Talk:1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot/Archive 1

GA review: On Hold
I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it.
 * 1) Charles H. Turner should be wikilinked in the intro and should also be wikilinked in the first instance in the actual article.
 * 2) "Convictions and guilty pleas" section should probably just be named to "Convictions" unless you can include the pleas for each of the members of the plot. Right now there is only one person that says they pleaded guilty.
 * 3) Go through the inline citations and add an "access date" (if they don't already have it) that is current. This will make sure that all of the links are currently up to date. (For example, fix them to be like references #6 and #9.)

These should be very easy to fix and shouldn't take too long. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article will be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to GA Review
 * ✅, wikilinked Charles H. Turner as Charles H. Turner (attorney), because there already exists Charles H. Turner, different person. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
 * ✅, per GA Review suggestion. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
 * ✅, Added "accessdate" where needed, as suggested above. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

GA passed
Good job on addressing the above issues so quickly. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
According to 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack:
 * At a press conference in September 1985, Osho accused several of his followers of involvement in this and other crimes, including an aborted plan to assassinate a United States Attorney, and asked state and federal authorities to investigate his allegations.



If osho asked for this to be investigated, then should this be reflected in this article? It would imply a quite important piece of information if so. FT2 (Talk 10:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll check out that source and look into it. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Names
Rajneesh-given names are listed for some of the witnesses and defendants but not all. For consistency sake as well as to more fully identify the individuals, it would be nice to list rajneesh and "christian" names of all participants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.42 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will see what further info there is in other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive
The second section repeats the overview. Change one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

non working links
link 24 is going nowhere and one link I looked at goes to an anti cult site which is a very poor place to referance to as its already announcing its anti stance there facts should be removed or cross refered. is anyone bothered if I remove them?(Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * 24 actually does not have a link, it is just a cite to a newspaper. Which other link are you referring to? Cirt (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hi curt. at lot of these links seem a bit circular or like this cite to a newspaper but not to the article...go nowhere or to another wiki article is that normal and is is considered to quote articles written by anti cult site ..eg rick ross.... im looking through them all to see what is going on here..did you write most/all of this article? .... Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Please be more specific about which individual cite you are discussing. Every single sentence in the article is backed up to sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. I think you may be referring to wikilinks of the sources in the individual citations. For example, wikilinking to The New York Times, instead of simply writing The New York Times, in the cite. This is not the actual source, the source is the individual article. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

well ill have more of a look and get back to you ..you do seem to have gone a bit overboard on the article .. after all it was an idea not a real crime even though having the idea and preparing to commit it are offences .. No one was hurt in any way ..and as for actuall links to reliable sources there are but a few .... really this page is a bit strange and weighted.. it could easily be well trimmed/edited and incorporated in the bioterror page.. and at the start....hit squad ...goes to a rap band ..! (Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

and hit squad itself is a bit much and slang hit squad n. Slang 1. A squad or team of hired executioners, as one organized for carrying out a political assassination. 2. A group of political terrorists. they were hardly either of these.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * The subject of the article fits the first definition you cite "A squad or team of hired executioners, as one organized for carrying out a political assassination", perfectly. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

no they don't they werent hired ... a hit man is would be considered to be a profesional.. as in get a hit man! (Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Regarding, secondary sources actually describe it using the term "hit squad". I will cite them on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

well Ill thank you not to just revert small changes ...if I make a small change you could happily just go get the quote and talk about it... just reverting is not a good begining! and even if a link is found ..the link would not be an inbiased reporting as a hit sguad is totally unreflective of thr reality(Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

it's amazing here how people guard articles ... i have had some discussion and changed a couple of words...almost nothing one of the words was linking to a rap bans b4 i got here... (Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I will comment with sources on the talk page shortly. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment - Hit squad

 * Should the term "hit squad" be used to describe the conspirators involved in the assassination plot against a United States Attorney? 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt
removed the term "hit squad" from the article, with the edit summary removed the weighted and slang expression hit squad - though this term verbatim is backed up to multiple secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. After I pointed this fact out clearly in an edit summary, he reverted, with edit summary weighted statement (slang).

In fact, secondary sources use this term, here is a presentation of those sources:


 * 1) The plot included a plan to intercept Turner on a roadway near his home. The all-woman hit squad was to feign car trouble, stop Turner's car and rush him. In addition to Turner, others on the hit list included Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer, now a Republican candidate for governor.
 * 2) They are accused of plotting in 1985 - along with several other followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh - to kill Charles Turner, then the U.S. attorney for Oregon. Turner was not harmed. But prosecutors say the hit squad hoped his death would derail a federal investigation of immigration fraud and other crimes by the sect's members. 
 * 3) In May 1985, Sheela Silverman, the Bhagwan's second-in-command, also known as Ma Anand Sheela, called a meeting of selected followers to form a hit squad to plot Mr Turner's assassination and kill several dissidents on the commune. Stork volunteered to be the killer, buying guns and silencers and stalking Mr Turner.
 * 4) Rajneesh 's deputy Sheela Silverman, called Ma Anand Sheela, formed a hit squad to murder district attorney Charles Turner because he was investigating the sect. The Antelope community disintegrated and Rajneesh was deported to India, where he died in 1990.
 * 1) In May 1985, Sheela Silverman, the Bhagwan's second-in-command, also known as Ma Anand Sheela, called a meeting of selected followers to form a hit squad to plot Mr Turner's assassination and kill several dissidents on the commune. Stork volunteered to be the killer, buying guns and silencers and stalking Mr Turner.
 * 2) Rajneesh 's deputy Sheela Silverman, called Ma Anand Sheela, formed a hit squad to murder district attorney Charles Turner because he was investigating the sect. The Antelope community disintegrated and Rajneesh was deported to India, where he died in 1990.
 * 1) Rajneesh 's deputy Sheela Silverman, called Ma Anand Sheela, formed a hit squad to murder district attorney Charles Turner because he was investigating the sect. The Antelope community disintegrated and Rajneesh was deported to India, where he died in 1990.

The term "hit squad" is an accurate description, it is used in multiple secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V, and it should be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Off2riorob
when I got to this article which cirt is guarding one of the hit squad words was linking to a rap band site.

and these links cirt has put herejust go to wiki pages about newspapers?

and secondary quotes ...could we have a primary..

and anyway.....

quoting newspaper articles similar to I ate frddy's hamster is hardly attempting to reflect honestly the reality which was that these amatuer guys in a conspiracy and not actually commiting the crime is hardly a "hit squad".

this doesnt bade well for any editing I was hoping to do to improve the article .. I put some comments on the talk page .. please read the talk page to see exactly what happened......

this was no hit squad even if there is a primary quote .. it was a group of silly people out of their depth being controlled by a dominant sheela....

I am of the opinion that hit squad is a weighted comment about this group of people that where brought together by sheela to talk about and do a bit of planning towards this non event... the reality of the crime is actually reflected in the fact of the small sentences and dropping of the charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's especially over weighted when you consider that the crime plan was dropped and some of the people who had no previous convictions of any kind and have had no other convictions since ...it happened 20 years ago,,

hit squad conjours up a picture of a bunch of dangerous killers and in this case that is simply not true..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * in fact for what is basically an article covering a crime and legal matters it is remarkably short of primary links

and has had little discussion and has been mostly written by cirt .. who is guarding it from any tiny editing .. have a look to what I changed ..it's better ..less dramatic .. less tabloid and less weighted to portray a one sided position. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

curt's whole stance here is have the article reflect his opinion and therefore to make the hit squad appear as badass as he can ... a one sided reflection of reality. and he is experianced in wiki .. he brought me here so fast .. for help with his what is basically his abuse of the wiki guidlines .. if you know them well you can use them for your own benefit and not for the benefit of the wiki. ... we didn't need any help .. we had just got started ..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * connotative baggage ..curt..lets just go with my little edits .. show willing.. it reads good ... the crimes are still there ..

it's hardly changed...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

the best and most honest edit is the one that I did removing hit squad and replacing it with group. this doesnt need all the silly secondary links ... my edit just removed the weight ...hit squad is obviously loaded.. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

ok peregrine ..I can go with that .. I was really just refering to any reporting of an event that is ..hyped up to sell papers.. made more exciting or dramatic than it actually was.. so cirt has attached himself to these comments that are by there very nature .. excitable..designed to excite the article and not reflect a true reality. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Comments by respondents to RFC
Hit squad does seem a bit overly kind, making them sound more badass than they were. Secondary sources rule, but it sounds funny. Maybe attribute the description? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean by writing "According to the Associated Press, The Seattle Times, and The Australian..."? That sounds silly. If it were one source using the term, sure, attribution makes sense, but when multiple secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V use the term, we begin to see that the term is indeed an accurate description. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Described as a "hit squad".[1][2]' maybe? After that use it without quotes? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean, like this ? Cirt (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's better. Probably two refs is enough, but lets wait in see if other wikiproject Oregon people have an opinion (they usually do). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay that sounds good, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks peregrine for commenting.. I agree with you it makes them sound more badass than they really were... attribute the description sounds good ..I could go with that!(Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * @Peregrine Fisher - Please do take a moment to read through all the steps they actually planned out - including creating a hit list, assembling a team of conspirators, obtaining false identification in one state, obtaining guns and weapons in another state, and staking out the job location of a United States Attorney with plans to assassinate him, and others including a sitting Governor. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some quotes in their somewhere would be good, to show that it's not our words, but the words of reliable sources. I think "hit squad" has a certain amount of connotative baggage, and should be used with a little extra care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the change - in direct response to your above recommendation. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

no. I am not happy with that at all. please have a look at it again (Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

there thats better...so called hit squad...I can go with that.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * - I strongly object to this change. These are not "tabloid" publications, but highly respected sources. And "so called" is weasel wording. No, the wording suggested above by is most appropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

your words are weasally... peregrine said attribute it and that is what I have done chill out ..its two almost irrelevant words.. which peregrine has said are a bit over the top ...weighted.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * cirt.why you are now attempting to talk to me on my talk page is beyond me .. and I will need a little time to think about that..

