitions. As things stand, its a too-long sentence that still does not mention "Osho movement" and does not fully explain the distinction between such terms and the "internal" expression "neo-sannyas".

I note that Matt wants "something about controversy" and has asserted that the USA era is more important than anything else but has not yet taken the opportunity to suggest what he thinks should be in there. All I know about these "half a dozen" I have mentioned in the body of the text. I was going to look at the several articles that concern that, but Matt and Cirt took various off-page actions, for one thing, that wasted time, then I found that some citations in the articles were rather poor - and now I come back Matt has not worked on the lede yet, which I posted here for discussion. So here we are, still with a bare definition in the lede.

To you also, I'd say; if you have a clear idea about what you consider the most salient facts then please enter them. The article does not belong to me, I have not removed any "controversial" thing from the lede and am in no way responsible for things that others think should be in there. My main concern - as with many of my editing tasks - was to put things in a sensible order, stick a pic in and things like that. I am pretty much done here, and it cannot be said that I have removed or suppressed "controversy", from the lede or the body. So those who want it should go ahead! I'll come around again another time, dot i and cross t as I normally do. For my part, I shall be keeping a look out for stuff on other times and places that interest me in particular - like the situation in Buddhist countries. And checking the "USA" articles' citations at some time. I'm happy that I worked out a better structure and added a bit of history; that was my main concern. Redheylin (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there was the "notable people" idea too - seems a reasonable addition. Once again I'd say, I am adding things I am able to add: I am surprised at the implication that I am somehow now responsible for what everybody else wants to add. I thought Matt wanted to collaborate, but perhaps not. Oh and there's the meditation aspect. Central. Absent. As you know, I do comparative religion, not the yellow press. If I tried to cover every (say) Sikh assassination, argument, murder and crime, you'd end up not being able to find out from the article about the actual nature of the Sikh Brotherhood; that's my concern. I use the Michael Jackson example: all the scandal is notable because Jackson is notable - as a pop star. Let's keep on topic. Redheylin (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct that the lead did not contain any controversy before your editing either; I don't quite know how the idea arrived that you were responsible for the lack of such content. FWIW, I've added a couple of points to the lede which I thought people might expect to find there.

I agree with you on the comparative religion aspect being important; I have the literature, but don't have the time right now to research it. It will have to wait for another day, at least as far as I am concerned; my day job is making unreasonable demands again. Cheers, --JN466 18:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all for my disappearance from this thread. The lede looks much better than before. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Here it is:

The Rajneesh movement is a term used by Hugh B. Urban [1] and other commentators to refer collectively to persons inspired by the Indian mystic Osho (formerly known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, 1931–1990), particularly initiated disciples, referred to generally as neo-sannyasins,[2] and sometimes also as Rajneeshees or "Orange People" because of the orange (later also red, maroon and pink) clothes they used from 1970 until 1985.[3

I omitted the last line. This looks like a straight definition to me and I honestly cannot see how it "makes things look rosy". Can you explain, please, or suggest? Redheylin (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed the "survived" line in a new subhead "current status", next to the opposing view. At least we can see the different POVs next to each other and construct appropriately. Redheylin (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Paper magazine

What is the name of the paper magazine of the Osho movement. I know that it exist because I saw it yesterday. Andries (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries, I have no idea. There may be several in different countries. If you search the web you may be lucky. I notice, though, you have some experience in religion (and religious scandal) articles, so your input would be welcome on this page. Redheylin (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Paper" might be questionable. The Osho Times seems to be the "official" newsletter, although I'm not sure how often it might be in paper as per here. The "Osho world" newsletter here also exists, and any number of others here. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced info has been added

This article has recently degraded in quality, with large chunks of wholly unsourced info added. Not sure why that is happening, but it is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the list? Please excuse me a short while, dealing with changes to other pages. Redheylin (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Red, suggestion: let us find the sources first, and then put the staff in the article. (Not least because of BLP issues.) Even if you know it's true. Stuff like the list, for example, please place a proposal here, and we can then see how much of it we can source. Some of the people in your list e.g. I know are covered in sources I have on my bookshelf. But they should not go in the article unsourced. --JN466 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Only added people who had "osho" on their page already. I've got too used to good faith, I suppose. Done it now, though some of the cites could be more academic. Check... and thx. Maybe help with the other bits Cirt removed? (I guess that means the "sources" tag can come out) Redheylin (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[45] = The majority of these are dubious, poor sources that fail WP:RS. They should be removed. Especially when referring to WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt is right. We should have proper, third-party sources; if we don't, it's WP:UNDUE weight to include these names. Sorry. --JN466 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove them. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Associated with the movement

The following need better sources before they can be reinserted:

• Swami_Harideva

• Prem Joshua

• Chinmaya Dunster

• New Earth Records

• Deuter

• Swami Brahma Vedant

• Kavyen Temperley

• Karunesh

• Sudi Narayan

• Deva Premal

• Sally Belfrage

• Pratiksha Apurv

• Margot Anand

• Amrita Pritam

• Tom Lodge

• Tom Robbins

• Terence Stamp

• Hariprasad Chaurasia

• Nieves Mathews

I also believe we should say a little in the article about when and for how long these people were associated with the movement. Guest for example was a movement member as a child only; he left when he grew up, and I believe did not consider himself a member from then onward. Nirmal Srivastasa was an early disciple who left and started her own movement, Sahaja Yoga. Etc. --JN466 03:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing about Guest - I mentioned it on his page - although his book gave the impression that his experience had become a forgotten dream that was re-awoken by a news article, when he died a few months ago the "Telegraph" (his employer) devoted a lot of space in the obit to his friend Masjid, who remains - well, known as Masjid - and said that they had remained close friends throughout, saw each other grow up, went to each others' parties.... have a look.

