User talk:Bamboobreeze

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rajneesh; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Epinoia (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, only one editor has disagreed and that is you. It has not been discussed with any other editors. Are you an administrator or just an editor who doesn’t want my addition? P.S. I have now found the original news report by Brian Ackre. So I will add my contribution with that + the book title where Osho spoke to Brian Ackre on that date.Bamboobreeze (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My

Epinoia, I have made an edit to the page , to show that Rajneesh was the first person to tell the world media and the FBI, and the US authorites that Sheela had not only bugged the commune , also his rooms, but he was also the first person to alledge that she has also taken some tape recordings with her , as he had been informed by people in his commune. You don’t want this information to be on the wiki page.

You objected to my edit, and reverted it. Can you explain why? Because the picture on the wiki makes it look more as if the US authorities had lots of tapes that Rajneesh didn’t know about, (which is a common myth) , and nowhere does it state that it was in fact he who alerted them to the tapes. You have also allowed people to add hearsay from members of the criminal gang who Osho accused of crimes, stating things that have never been proven, and there are other testimonies by members in the same group (during the same trial) that contradict those statements.

There are lots of other pieces on the wiki page where people have written sections on Rajneeshs ideas and philosophy, ( almost every one can be contradicted somewhere else in his talks), and these writers have used his quotes, and also used his books as sources for those quotes. But you have not deleted these sections.

Please explain what is your authority and why you object. And what is your bias. By the way, I have added the name of the interviewer and the news channel who conducted the interview with Rajneesh in 1985. Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- an interview, tape recording or video of someone is considered a primary source. Wikipedia is based mainly on secondary sources as stated in WP:PSTS.
- Wikipedia is not based on what the subject of an article (in this case Rajneesh), or people closely associated with that subject, have to say about the subject. Information from them is regarded as a primary source (original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event - this includes tape recordings, videos and interviews). Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish material about the subject in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking.
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
- even if what Rajneesh says is true, it still needs to be confirmed by another source - see WP:VERIFY, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
- as stated in the Wikipedia:Closing discussions guideline, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." - Epinoia (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You tried to make this point yesterday about only being only to used secondary sources,but that would mean that none of what Rajneesh had said in his books should be allowed at all because it is all primary source material.

And there are many qoutes from his books on the wiki page. You also state: "Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish material about the subject in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking."

The fact that Rajneesh held the press conference and invited the goverment to investigate has already been made on the wiki page.

I am making a small addition which is factually proven by historical audio and video recordings, it would be absurd to try to discredit these recordings by suggesting that they were made by "people who were too involved with the subject".

Actually the interviews were made by third party broadcasters and are a matter of public record.

You have allowed the comments and statements by people who were deeply involved in the case agaisnt Rajneesh with a clear bias.

The Oregonian is highly baised against Rajneesh and contains many allegations that have not been fact checked or ever proven.

It needs to be discussed by people without any personal bias anyhow.

- you are conflating two different things. MOS:QUOTE says, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Notice it says ideas and not to establish facts. WP:INTERVIEW says, "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material," and, "Wikipedia cannot use comments made by an interviewee to cite claims that would normally require either secondary or third-party independent sources." The material you want to add needs to be confirmed by citations from reliable sources. - Epinoia (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, this simply doesn’t make any sense at all. There are lots of qoutes taken from Rajneesh publications, and his books already imbedded in the wiki.

Therefore if I am not allowed to put it my small piece of data, by the same logic all the pieces that have taken from his publications, newsletters, or magazines would have to be deleted from the wiki.

The book, “The last testament vol 2 chapter 26” ,from 16th sep 1985 is the source from where Rajneesh has mentioned everything that he has been informed about so far, including that Sheela had taken some tapes.

I could have used that as the citatation, but I chose to use a link to the text on the the free online library at Osho.com and the audio recording , on the Oshoworld site which is not connected to Osho.com, which you are suspicious of.

However, the particular talk, “The last testament” , vol 2 chapter 26 was witnessed by many different news reporters from different news agencies. There can be no doubt that it is a verifiable source.

And again, if Rajneesh’s actual talks are not allowed to be used on the wiki because they are “primary”, then all the citations and sources that are currently present will have to be deleted otherwise how would it be fair for one individual, yourself, to judge which qoutes to use and which not to use? Especially when you don’t even trust the official website which carries the full archive of Osho’s words. Bamboobreeze (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I have done nothing but cite Wikipedia guidelines - if you disagree, your argument is not with me, but with Wikipedia - I suggest you take it up with Wikipedia - Epinoia (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, I don’t think that is true. I think you are trying to use the guidelines to justify that you don’t want my edits, which are based on solid sources the same as other edits which have been taken from exactly the same kind of sources , ie Rajneeshs books, which have already been allowed on the page, because it makes Rajneesh look a bit better.

I can’t see how one of his talks that was recorded and videotaped, interacting with several news reporters( which I have the full list of every reporter who was present at that particular talk on that date) and you appear to regard as, ‘reliable sources’ shown on several tv stations and witnessed by thousands of people could not be used as a reliable source.