right now I would prefer it if you refrained from that. thanks truth is .. the best and most honest reflection of the reality was my little edit and I recommend you to revert to that.. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't quite understand why there is such a heated debate about this but I will offer my comment as requested on the Community Portal page. It seems to me that hit squad is slang and given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, maybe there should a word like conspiritors or plotters. That is all I will say because I think this one is over my head. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good suggestion to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go with conspirators or plotters - those terms sound appropriate. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

@ and - let me know if this edit  conforms appropriately with the latest suggestion by Elmmapleoakpine. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Now that slang has been brought up, I think just using "conspirators" in the instances where "plotters" is used would be better.  It's not slang, but plotters sounds non-standard to me.  Looking at a thesaurus, collaborator sounds the second best to me.  I think conspirators is only used once per paragraph, though, so alternation is probably unecessary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay now the instances are only "conspirators". Better? Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here. We may keep talking about it, but you have to call them something, and I think conspirators is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay great, thanks for your input. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you to the "respondants". I am happy with it now .. It reads a lot better.(Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

second paragraph.
in the second paragraph the word stalked is used .. this is a criminal offence ..is there a quote for this ? was anyone charged with the offence? I have jusr read a quote where the phrase staked out was used but this is quite different to stalked.. I don't think the sanyassins behaviour was what we would consider to be stalking as the word is used today! so staked out his place of work sits better..and at the end of the paragraph ..and turned was never harmed.. in there should be that the conspiritors changed their minds and discontinued their plans. the way it is written makes it sould like the fbi stopped the crime being commited which is not true..and also that the federal investigation was requested by Osho after he discovered sheela's crimes.

and where it says "some had fled" the country at the top of para3 .. if they were not wanted didn't they just leave the country? Is there quotes for this? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

and where it says in para one .. by high ranking followers of rajneesh... then only one of these high ranking positions is mentioned and ..fourth in command is not a real position.. on the ranch there was not a command structure like this.. so are there quotes to confirm their high rank? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

sheela was not in the position of "chief lieutenant" it was not run on a milatary structure. sheela was his ...secretary i think ..ill go have a look ...(Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
 * - You have yet to provide any sources to back up your spurious claims. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

links..
link number 11 is not working ...gives this...Object not found!

The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

shall we remove it or attempt to repair it? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Link removed from ref, not needed for WP:V. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you that link was very important ..there are almost no links to real articles .. so how is it verified?(Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Sources do not have to be online. For instance, book sources that just list the book and the page number are very valued on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by Off2riorob
and - these are POV-pushing changes intended to minimize the nature of the facts. These changes are not supported by sources. Indeed, did not introduce any new sources to the article to back up his assertions. What sources do you have that back up your recent edits? Cirt (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

number 6 I am contesting the fact ..your fact that they were high ranking officials and you have only the one that head of security.. where is your fact to prove that the others were high ranking officials .. some of them were not high ranking at all.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)) and it is well reported that they were isolated ..that none of the vast majority of sannyasins new anything about it .. all the conspiritors were charged 6 or 7 or so ... so they were by nature a small isolated group.. do you disagree with that or have anything to suggest otherwisw.(Off2riorob (talk))
 * The information is all already sourced in the article. You have yet to produce any sources on the talk page to back up any of your claims. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 I feel the article has been written with a pov and my objection here is to balance it more ..to make it less one sided which it is now... and I amgoing to do that! (Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Please refactor your comment, it is most inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

six. in the article you state they were high ranking officials but there are not the facts there to back it up! so I removed it ..easy... and all of the conspiritors were charged so they were indeed a small isolated group. ..or do you have a link that says they were not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

do you dissagree that they were a small isolated group? if so do you have anything to back that up? there has never even once been any accusations that they were anything but a small isolated group within the movement. unless you have anything to dissprove it ill put it back(Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

do you have anything at all that says they fled the country ..if so who were they fleeing from ? they were not being chased by anyone were they ? they left the country of their own free will in their own timeframe .. they left ... have you got and evidence that they fled? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

with regard to the "stalking" as I said that is a criminal offence and no one was charged .. here is a link stating "scouted" which is better...scouted Turner's property, http://hem.passagen.se/jan.olofsson/biowarfare/history/rajneeshee.html (Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

I will do some searching around to find some alternative articles to help create a more evenly balanced page,(Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

do not....
I do not want to talk to you on my talk page. post here .(Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
 * This is evidence that you have seen and ignored my my query regarding your disruptive POV characterization of the Associated Press, The Seattle Times, and The Australian as "tabloid" (wording later removed from the article by a third party editor). And this is evidence that you saw and choose to remove my comment to you to stop making disruptive, POV-pushing changes to the article not backed up by any sources. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

don't waste your time with your silly childish games .. I am interested in improving the article only.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Please try an be more constructive, rob. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have referred the matter to ANI. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