I was reflecting on current circumstances: it seems a lot of people cannot really tell and do not really care whether they are "in" or "out". And when I look at the ethos, it does not seem to matter. What matters is that you "work on yourself", "grow", "meditate" - however - in your own way. A "collective sense of belonging" and explicit veneration of the master may even be counter to the "movement"'s aims. Otherwise, with respect to the above, please note the caveat in RS that "fringe" sources may be considered reliable when giving an account of a "fringe" movement.

By any standards I'd have to question a few - what is wrong with Pratiksha and Usha? They are mainstream press sources.

Redheylin (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry; I ran out of time yesterday to check through the remaining sources one by one. I agree those two sources are up to the job here. I've put those two names back in. Will look at the others tomorrow. Cheers, --JN466 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I removed citation required tags from a section that is a synopsis of the cited monograph. I put back a sentence from the same source that was removed for no reason, since it is significant to the following paragraph. Any suggestions as to a better way of making clear the source of the remarks is welcome, of course, but note that this much-published article is relatively short and allows no meaningful page numbers to be added. Redheylin (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

Several contradictions have been introduced into the article, largely due to the addition of unsourced OR material that contradicts existing sourced material. Thus we have "not relying on beliefs" classified as a "belief"; there are several more similar instances.

According to one statement "By 1964 a group of wealthy backers had initiated an educational trust to both support Rajneesh", while a few sentences later "he shifted his attention to his role as a spiritual teacher while supporting himself through lectures, meditation camps and private counselling". There is no attempt at all to reconcile these statements, even by showing in the text that these are the conficting views of different authorities (who need to be mentioned inline and cited exactly).

It's particularly important to show that these statements apply to the movement, not Osho, to stay on topic, and also that he did charge for lectures, camps and counselling, and particularly to support the statement that these were only available to the wealthy, none of which is supported by other sources.

Obviously these things need to be corrected. Unfortunately the editor concerned reverts even spelling corrections, to the detriment of the article. Redheylin (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

not sure I share your concerns, in 1964 he was still working at uni, needed additional support to run things, by the time he left uni employment in 1966 he had already acquired Laxmi's assistance, by then the revenue he was generating, thanks to the 1964 start-up fund, meant that he was able to sustain himself financially, I don't see a contradiction here.

at all. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Measles/Semi: he was supporting himself and also supported by a trust? Redheylin (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence moved for discussion

The following passage removed here, since modifications have been reverted:

"At this time his client base was expanding so rapidly that Rajeesh acquired a business manager from the upper echelons of Indian society, a politically well connected woman whom he christened Ma Yoga Laxmi. She was Rajneesh's first sannyasa and would function as his personal secretary and organisational chief for the next 15 years. Laxmi was the daughter of a key supporter of the National Congress Party with close ties to Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai."

This appears to me to need:

• Spot citations for the terms "client base", "upper echelons of Indian society, a politically well connected", "christened" (!), "business manager/organisational chief".

• Support that 1) Laxmi was "acquired" as a manager for the given reason 2) initiated as first disciple, since these seem mutually different and differ also from other sources.

• Spelling correction: I have already corrected "Rajeesh" but been reverted (see also "Rajnessh"). The word "sannyasa", which means "renunciation, letting go", differs from "sannyasin", which is correct here. Note also a number of alternative spellings of these terms.

• A reason for the duplication of statements business re. "manager"/"organisational chief" and "upper echelons of Indian society, a politically well connected"/"daughter of a key supporter of the National Congress Party with close ties to Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai" in order to avoid undue weight and editorialising when dealing with a person who is undoubtedly significant in the movement. Redheylin (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, please try not to remove reliably sourced material from the article, you have now attempted to remove the same material on two occasion in a matter of days: here and here. Can you please not remove cite requests?? thanks. Measles (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

clarification on terms: the word sannyasa had already been linked in the article, simply followed this logic, by interchanging usage, essentially same meaning, helps general reader understand context.