Anyhow, if you are dominating this page, then as you suggested yesterday, I will need to try to find consensus with other editors of this page about this contribution. And it can’t be only the ones who are using it to make Rajneesh look as bad as possible.Bamboobreeze (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I have not expressed any of my own opinions, I have only cited Wikipedia guidelines - if you do not understand the guidelines and the difference between primary and secondary sources, then try the Help Desk or Teahouse for help - Epinoia (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, I can see that primary sources(ie Rajneeshs books) , have been used as sources for others pieces in the page already so what is the difference. Anyway as you suggested I will try to reach consensus. Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- as already explained, primary sources can be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. This is different than establishing facts. See Wikipedia:Interviews, "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material" and "Wikipedia cannot use comments made by an interviewee to cite claims that would normally require either secondary or third-party independent sources." If you have difficulty understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources and need more explanation try the Help Desk or the Teahouse - Epinoia (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bamboobreeze (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- read the Wikipedia guidelines - your argument is not with me, it is with Wikipedia - if you don't understand why you can't use primary sources, ask at the Wikipedia:Help Desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse or go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process - Epinoia (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, you are blocking my contributions which are backed up by sources that have already been used on the wiki.

Therefore I determine you have some kind of personal bias as to why these contributions should not allowed .Bamboobreeze (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I have not expressed any personal opinion on the subject - all I have done is cite Wikipedia guidelines - please do not make unjustified accusations - Wikipedia:No personal attacks - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, I have already pointed the Osho.com archive of all of Osho’s talks, which is backed up by audio and video in most cases, has already been used, cited as a source on this page.

The other thing here is that Osho’s own books have also been cited and qoutes used.

The last testament, which is the book that contains the record of the talk in question, on is not only press conferences, it is considered by sannyasins as just like all of his other books, a book full of his talks. Because, it is taken from a period when he was speaking to audiences in Rajneeshpuram twice a day, and simply answering questions from people, including from sannyasins, not just outside reporters. So , it is just like any other of Osho’s books in that respect, and several of the other books, are actually also composed of questions to him and his amswers.

So the book and chapter title should be enough to cite as a source.

As far as Osho.com or Oshoworld, being sources , they are actually just containing records of the transcripts of what Osho said, that is all backed up by audio mp3 files, and in most cases, video footage.

There is no actual bias involved, concerning the preservation of his words and talks.

This is completely different from some news publications which it has been the norm to present a biased or distorted view of Rajneesh, and often content that is factually innacurate or based on rumours without real evidence.

Osho sannyasins are not required to believe or agree with everything that Osho said, in fact he actively encouraged people to have to their own ideas, and deliberately contradicted himself on almost everything to make sure that people could make up there own minds.

There are certain things he is consistent on throughout his lifetime, such as meditation, being aware of ‘inbetween states’ that meditators can get stuck in before enlightenment, and also that there are stages of awakening before full enlightenment happens. And enlightenment is just the beginning of the journey, etc . He has gone into depth into the esoteric side of that and does describe in different ways, not always using the same terminology and sometimes speaking through other systems or words of other masters that he happened to be speaking on at the time.

The other main thing that he is consistent on is the connection between master and disciple. Or friend and disciple as he said later.

Which is the main thing and more important than any words.

Genetic selection, or engineering, was a topic he contradicted himself on many times, and not a part of his vision for the new man. The new man was not meant to be any kind of superman or superior man, rather an acceptance of the ordinary man, and the peak of consciousness in humans .

Now I am having a break from this for a few days. Then will come back and discuss perhaps write some more. Bamboobreeze (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboobreeze, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bamboobreeze! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Rajneesh edit

@Bamboobreeze: It would be acceptable if you added something along the lines of:

In a press conference on September 16th, 1985, Rajneesh stated that he had been informed that Sheela had bugged the entire commune, including his room, and taken some tapes with her when she left.(provide citation to press conference). He claimed that he had publicly exposed the crimes and invited the government authorities to investigate. He also said he would be contacting Interpol.

- wording it this way reports what he said while maintaining a neutral point of view - hope you are ok with this - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia}} But are you actaully an administrator or just another editor? You haven't made this clear. Bamboobreeze (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Bamboobreeze - as you have only made edits to the Rajneesh article and related Talk pages, you have a Single-purpose account (WP:SPA). On my talk page you wrote, "And the site is being used by those who wish to portray Rajneesh in a bad light, who will add any old stuff, this is going unchecked, things that have not been proven to be true, have been added, in a deliberate fashion to make Rajneesh appear guilty." This could be interpreted as advocacy or having an agenda (see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:AGENDA). I encourage you to read the guidelines on Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Advocacy. - Epinoia (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinioa}} I have written that because I have noticed that the page looks unbalanced to me, and because you appear to have an agenda to keep blocking new contributions, which to me appears an agenda. Adding historical facts is not indicative as an agenda, others are clearly adding things that are unproven such as rumours or hearsay, as an attempt to smear the name of Rajneesh or Osho, which is a clear negative agenda. I am all for balance. But you still haven`t made it clear, are you actually an administrator here or just another contributor? Bamboobreeze (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- if you check my contribution history you will see there is no hint of an agenda, so that is completely untrue - please do not make unjust accusations - Wikipedia:No personal attacks - thanks -