off2riorob's ideas to improve the article (sourced ).
I have been looking at improving my editing and I hope to have improved..... in the lede it mentions sheela was osho's luitenant!I'm sure I have seen this too.however it was not true.. but was a title given to her by some portions of the press... it was a kind of nickname given to her by some people at the time... sheela,s official position was Osho's secretary which basically put her in total control of everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
 * this article which is part of the orogon history projects refers to her as ...Ma Anand Sheela (also known as Ambalal Patel Sheela, Sheela Silverman, and Sheela Birnstiel) was the personal assistant to Rajneeshee sect leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the highly visible president of the Rajneesh Foundation International when it was based in Oregon from 1981 to 1985. Here she holds the keys to a gift for Rajneesh, a brand new Rolls Royce. The only person who regularly conversed with the Bhagwan, Sheela directed the commune, operating as its spokesperson to the outside world.
 * this articlerefers to her as....Ma Anand Sheela (1952-Alive). Personal Secretary to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho), 1981-1985...and here..
 * on page 372 sheela is refered to as..."the now silent guru's secretary " and "that she called all the shots".
 * ✅, changed "lieutenant" to "second-in-command", per source United States Department of Justice. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

yes thats all good .however fails to include the title from the three links I have presented.I would prefer to see her official title included as well .. so it could read...ma anand sheela, Osho's personal secretary and ....second in command..... I could go with something like that but in fact the command structure was never like that ..the title second in command implies that osho was in command and therefore also implies that he was included in the crimes on this page and implies that osho was the commander and in command of everything whereas although accusations were levelled nothing was ever proved and osho was never implemented in the crimes refered to on this page...so in the story about this crime and this page it is irrelevent as to osho's situation as he was not involved in the crime at all... and issued no commands about it and was never charged with any conspiring about it... so in relevence to the page osho is not the commander at all sheela was the instigator of the conspiracy and the commander of it!Or a comment could be inserted to clear up the situation that although sheela was osho's personal secretary and second in command Osho himself was never implemented as a conspiritor in these crimes (Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) yes that would clear it up! if you want to leave the comment in that sheela was osho's second in command then a phrase should be inserted that clarifies the situation that although sheela was osho's personal secretary and second in command Osho himself was never implemented as a conspiritor in these crimes...as I read it now it appears that osho was commander in this crime (Off2riorob (talk))
 * ✅, Added info from 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

well all well and good but does not actually resolve my issues with the lede.this is what I think is beneficial to the page! and this is what I would do to improve it from these issues... The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner, the then-United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram.Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Added the recently added info to the lede as well. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

well thats not my point at all.. you have merely added imformation about the bioterror attack which has its own page! and is also not relevent here unless you want to merge the pages? and you are ignoring my request to add sheela's job description..as per my three cites... of personal secretary... and you have left the inferance that osho was the commander..... here is what I feel would benefit the article ....Bhagwan is not a conspirator here is he? ................ The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner, the then-United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram.Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.... please let me know what you disagree with in this.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Changed "second-in-command" to "second-in-command and personal assistant", per source recommended above on this talk page, Oregon Historical Society. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

the inferance that bhagwan was involved is still there! do you have an objection to clearing that up that by inserting the phrase... Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, the article certainly does not say he was involved. Do you have a reliable source that explicitly says something about that? Cirt (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

are you really asking me to find you a source that explicitly says that bhagwan was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

the inferance is there in the lede that osho was involved... Osho is mentioned more than once and his high ranking desciples did this.. and his second in command did that ... would it not be an easy way to clear that up by simply inserting the phrase..bhagwan was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy?(Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Well we don't know that this is true - unless you have a reliable source for it. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

from.... The attorney general said when he was asked why Osho was not accused of the same crimes as Sheela that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes.” And “all we wanted was to dismantle the commune”. And he forgot to add that the complaint that lead to Sheela ´s arrest was filed by Osho himself.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
 * That certainly is quite interesting - got anything better than a blogspot.com source? Cirt (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

well...when I saw the quote I did remember it and mr thompson is quite a reliable chappie..I'll go and find it...but to be quite honest the phrase I want to insert .."bhagwan was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy" is actually a matter of common knowledge ... do you think that bhagwan was charged with involvment in the conspiracy to murder mr turner?(Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * The quote......The attorney general said when he was asked why Osho was not accused of the same crimes as Sheela that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes.” And “all we wanted was to dismantle the commune” is from a press conference given by turner and it is quoted in the book "passage to america" by max brechert.
 * Brecher, Max (1993), A Passage to America, Bombay: Book Quest Publishers .ISBN ASIN B0000CP5CF.
 * if you are ok with that....I'll decide what to insert and where to insert it later as I have an apointment. regards.(Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner, the then-United States Attorney for the District of Oregon. Osho's personal secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela, assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram.Osho himself was never accused of any involvement in the conspiricy. Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes” [1].Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I am not sure that this book meets WP:RS - can you tell me anything about this "Book Quest Publishers"? Also, a search of that quote you mentioned above appears to only lead to pro-Osho websites, not sure how reliable that is either. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