christened has no religious connotations here, simply means 'named', use whatever term you desire, Laxmi was the title given by Rajnessh, say this in whatever manner you see fit. Measles (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Measles: the word "sannyasa" is different from "sannyasin", as, for example, "bicycling" is different from "cyclist", further the form here is "sannyas" (not sanyas, sanyasa...). You also say: "christened has no religious connotations here" - all language has "connotations", particularly the language in the passage in question. This already makes two examples in the sentence of words that would be avoided by any reliable source - they seem to be your own words. Above I have enumerated others. You say "say this in whatever manner you see fit" - I have tried, but you have reverted mistakes of grammar and spelling as well as such word substitutions for your own OS vocabulary - you are complaining above of such changes, reverting without seeking consensus and without regard for the articles' quality -and here you have ignored most points raised, such as the note above regarding citations. Please explain or modify these points. Do not invite me to "say this in whatever manner you see fit" when you are reverting all changes on sight without discussion. Answer the points, please, and seek consensus with civility. Redheylin (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Redheylin, you removed RS cites, take the time to check them, I adjusted language usage in acknowledgement of your complaint and added futher support for the content you are disputing. Can I add that I find your tone antagonistic and not in accordance with WP:AGF. I think it's best you file a content dispute if there are still issues here. Thanks. Measles (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Following your most recent changes the article still reads that Rajneesh actively "acquired" a "business manager" specifically to manage a "client base". This has four citations and I'd be grateful if you'd indicate which of these is the source for the quoted terms. Seeing that the article also reads that Rajneesh had a following of influential people, are we to assume that Laxmi was not one of these but was hired with money from these? It is strange, seeing she became the first "real" sannyasin. Who says what exactly, that she was not rather simply a voluntary secretary from among R's following? There has been no failure to assume good faith, simply that you are introducing questionable terms, bad grammar and spelling, doing uncivil summary reverts and removing RS material yourself as well as requesting citations for refd material. The rest was just that you were using your own, NNPOV language - there are still instances of this (above). Redheylin (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage with this, you are accusing me of secreting false information, that's not WP:AGF, can you please go away and do some research on the cites. If you have issues with the content, take your dispute to the appropriate place. Thanks. Measles (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. As things stand there's a synthesis of four sources, that's all. Please let us see exactly who says that Laxmi came upon the scene as a business manager acquired to fulfil a need, not simply as one of the influential followers? Readers have a right to this much - also to name of notable father. Context of "close ties to Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai" requires cognisance of post-66 split of Congress. Please also note two sections above outstanding. Redheylin (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The rapid growth of his clientele, however, was somewhat out of the ordinary, suggesting that he was an unusually talented spiritual therapist. By 1964, a group of wealthy backers had set up an educational trust to support Rajneesh and the occasional rural meditation retreats he led. Like many professionals whose client base grows quickly, Rajneesh acquired a business manager around this time. She was Laxmi, an upper-class, politically well connected woman, who became his first personal secretary and organizational chief." Goldman, Marion S. (2005), "When Leaders Dissolve: Considering Controversy and Stagnation in the Osho Rajneesh Movement", in Lewis, James R., Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Controversial new religions, Oxford University Press US, page 119.

Multiple sources mention Laxmi's upper class background and mention her political connections, there is nothing controvertible in any of this. Measles (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the bare facts, but we are relying heavily on the vocabulary (with associated POV) of a single source that is not clearly visible in the text because it is hidden among four. The quote appears to be an extended metaphor from the POV of "spirituality as business". That's why I'd like spot citations - and of course to temper the above problem with another POV.

Once more, please respond to the sections above. Redheylin (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I rewrite, making it clear that Mehta (Sorry Goldman - fixed cite) is the source, I have to ask what the others - Lewis et al - are cited to support? Only her sannyas name, or something before or after? Redheylin (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin's editing is both lazy and disruptive, he introduces unsourced content, and poorly cited material, yet demands that others provide detailed text for their citations; because what he is reading does not adhrere to his point of view.

Why is it that he is incapable of using readily available resources such as google scholar, google books, etc. or a library, like the rest of us, in an attempt to verify the citations, rather that accusing others of falsifying content and original synthesis?

His primary objection relates to the presentation of "spirituality as business", yet multiple sources discuss Rajneesh's activities in commercial terms, (see below) so what basis is there exactly for stating that this is a skewed point of view, for removing cited content, accusing an editor of NPOV infringement, and then rewriting the content with sources misattributed?

• Goldman, Marion S. (2005), "When Leaders Dissolve: Considering Controversy and Stagnation in the Osho Rajneesh Movement", in Lewis, James R., Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Controversial new religions, Oxford University Press US.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2005), "Osho, From Sex Guru to Guru of the Rich: The Spiritual Logic of Late Capitalism", in Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Cynthia Ann Humes, Gurus in America, SUNY Press.

• Carrette, Jeremy; King, Richard (2004), Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, New York: Routledge.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2003), Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

• Mehta, Gita (1994), Karma Cola: Marketing the Mystic East, New York: Vintage.

• Mehta, Uday (1993), Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.

• Carter, Lewis F. (1990), Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram: A Community without Shared Values, Cambridge Univerity Press.

• Wright, Charles (1985), Oranges & lemmings: the story behind Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Richmond Victoria: Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd.

Measles (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, why not ask for a wikipedia third opinion. Would you like me to give a third opinion? Or ask for a wikipedia request for comment.Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"demands that others provide detailed text for their citations; because what he is reading does not adhrere to his point of view" is yet another assumption of bad faith. The request showed that the actual source was uncited: now it is, and the article is improved. Of course there are many analyses of this matter from the point of view of business (and others from the point of view of sex and power: there are even one or two from the point of view of meditation) As this is a movement of people all these facets will be significant. But it is important to know that we are dealing with such a source - a single source. I'd not call it "lazy" to refrain from searching through four books for something that really came from another, nor to pick up the parts that came from none, and I'd not call it "disruptive" to remove the latter and insert the correct ref. I'd cal this "advanced proofreading skills and conscientious editing". Finally, the difference between the diffs you post and my edits is that I give a while for you to sort it out, then a couple of talk-page requests: I call this "civil assumption of good faith". I shall not be adding anything unverifiable, and no cites is better than dud cites.