well the book is a WP:RS  and is quoted on more than one page here ..without dispute...as a reliable source.the ISBN...is there for you to have a look at..so ...there you go.. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * do you have anything to dispute my source? do you have anything that says that Osho was involved or that osho was a conspirator in these crimes? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I am having trouble finding information on the book - you have given what appears to be some other sort of ID, which is not an ISBN number. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have reverted my edits which I have applied with good faithbook referances I have been told are highly valued on wiki! and I have supplied cites which are in use on other wiki pages without any dispute. I would ask you with good faith to revert back to my cited edit untill you have found your information(Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

in my opinion you are attempting to create an edit war as you have no reply to my cited edits..and I ask you again to revert to my sourced edits.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Again: I am having trouble finding any information about this book or its publisher. Can you please provide some information on the talk page supporting your assertion that it should be treated as a reliable source? Cirt (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

this book is quoted without dispute and used as reliable source on two other wikipedia pages. I ask you again unless you have reliable source  to dispute my source to please revert to my edit (Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
 * - There is no need to yell at me in edit summaries using exclamation points. Saying the book is used on other Wikipedia pages is circular logic, not the best argument. Has the book been reviewed anywhere by a book review publication (example Publishers Weekly) ? Does the book's publisher have a reputation for editorial review, publishing other noteworthy publications? Cirt (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

how to go forward with this?
I have cited a book that is also cited elsewhere on wikipedia as a reliable source and here cirt is resisting the reliability of the book .. what can I do ? .. the book is there the isn no is there?? only cirt refuses to accept it .. ? what more can I do?(Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

here is the book..Brecher, Max (1993), A Passage to America, Bombay: Book Quest Publishers .ISBN ASIN B0000CP5CF.

and here are the other Wikipedia pages where it is quoted as a RS.. Ma Anand Sheela  and Osho

(Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
 * There is no need to start an RFC about this. I would suggest WP:RSN, if you are agreeable to it I will open a thread there. Okay? Cirt (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Has this book been reviewed anywhere by a reliable source?
 * 2) Is there any information about the book's publisher "Book Quest Publishers"?
 * Please also see WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And as for the argument by that this source is used in other wiki articles, please see our verifiability policy, specifically Verifiability: "the Wikipedia article being cited may contain reliable sources that can be checked and used" - note "can be checked and used". Read: has not been checked. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am quite new here and have been told that book cites are very valued here on wiki ..so..cirt was asking me to find a quote and when I found one he is only saying it's no good!what is that all about?(Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

and I thought from reading what wiki was about .. that you should never remove cite only add to them and cite is good! I read that somewhere here ! and if it is cited I agree with it. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

the quote I want to add is a real quote from a real book and is only one opinion that I want to insert ..verified..and any one else can also insert the other opinion as long as it is a verifyable comment...the more comments the better..or have I got it wrong? (Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Please see WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. - Please answer my questions above about this source. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No feedback from RFC .....so I have put a request for comment on WP:RSN I am not shouting at you by putting a exclamation mark in my comments ..but perhaps no exclamation marks is a wp policy guidline that I have not yet come across yet.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

meanwhile I am researching the book and writing to people to discover more.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Please answer my above specific questions about the source. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at RSN is that this is not a reliable source, but instead a fringe conspiracy theory POV type source. Please see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update from RSN

the page title.
I was looking at the page title and it would be better if the title was a reflection of the crime so it would be better if "plot" was removed and replaced with "conspiracy".Plot reminds me of guy falkes and the gunpowder plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This information and wording is as per WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

reliable source.
here I have found the same quotes from the same guy in another book.have a look and let me know if you are happy with it. ....regarding that there was no evidence to link Bhagwan to the crime. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) specifically page 17.(Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Osho himself was never accused of any involvement in the conspiracy. Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes” (Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Osho Rajaneesh and His Disciples - I question whether this source meets WP:RS. Here are some questions - who is the author? Where did he get his information? Was the book ever reviewed by any book review publications? Does the book's publisher have editorial review? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * wp:rsAveling, Harry (ed.) (1999), Osho Rajneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-1599-8 . (Includes studies by Susan J. Palmer, Lewis F. Carter, Roy Wallis, Carl Latkin, Ronald O. Clarke and others previously published in various academic journals.)(Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * You have not answered my above questions. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The section in page 17 is written by a "Charles Newman (Swami Devageet)". Does not sound like a neutral or reliable source. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

this.. is a totally reliable and verifyable {{WP:RS]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Let's take a look at the first paragraph of this essay written by this "Charles Newman (Swami Devageet)": Chapter Two - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: A New Man for All Seasons - Charles Newman (Swami Devageet)

Religion is a neglected phenomenon for most people today. Our experience of the organised religions show them to be political organisations using theological language, and as such, to be hollow shams, riddled with lies and hypocrisy. Their terrible emptiness has so conditioned us that to even mention words like God, Truth, and Grace, is enough to make us yawn and turn to the other channel. If we are really pushed, then we will defend the beliefs of our parents, calling them 'our religion', but knowing them to be an embarassing collection of superstitious nonsense utterly out of place in any modern society. Reads like a POV essay from a follower of the movement (which it is). No footnotes. No end of Chapter notes or sources. Not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

a group of high ranking followers.....
I was wondering about this "group". how big was it? was it a big group or a small group? compared to the number of people attending rajneeshpuram. what percentage of the rajneeshees actually knew anything about the conspiracy?(Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

I would say ...( I am looking for cites) that it was a small isolated group of rajneeshees..some of which held positions of power in rajneeshpuram ( headed by sheela )  but that the vast majority of rajneeshees (99%)had no involvment at all in this conspiracy.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

in the lede... (i'm looking for sites for this .. although it is a matter of common knowledge) the small isolated group was led by ma anand sheela.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * This information and wording is as per WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the name given to the disiples of Osho..
from the Rajneeshee page..the wording rajneeshee for disiples seems to be under question? lots of citations needed....