On the other hand we have another "single-source" passage dealing with the nature and state of sannyas in 1972. It's an important source but again it is a single source, running almost at the same time, a little later. The entire two paragraphs are derived from this: that is why no citations are needed. Of course it would be good to add to it, but it is sufficient to delineate the entire field of the aims of the movement and give form to such additions. Of course a topical approach means that different levels of account will be in different sections, but the "origins" head is quite broad: it includes the early meditation camps, for example. However in neither case will it be easy to add other authorities if the extent of quoted sources is not clear. That's why I added extra cites to Goldman (good name for a business writer) and of course it is fine to add extra if inserting material into the latter passage - the range of the cite can be clarified, but the tags are not needed. Redheylin (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• FitzGerald p. 77:

  Rajneesh's views shocked and repelled many, but they attracted others -- principally groups of wealthy and progressive businessmen in Bombay. In 1964, he had begun to hold meditation camps for these men and their families in mountain resort towns. His first real disciple, a woman who took the name Ma Yoga Laxmi, came from one of these families. Her father, a wealthy Jain businessman, had been an important supporter of the Indian National Congress Party during the struggle for independence, and had close ties to many political leaders .. Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai. Laxmi had gone into social work and politics; in her late twenties and unmarried, she was the secretary of the Bombay branch of the All-India Women's Conference when she met Rajneesh, in the mid-sixties. After attending two of his meditation camps, she adopted Rajneesh as her master and began to travel around with him, making the practical arrangements of his trips. In 1970, she became his secretary and raised the money that permitted him to stop his travels and settle into the Bombay apartment, where people could come to him. From 1970 to 1981, when Rajneesh left for the United States, Laxmi handled all the practical affairs of the guru, raising money, administering the ashram, and running political interference.

• Carter p. 44: [46]

• Palmer/Sharma: [47] --JN466 23:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Jayen: at this rate we will be able to provide the correct references for all the statements in the passage. Above I asked; "let us see exactly who says that Laxmi came upon the scene as a business manager acquired to fulfil a need, not simply as one of the influential followers? Readers have a right to this much...". And here we have Fitgerald, cited as a source for Laxmi's having "been acquired as a business manager owing to a growing clientele", instead saying, as I was suggesting some of those sources would be found to say; "she was the secretary of the Bombay branch of the All-India Women's Conference when she met Rajneesh, in the mid-sixties. After attending two of his meditation camps, she adopted Rajneesh as her master and began to travel around with him" - and *subsequently* became his organiser. They are telling the same story from different PsOV, drawing on different details. And our job is to extract the info and balance the sources with spot cites - NOT to select our own OS according to our own lights and attribute the lot to all sources, as though all saw things the same way and there was nothing further to say. But this is only one passage, there are more. Redheylin (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.members.tripod.com/toutsursahajayoga/origins.htm has photos and video of Nirmala at Nargol.

• Wikiwork needed on All-India Women's Conference. Redheylin (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable people, Terence Stamp

Terence Stamp.....brought from the link, this is the content from there that is related to the Rajneesh movement...... .

When the '60s ended, he retreated to an ashram in India, where he grew his hair, dressed in orange robes and renamed himself Swami Deva Veeten (translation: Master of the Beyond).

His agent sent a telegram to India with the offer for 1978's "Superman," which was initially going to be shot with its sequel simultaneously. The note went to a hotel called the Blue Diamond that was near the ashram, where Stamp and other Brits would go on Sunday for the restaurant's "English breakfast," which meant curry pudding and curry-fried bread.

"The maitre d' said 'Mr. Terence, we've got a cable for you.' I look at it, blimey. 'To Clarence Stamp at the Rough Diamond Hotel, Pune, India.' It was from my long-suffering agent and he said 'Would you be prepared to come back to London to meet (director) Richard Donner about "Superman I and II"? You have a scene with Marlon Brando.' I knew my life was about to change." Stamp traveled back to England -- still wearing a robe -- and basically started over from scratch.

"When I went onto the set of 'Superman,' nobody knew me," he says. "I had gone from being this rising young star to being a jobbing actor. Ashramic life was about being aware and being alert, so whilst I was coping with my ego being crushed -- I wasn't known, I wasn't a leading man, I was just playing a villain -- at the same time, I felt so present. I was so up for it."[48]

Coupled with this report and picture [49] is there anyone that would dispute his inclusion? Also does anyone else have a further citation to support his inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the next decade Terence Stamp would spend most of his time traveling the world and living in such varied places as Spain, Japan and India where he studied the teachings of spiritual leaders such as Krishnamurti and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. [50] . Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

These sources are not good enough. Try these: TIME reported Stamp was visiting the ashram; The Examiner has a passage that appears to indicate Stamp was a disciple, though the context is not clear from that snippet view. There is also some information on terencestamp.com, however that is not an official website and cannot be cited. --JN466 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article in the Daily Mail that mentions Stamp spending time in Poona: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-397508/The-intriguing-story-Dr-Whos-sidekick.html I think together these will do. --JN466 00:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Jay you should tour the wiki world, the daily star is a reliable source! Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Star may be an RS, but you weren't proposing citing it, or were you? You had nj.com, which didn't mention Rajneesh (and it requires OR to link the dots), and the other two weren't RS publications as far as I could tell. --JN466 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:) --JN466 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how he told it to the BBC on "Desert Islands Discs" a couple of years back, but I do not know if that's available. Knowing he's told the same story of the same time several times the same, I'd not have any problem putting them in the same passage because it does not seem any synthesis is needed - but it's still BLP. On the other hand "notable people" is a bit "celebrity gossip" and, when it comes to people going around calling themselves sannyasins all over the media, I do have a job figuring out what sources J considers reliable. Prem Joshua, Chinmaya - Deuter for goodness sake - he composed the flaming music; it's got "Osho" all over it. What are you looking for for these, Jayen? Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Jay has the best sauce and you will need top notch saucy sauce to satisfy him. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you looking for for these, Jayen? : News sources and books by reputable publishers, i.e. sources that satisfy WP:RS. Not fringe publications; self-published stuff; blogs; private websites or edits made from personal knowledge (even if accurate) without any citation whatsoever. --JN466 01:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just check google scholar, google books and google news archive. Example: google books for Deuter Rajneesh. There is dozens of sources there; pick the one from the most mainstream, most reliable publisher, and you are done. --JN466 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be some useful contents