"Rajneeshee" refers to the disciples of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, popularized by the United States press during the 1980s.[citation needed] Disciples[who?] prefer to use the traditional Indian word sannyasin.[citation needed]

In 1984, a bioterrorist attack involving salmonella typhimurium contamination in the salad bars of 10 restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon, was traced to a few members of the group.[citation needed] This was a trial run for a planned bioterrorism attack via contaminating the municipal water supply on local election day. The Rajneeshee had put up their own local candidates for the election, intending to seize control of the county and local communities.[citation needed] They had previously succeeded in dominating the city council of Antelope, Oregon (Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * This information and wording is as per WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

disputed press conference...searching for WP:RS about this....
On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.

Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh".

" We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after".(Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

is this a Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) can I use this comment from Turner yet? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

what have I got to do to use this quote.. ? if I say it myself in front of the Queen of england and god and Brian Clough and my great great great grandfather. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Source please? It appears you are quoting something out of one of these non-reliable books mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the source is .. On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal.I will verify this ..in time .. I am gonna look for whatever is required. deeper and deeper .(Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * if I say it myself in front of the Queen of england and god and Brian Clough and my great great great grandfather. - this language is not helpful or constructive. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding the extradions from uk of hagan and croft...
have you seen this ..a letter from uk regarding issues regarding these parties being unable to get a fair trial in orogan and regarding the reservations regarding the evidence against them being all from offering plea immunities... [](Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

whole story is ...page is from here [] could I insert this regarding doubts about chances of a fair trial in orogon and would it be a WP:RS if it was written by the british goverment? (Off2riorob (talk))
 * This certainly is most interesting, the other is a primary source document, not sure about that one. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

does anyone dispute this statement?
I am harping on about this as I feel it would be a benefit to the page...so ..In the lede Osho is mentioned more than once and I feel that this creates an inferance that he was involved ... in the lede it mentions that the conspiritors were all high ranking disciples of the guru ..and so on .. infering guilt by association so to clarify this I want to insert in the lede..this ...Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy charges. ....using this as a general guideline........if you want to add information, and the info is debatable, then you should (and could be required to), include a reference to verify that claim.. this information is in my opinion not debatable.....so..does anyone dispute the comment ..Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
 * This continued posting of this exact same point by is disruptive and in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. He has posted this comment:


 * 1) Here on this talk page, multiple times, , , , , ,
 * 2) At Help desk, where he got a very clear answer from User:Ched Davis
 * 3) At WP:RSN, consensus was against User:Off2riorob and the poor unreliable sources he cited
 * Please stop this disruptive behavior and violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont mean to be disruptive ..to explain myself ..I did ask a question on help as I felt I needed it and User:Ched Davis.commented and I have quoted him here and I have used his advice and I am not citing anything at all ..this is a new stance ...completely new and I have just asked you the question ..do you dispute the statement? ...Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy! and you haven't answered me ? it's not a cite ..it's an indisputable comment that as I understand from what Ched said doesnt need a cite ..if you dont dispute it..As a relatively new editorI would appreciate it if you would rather assist me than see my good faith /stumbling as disruptive.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
 * You are distorting the advice that was given to you. You were instructed that if the info is debatable it does need a cite. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed a comment about your behavior by an admin on your talk page. Please read WP:FORUMSHOP, and stop this disruption and repeating this (asked and answered) argument again and again and again. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

yes if it is debatable it needs a cite..that is what User:Chzz Ched Davis said ...and you have not answered that question... do you dispute this statement?..Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy. I promise if you answer I will never mention the subject again.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes. Now please keep your word. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rajneeshee linked in article
moving forward.. I read on wikipedia that one link per paragraph is fine. as rajneeshee is in the title then once in the article is not over-linked so my linking to the rajneeshee page is o.k.and you did not need to revert it ..my edit adding the link was beneficial to the article.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
 * There is no need to have something in the See also section that is linked to higher above in the article. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

biographies of involved parties.verification of sources.
hi there jayen .perhaps you could assist me in getting this quote accepted here. .do you know of any more sources for these quotes so I can get them accepted as reliable here? these...I have written to the original sources asking for confirmation ..and am awaiting replies.. On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh"." We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after"

or also do you know if Frohnmayer or turner or meese who I have found some stuff about have written biographies perhaps revealing intimacies around this conspiracy.especially turner...meese had to resign in the end over corruption charges... (Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC))