There may be some useful contents in Wikipedia here Andries 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article is wrong. It should be either Osho Movement or Rajneesh Movement but not Osho-Rajneesh as there is no such thing. The guru himself is listed under Osho so it makes sense to call this article Osho Movement with a subtitle mentioning Rajneesh. jalal 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Osho movement" outmatches "Rajneesh movement" + "Osho Rajneesh movement" in Google. Osho Rajneesh movement seems to be used by academics who want to ensure that they do not lose any readership only familiar with one of the two names. At present there is no page "Osho movement". So if you use the Move tab, this page will automatically turn into a redirect to the new page, and the article history will be transferred with it, so nobody should be inconvenienced. I see no reason to object. Jayen466 11:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The movement was very controversial when the guru was still alive, both in India and in Western Europe and the United States.

Why was it "very controversial"? Why the article does not have any argument about this? You can find that in Osho's page too. --190.66.162.216 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See Controversy and criticism section in Osho, plus the section on Oregon. I'll see if I can put in a brief summary here. Jayen466 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the community portal and I am confused by this aticle. How can a religion from India be considered "New"? What is new religious movment? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream press focused on the movement's views on sexual liberation, which were extreme. In the public perception the "Orange People" was a just a cult that practiced free sex. Osho was labeled the "sex guru". That's why it was controversial, and might have been a bit of a drawcard for people joining the movement too. It's interesting that this aspect of the movement is so downplayed in the article.203.217.49.85 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deuter

from the citation...A large number of musicians collaborated with Indian musicians to create a fusion—soulful melodies, modern grooves, hip hop, drum and bass and trancy rhythms, all harmoniously interwoven to relax the body, mind and spirit. This musical synthesis began in India in the 1970s when Bhagwan Rajneesh (later Osho) set up his ashram in Pune. Believers from all over the world gathered here, including renowned musicians like Deuter.

Deuter is famous for his musical accompaniment to Osho’s series on meditation. Like many contemporary artistes, Deuter mixes acoustic and electronic instruments, ethnic influences and sounds from nature. Deuter’s album Buddha Nature (Times Music) has tracks like ‘Joyful path’ and ‘Illumination’ for meditation and relaxation. His music is used extensively by medical and psychological practitioners for therapy. Another musician who set the stage for the fusion movement was John ‘Mahavishnu’ McLaughlin.[51] Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what credibility has "lifepositve.com" got as an encyclopedic source? It's a New Age magazine. What percentage of Wikipedia readers would likely view this as a reliable encyclopedic source on a controversial topic? How many citations is it likely to have in Encyclopedia Britannica? We should not cite sources from the cultural fringe; we should cite sources that will meet with instant and broad consensus that we have cited a reliable source. This builds confidence, puts the article on a solid footing, and eliminates needless drama. --JN466 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Needless drama..hmmm, this is something to avoid. I added a book source, is it ok or is it in need of another to support it? Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. If you want to mention that he composed the music for the meditations, this book mentions it; so does the Yoga journal.

As for source formating, it would be better to use harvard and add the book to the references section, so we don't mix long and short citations. --JN466 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"This musical synthesis began in India in the 1970s when Bhagwan Rajneesh (later Osho) set up his ashram in Pune." - seems to be true, verifiable. But is it RELIABLE?

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

This would seem to apply, for example, to web anecdotes about early events and membership in Osho movement. Redheylin (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Under this rubric, I'd not quote the article re the music genre itself, though I think its broadly true - but about the fact that these are Osho movement people? Redheylin (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Red, there have been so many arguments on these pages. Citing questionable sources multiplies them. Needlessly so, in my view. Don't think which source you might just be able to defend using; think which source you could use that your worst POV opponent would instantly accept as reliable. --JN466 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

POV opponent? Nonsense! I love and respect them all and they me. They just fight with me to sharpen their intelligence. Point is; I do not think the bare fact of these people's sannyasanity IS controversial or subject to reasonable doubt. Likewise, things like sannyas news interviews ARE "sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" Redheylin (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So, is my addition ok, feel free to add another citation to support it if needed. Off2riorob (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I added another comment about the meditation music, but source formating is a bit over my head, I usually do it this way, feel free to tidy up a bit if need be. Off2riorob (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates on the top

Who added the templates at the top of this article? The not world view and the additional citation and the npov ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see, Cirt added the npov and the references required and redhaylin added the not a world view, ok. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Inform

There is a reference to a couple of studies on the Rajneesh movement on the Inform website (click on "Facing the Facts"). --JN466 13:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think this is worth a mention.mental health. studies by Latkin. Residents of Rajneeshpuram built by followers of Bhagwan were found to have a high level of mental health. Research indicated that followers had positive self-concepts, and, compared with the wider society, lower feelings of personal distress and anxiety and greater feelings of personal autonomy and independence of thought. citation is here . Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism

An editor objects to including this article within the WikiProject Hinduism.[52][53] First, let's remember that WikiProjects cast a wide net. It's not necessary for a subject to self-define in such a way that they're included. It's not even strictly necessary for others to define the subject that way. All that's necessary is that there's sufficient connection that editors involved in the project would want to monitor the article. For example, an opponent of Hinduism could still be added to the project because it's a related topic. Second, this topic has been connected to Hinduism, rightly or wrongly. Here are three books that do so: [54][55][56]. I could add more, but that's sufficient to show that some regard the subject as being connected to Hinduism. The biography should be similarly tagged.   Will Beback  talk  07:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit October 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

General

• Ashram is a commonly used word in English and so does not need italicising.
• Sannyasi, Sannyasin and Sannyasini are not italicised in the Sannyasa article.
• All are included in Merriam-Webster online, and so MoS recommends not italicising.

(breaking for the night) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestions, and for your minor c/e. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 14:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit December 2011

• On Rajneesh's move to the intentional community, we have "abruptly, rapidly and without warning,<ref name="reader102">{{Harvnb|Reader|1996|p=102}}</ref>". The source uses the phrase "without warning" but not of Rajneesh's personal move there. Thus this is original synthesis, and had to be deleted. --Stfg (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• The article spells "Pune" 7 times and "Poona" 8 times. Better if made consistent. --Stfg (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• British or American English? We have "percent", "criticizing", "counseling" ... but "criticised", "synthesise", "systematise", "institutionalise" ... Need to choose one style. --Stfg (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The city was called Poona before 1996, and Pune during and after 1996. I shall add (present-day Pune) in bracket while mentioning Poona. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but we have, for example, "After a house was purchased for Osho in Pune in 1974 ...", so the article isn't consistent about this yet. Another possibility would be to use the current name, Pune, throughout the article, but on the first mention for something before 1996, insert "(then known as Poona)". Up to you, but I think this might be clearest for readers. --Stfg (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, and good job with the c/e. I will take care of this asap. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 14:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices: section title renaming discussion

The reasons this heading is inappropriate are; primarily, that no identifiable religious beliefs are found under the head: second, that the concept of "belief" appears to be foreign to most members of the movement and to the one in whose name the movement was founded (section records 70% identify religious orientation as "none", while for Osho's views http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&channel=suggest&q=osho+belief&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=616&noj=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15372384166576847701&sa=X&ei=QF5qT-_LPPG10QWH-8XmCA&ved=0CD8Q8wIwAA. Thirdly, similar movements like George Gurdjieff and his Gurdjieff Foundation contain no such section: lastly, the idea of religion as belief is NNPOV, brought about by the dominance of Christianity, which depends squarely on belief, a foundation which many other religions reject. Redheylin (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

we tend not to use primary sources in such a context, the scholarly heading, in a discussion of such a matters, is generally "beliefs and practices." Claiming the movement had no beliefs is disingenuous. Multiple WP:RS secondary sources use the term. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Semitransgenic. Thanks for your answer, but it does not carry your point. First, the primary source has been indicated for your own advice, not for use in the article, to alert you that the heading is misleading in this case. Second, the "multiple" sources you googled for "belief and practice" fall into 3; first, references to the short-lived, unauthorised, unused and destroyed "book of rajneeshism" as the ONLY attempt to state such "beliefs", second, statements that there are few or no such beliefs, third, heavily POV and non-academic "anti-cult" sources. I cannot discover a single authoritative source that asserts any shared religious belief and must ask you to provide this - it is inadmissible to insert your unreffd personal views by using a header. The assertion that I have been "disingenuous" is a prima facie statement of bad faith, and I ask you to strike it and refrain from edit-warring. Your statements about "scholarly headings" requires a policy source. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

the article is about an NRM, a wide range of academic sources that discuss NRMs use the term beliefs and practices. This particular group had a diverse range of beliefs and practices, but it had them nonetheless. In addition to this is the so called "book of rajneeshism" which was the groups own attempt attempt to codify a "belief system." The drama surrounding this books publication and eventual demise is a different matter entirely. The group did have beliefs, and it had practices (albeit many) so I'm not sure why it is problematic to use this term here.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 00:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Semitransgenic - you are simply repeating yourself. This short-lived book is well-treated in the section but there is no account of any beliefs. You have asserted (with an allegation of bad faith) that such beliefs do exist: please bring them forward for addition. It is "problematic", otherwise, to insist that the word must be used when no beliefs are found under the head - and of a group that is based squarely upon the rejection of belief. No policy or guideline demands the phrase be included, I have cited another similar case where it is not, and none of the texts you googled appears to me to assert them, as I have said. This is like saying "many books refer to the propellers of aircraft, so jet-motors must be headed "propeller" - simply misleading. You need a valid source - one cannot insert unreffd material in a header when it is not supported by the text beneath. (btw I have heard other religions, eg Jews, objecting stridently to being called a "faith" - they see it as an unconscious Christian bias, and the same appears true here. So an account of "beliefs and practices" of THIS movement is needed - and these must be included before they can be described as such in the header. This is just obvious.) Redheylin (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Carter, a notable authority on the movement, states in an article written for the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion that "while I cannot attest to the internal experience of Rajneeshees, certain consistencies can be abstracted concerning the movement" he then goes on to offer, under the heading "Belief System and Practices," the following:

“ Followers of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh view him as an "enlightened master" (comparable to Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu) who can guide others to enlightenment. All are capable of enlightenment, merely blocked by conditioning and socialization in a distorted society and debilitating religious traditions...While Sannyasin [movement members] readily admit that the movement has no shared belief system (Prasad,1985), certain recurrent themes appear. The universe is seen as a cosmic whole, without goal or purpose. Humans are seen as complete and perfect aspects of this universe, though constrained and distorted by human cultures. The bifurcation of eastern consciousness rooted in intuitive, direct experience and western preoccupation with objective, rational analysis is seen as artificial. A goal of enlightenment is to produce a "new human" who is more whole because he or she will represent a synthesis of these dualities: eastern mysticism and western materialism, rational and intuitive thought, spiritual and sensual. The goal is described as a quiet, centered state from which one can act with intuitive assurance, taking absolute responsibility for one's action without recourse to norms, rules or a system of values. The cosmic view is decidedly "monistic" (Robbins, Anthony and Richardson, 1978) with its denial of polarities. The Rajneesh push "monism" a step further than these writers, who distinguish groups as "technical" or "charismatic." The Rajneesh fall at both poles, using technical devices in meditation and therapy, while maintaining the value of discipleship, learning from an enlightened master. ”

“ The disciple master relationship varies. The Bhagwan's descriptions of the relationship emphasize independence and recalls Zarathustra's caution to potential believers that they must seek their own path (Nietzsche, 1954b: 82). While some disciples accept the risks of independence (Prasad, 1985), noting that the Bhagwan has no responsibility to care for followers, interviews at Rajneeshpuram indicate that others seek a dependency relationship. The Bhagwan describes his position as a charismatic leader as "the best showman in the history of mankind. .. ."and followers as ". ..my circus, my carnival."(Lattin, 1985) Rajneeshees view enlightenment as achieved suddenly when one is ready, not requiring withdrawal or extended discipline. They distinguish no stages of enlightenment and thus are a "one level movement" (Robbins, Anthony and Richardson, 1978). Members express a sense of relief and comfort at meeting other Sannyash, all are seen as equal on a spiritual level. This is not to say the Rajneesh do not have invidious distinctions, but merely to say that richer, more skilled, more honored, or more powerful Sannyasin are not more advanced in a spiritual sense. Seven "levels of consciousness" are mentioned in The Psychology of the Esoteric, but these ideas have not been elaborated nor are they prevalent enough among Rajneeshees to characterize the group as "multi-level." Anthony and Robbins (1981) explore motivations for alternative communities created by "civil religion sects." Many monistic movements have no communities but draw followers from everyday society. While this is true for the majority of the Rajneesh, some devotees retreat to small residential communes and most prefer association with other Sannyasin. The Ashram in Poona and Rajneeshpuram were special cases of these alternative communities. Disciples at Rajneeshpuram claimed that concentration of enlightened people (and the presence of the Bhagwan) created a "Buddhafield" in which an ideal society could be built, attributing the general health, productivity, happiness and success of their community to this Buddhafield. ”

“ There are some millenenan aspects to the movement with a recurrent assertion that civilization faces impending destruction through nuclear war or pollution (Rujneesh Times,1984b) or when AIDS kills two-thirds of the world's population (Lewiston Tribune, 1948b; Rajneesh Times, 1984a). Collapse of civilization is seen as imminent (1984-1999) and Rajneeshism has been presented as a "Noah's Ark of consciousness" to focus efforts of survivors (Rajneesh Times, 1984a; Academy of Rajneesh, 1983, pp. 56-57). Some followers view the alternative communities, especially Rajneeshpuram, as holocaust survival training(Lattin, 1983, Ritter, 1983). Two western influences are reflected in the Rajneesh philosophy. The view of man as tortured into a machine by social institutions draws heavily on Gurdjieff (Prasad, 1978: 14-17; Rajneesh, 1973: 100). Rajneesh's view of the "new human" who transcends the constraints of convention is reminiscent of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil (1954a).His view of disciples as independent, forceful, highly competitive survivors is similar to Nietzsche's "superman"...Rajneesh says: "I preach neither suppression (of passions) nor indulgence. I preach knowledge of suppression and indulgence. Suppression and indulgence are both ignorance, both are injurious" (Rajneesh, 1979b: 98). ”

“ Mention should be made of the so-called "Book of Rajneeshism" (Academy of Rajneesh, 1983), representing Rajneeshism as a religion with ministers of different levels empowered to perform ceremonies of marriage, birth, death, and initiation. This book, and other literature produced during the 1982-1984 period, was obviously an attempt to routinize what had been to this point a strongly charismatic movement. Establishing the title "Acharya" would have provided for others (or one other) to assume the initiation function of the Bhagwan. Ministers would have moved the group toward a more secular religion which is antithetical to the Rajneesh distrust of social institutions and organized religion. More consistent with his earlier discourses, the Bhagwan renounced organized religion, claiming that materials written during this period did not reflect his views. While most copies were burned in a bonfire at the ranch, a few still exist and many of the ideas can be found (Snell, 1984). These may or may not portend future institutionalization of Rajneeshism. Since this is a religion of recent manufacture, future models may differ in important respects. ”

“ Finally, one sometimes learns about a belief system from the "silences," from what is not said. Rajneesh has little to say about how Sannyasin should relate to other human beings. Absent is any code of behavior or guide to living. Also, absent is cosmology. While attention is given to the relationship of Christian, Judaic and Islamic traditions to Rajneeshism, the ethicdmoral content of these is not incorporated. Sannyasin are seen as "beyond morality" in much the way that Nietzsche's "superman" was beyond good and evil. Rajneesh have no shared beliefs about the origin or fate of humans, the world or universe. There is no cosmology, unlike most other religions. From their point of view, the cosmos simply "is." ”