 * As I pointed out at RS/N, there are sources like this one which say that Osho was not charged in relation to this crime, or the bioterror attack. As for the other stuff, can you really blame the US government for wishing to destroy the commune? People in that commune poisoned 750 people, nearly killing a newborn baby in the process, and poisoned and plotted to kill several US government officials. Thanks, I wouldn't want such people in my neighbourhood either. At any rate, all of that is a wider topic that does not belong in this article. Jayen 466 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this book mentioned by jayen a WP:RS. a reliable source ? this one. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Added info, cite, 2006 book: Terrorism on American Soil: A Concise History of Plots and Perpetrators from the Famous to the Forgotten . Cirt (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

dear cirt.please allow me to insert my edits that I have spent time on and searched around for and worked on .. you seem to think that you are the only person able to edit this page. this source was presented to the page by jayen in reference to a comment that I wanted to insert in the lede to remove the inferance in the lede that Osho was behind this crime.You disputed that undeniable fact and now when I ask about the WP;RS status of the book you realise the game is up and to further control the article insert the fact lower down the page.I still want the comment inserted in the lede ..this .."Osho himself was never charged with any involvent with the conspiracy to murder Turner". and I also want to further cite the book to remove the inferance in the lede that it was Osho's sannyasin in general that were involved in this crime ..to explain that I want to insert ..." a small isolated group of disiples". I want to insert it ..I don't want you to insert it. Or shall we just remove the inferance? I think that you disputing the undeniable fact that Osho was not involved in this crime and now a couple of days later inserting it is a reflection of the energy you are editing this page with.(Off2riorob (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Added the info from source Terrorism on American Soil to the lede as well . Cirt (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you are not listening to me at all are you .I find your attitude personally upsetting. I have spent a lot of time searching for cites to edit the article and I have been told it best to discuss my proposed changes on the talk page and you are not allowing me the respect of editing the page ..you even have the gall to insert comments worked on by me after you recently disputed an undeniable fact and removed my edits, if you want to improve the article then spend some of your own time researching ..how would you feel if you spent time researching and writing to people and then you discussed the cites on the talk page ..as requested.. and then I jumped up and used your hard work to gazump your edit..after I had repeatedly disputed and denied your undeniable fact..you would think I was having a laugh .wouldn't you(Off2riorob (talk))  —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC). (Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Your comments are not constructive or conducive to a positive discussion. Please focus on discussing the article's content, not individual contributors. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh
We mention in the very first sentence of the article that Rajneesh is now referred to as "Osho" - let's keep the rest of the nomenclature uniform as Rajneesh throughout the article. Cirt (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not good English
this;" Rajneesh was himself not prosecuted in relation to this conspiracy," is not good English and is confusing as to who the person actually is. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)0

Rajneesh needs to be linked as it is confusing as to whois actualy rajneesh. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Actually it is grammatically correct wording. Cirt (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajneesh is already linked in the first instance of the appearance in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking every instance of a word in an article would definitely be WP:OVERLINKING. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The lede is quite long ,there are three paragraphs in the lede and it is confusing as to who all the people are, you have rajneesh and rajneeshees and bhagwan sree rajneesh and it helps to clarify who rajneesh is if that name is also linked .For clarity in the lede Rajneesh should also be linked to Osho.

This phrase is not written well " Rajneesh was himself not prosecuted in relation to this conspiracy," and reads better as I have changed it too this " was never prosecuted in relation to this conspiracy". (Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
 * No, the phrase is fine as is. It is especially good keeping in mind the prior sentence which describes that perpetrators were prosecuted in the conspiracy. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed "himself". Cirt (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to make the article clearer and easier to understand and you revert and resist any changes. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Incorrect, for example . Cirt (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

this ..Rajneesh is already linked in the first instance of the appearance in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) is incorrect and the first time rajneesh is refered to is in the lede. so to clarify whois rajneesh it needs to be linked to Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The term is linked already in the first paragraph, so there is no need to link to it, again, in the third paragraph. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion As I understand it, there are two points at dispute here. First is the phrasing of the final sentence of the lead. It seems to me that "Rajneesh himself was not..." flows better than "Rajneesh was himself not...", but I really can't see it as that big a deal, and the "himself" has been removed altogether now anyway (were both of you happy with that change?) The second matter is whether the name "Rajneesh" should be linked in this sentence. I can see no reason to do this, as the name is already linked elsewhere in the lead section, and the guidelines on linking are quite clear that you should not do that. It seems clear to me from reading it who is being referred to here, but, if there is any doubt, I would suggest that that should be fixed by rephrasing the sentence, not by adding a link. Anaxial (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Followers
Verifiable, reliable sources refer to the perpetrators in the assassination plot as "followers" of Rajneesh. Thus, this wording is appropriate for usage in this article, as opposed to jargon internal to the Rajneesh organization that the reader will not understand, and that is not used by reliable sources to refer to the perpetrators. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean the reader will not understand ..we have a page with the title Neo sannyasin and I linked it to that page .Do we have a page with the title Follower.Your editing here and the article (your article) is nothing more than a reflection of your personal point of view expressed here through your chosen reliable anti sources.Have a look yourself and see which word better explains these people Follower is a rubbish word to define these people, a weasle word used to add weight to your personal point of view I would like to see your sources and I wll go find some sources that refer to them as Neo sannyasin their real definition . I expect nothing more of you when only recently you replied with a outright falsehood when I asked you this question :- do you dispute this statement?..Osho himself was never charged with any involvment in the murder conspiracy. You replied :- Yes. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) This is an example of your personal point of view , you vigorously resisted me inserting this fact as you vigorously resist the insertion of any facts that distract from you personal point of view.(Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The fact remains that reliable sources describing the assassination plot and the perpetrators refer to the conspirators and criminals as "followers" of Rajneesh, and we should follow the model used in these reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh ultimately pleaded guilty to immigration fraud
Cirt (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecstasy - the forgotten language
Stalin is death, and your priests have been death, representatives of death not of God.