Semitransgenic _talk. 10:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request for a Third Opinion (3O) has been removed from the list of requests due to the Request for Comments (RFC) which has been requested, below. Both 3O's and RFC's are forms of dispute resolution and it is inappropriate to seek more than one form of dispute resolution at the same time. If your RFC should be inconclusive after running its full 31-day length, you may then attempt other forms of dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This sociology book (it is not a religious studies book) is hilarious! It's like reading an account of the workings of a factory in which it is never mentioned that something is being manufactured - instead, all activity must be interpreted as sexual display, power relations, status-seeking or what have you. It's quite clear that he has done no field work but just asked questions and fit the answers into a pre-arranged framework, sort ot like "it was reported that Italy had one large and several small communes, so the big one was a headquarters that commanded the others". Despite its limited use, as it is not a study of religion, and therefore of belief, and despite the fact it begins "Sannyasin [movement members] readily admit that the movement has no shared belief system (Prasad,1985), (but) certain recurrent themes appear", still it is a valid source, already used, it could be used to assert that one sociologist has identified patterns of thought that he ambivalently referred to as "beliefs", and these can be summarised - it would be undue weight, though, to use it as a structural source for analysis that lies outside its purview of expertise. Redheylin (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Carter conducted extensive fieldwork, and completed what is possibly the most widely cited academic study of the movement. The heading "beliefs and practices" is a term that is used widely used in literature on the subject of religions/NRMs, of which the "Rajneesh movement" is one. For example:[57][58][59]-- Semitransgenic _talk. 11:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices or Aims and beliefs?

Beliefs and practices or Aims and beliefs? In the context of discussing any NRM it would be more accurate to address such a movement under the heading "beliefs and practices" a term that is used widely in literature on the matter. For example: [60][61] [62] Semitransgenic _talk. 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear there was some form of "belief and practices" involved here. ESeems like an appropriate title to me.JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices seems more appropriate to me as well. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 16:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Miniapolis (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In view of the controversy - which is based upon the almost universal agreement that this group is not based upon, or at lest professes not to be - upon shared beliefs and values - I'd say that the matter of "belief" requires a section of its own in which various authorities' statements on the subject are presented NPOV. Editors will note that the section in question originally gave an account of the early movement's aims and practices - and these were practical "aims" such as the founding of schools, printing of books and formation of groups. The question of belief had not been raised in this section but was imposed upon the heading for ideological reasons, regardless of whether the section actually discussed beliefs. Redheylin (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I think Redheylin has an excellent point. Could compare to Scientology (not saying it's the same at all, but that group has goals and apparently this group did as well). Could the section be titled Beliefs, goals, and practices? Or could there be a separate section on Goals (or Aims)? Or could the headings match the Scientology headings (in which aims/goals are under the "Organization" heading? Softlavender (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

if there are WP:RS sources that address a clearly stated teleological orientation, goals or aims would be appropriate here. The heading as it stands reflects standard usage across a range of NRM related texts, it reflects commonly accepted mainstream scholarship rather than editorial POV. There are plenty of sources that offer accounts of the movement's beliefs (some are quoted above, in the previous discussion), perhaps this material needs to detailed in the article? Semitransgenic _talk. 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Barbara Rütting

Barbara Rütting is not a member of Die Grünen anymore. One should add a "former", maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.160.94 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rajneesh movement. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/29/ING9G8DKC31.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/2011/04/part_one_it_was_worse_than_we.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/1985/07/experts_draw_distinctions_betw.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Tarot-card-reader-Ma-Prem-Usha-dead/Article1-324656.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-397508/The-intriguing-story-Dr-Whos-sidekick.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/17277243.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020725/ncr1.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Donating to Wiki

I've just seen a request for donating to Wiki and my first immediate response was to go to my bank account and donate "to keep Wiki's independence"...almost have done it. and then read the article about "Rajneesh movement". Could not find "independent thinking" there or clear thinking or any thinking for that matter. No, will not donate. Donated in the past many times. Not any more. Wiki is just another biased prejudiced one-sided website discriminating against the unfamiliar, like any other mainstream discrimination. Gear up guys for the independence of thinking and become more broad-minded and less jehovah-witnessy. Understand, research before publishing crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.1.252.35 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Rajneesh movement. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2004%2F08%2F29%2FING9G8DKC31.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012180308/http://wweek.com/html/urbanpulse020200.html to http://www.wweek.com/html/urbanpulse020200.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/2011/04/part_one_it_was_worse_than_we.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/1985/07/experts_draw_distinctions_betw.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Tarot-card-reader-Ma-Prem-Usha-dead/Article1-324656.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-397508/The-intriguing-story-Dr-Whos-sidekick.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/17277243.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020725/ncr1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328064503/http://barbara-ruetting.de/uploads/media/Politik_Forum.doc to http://barbara-ruetting.de/uploads/media/Politik_Forum.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009173217/http://www.neosannyas.org/ to http://www.neosannyas.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD: George Meredith (sannyasin)

Resolved

Page watchers may want to participate in the ongoing deletion discussion for George Meredith (sannyasin). Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Subcategory for Category:Rajneesh movement

Now that Category:Rajneesh movement has been populated, should we create a subcategory for followers, such as as Category:Rajneeshees or Category:Oshoites? I'm not familiar with preferred or more appropriate terminology. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD : Osho Times

Resolved

Any interest editors would want to contribute deletion discussion of Osho Times Accesscrawl (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline Neutral POV

The Decline section is not even remotely a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Muhib (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Abdul Muhib: I've restructured the article a little. How specifically could the Decline section be made more neutral? Jonpatterns (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: imo, it's much more neutral now. Thanks!Abdul Muhib