I represent life. Your priests have been in conspiracy with death and they have crippled life. Your priests talk about God, but it seems they are partners with the devil. A great conspiracy.... And they have destroyed the whole human mind. They have uprooted you from your feeling part; they have made you hang in your head. Now you don't know how you feel; that's why you cannot trust your feeling and you have always to look to somebody to tell you what to do. In the childhood the parents go on telling you do this and don't do that. Then in the school, the teacher; then in the university, the professor; then in the society, the boss, the politician, the leader. Everywhere you are being told what to do and what not to do. And you are always seeking somebody to dominate you so that you can become dependent. Because you don't know how to get commandments from your own heart, from your own being, you always depend on some authority outside.

This is ugly, this is miserable, this should not be.

I am not an authority here. At the most a midwife, but not an authority. I can help you to be reborn, but I cannot dominate you, I cannot dictate things to you. You hanker for it. People come to me and they say, "Osho, tell us exactly what we have to do." But why can't you listen to your own heart? You have life bubbling inside you. The spring is there, the source is there. Go in. I can tell you how to go in, I can teach you the devices for how to go in, but take your commandments from there. There is the Bible inside you -- the REAL book, the Veda, the real knowledge. Get your instructions from there, and once you start getting your instructions from your innermost core, you will be a free man and a happy man. A free man is happy; an unfree man is never happy. You are not meant to be slaves. You are meant to be masters. That's why I call my sannyasins "swami"; swami means a master, one who has taken his reins in his own hands. (Osho, Ecstasy, the Forgotten Language, Chapter 6 16 December 1976)

This is your "leader", Cirt, Rob.... Love, Laughter and Liberty to all ! Redheylin (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. 2nd notice about these inappropriate sorts of comments. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that this quotation is not included here as an advocacy but as a primary source demonstration of the faultiness of other sources which assume an overall religious command-structure. Please ensure that sources state clearly that any position of charge was not simply in relation to the particular commune at Oregon. It is not disputed that these people were executives of the commune - in fact, I pointed out that one cannot be a director and a "second in command", so the article is self-contradictory. The latter also requires some statement that "Osho was in command" to back it - it implies it without stating. In fact it is merely a wrong statement backed with a falsified reference that actually gives a correct account. Cirt has inserted the misleading statements and it is up to him to cite and to admit counterstatements. Redheylin (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the above quote does indeed seem like advocacy. It is not directly relevant to this article, and is not a WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It can stand as a source when self-reporting, but it is better to find similar material third party. This is just so you get the idea how easy this will be. Redheylin (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again: Not relevant, and not really a reliable source for anything. Per WP:SELFPUB, it may be something that could be quoted at the page about the individual himself, Osho. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note: all sources for "high-ranking" appear to be rewrites of the AP release, which in turn will be trumped by an academic source. Why are you bothering with this duplication when you have been notified that your present sources fail to back your POV?Redheylin (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * all sources for "high-ranking" appear to be rewrites of the AP release - says who? Cirt (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

me Redheylin (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Statements by Redheylin on Wikipedia = not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are contending that editors have no right to question sources? That sources are required for sources? And I am speaking to an editor who is reverting others to maintain that his sources say what they do not say? You have 24hrs.Redheylin (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources cited for "high-ranking followers" are all from different years, and include books, and different news publications. Not the same Associated Press release. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

High-ranking followers
Please do not post in this subsection, this is just for listing the sources. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: High-ranking followers
Use of phrase "High-ranking followers" to describe conspirators of 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Off2riorob
Regarding this statement from the lede.... The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner,

It s my opinion that here the reality is not portrayed. There were thousands of followers and many followers were in positions of rank .. to use this phrase in the article without numbers portrays a falsehood ..There were six or eight people involved in this conspiracy to commit a crime. There is no evidence at all that any of the other thousands of people were involved. The comment that I have quoted here portays an untruth and is not reflected as a factual reality. Numbers should be inserted to portray the reality that only 6 to 8 people were charged in this crime and thousands were not accused or charged or involved. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

this as I have previously requested should be honestly portrayed as what it was .. A small isolated group of..... was a conspiracy of a small isolated group of followers of Bhagwan shree rajneesh now known as Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

I request the insertion of the expression of " a small isolated group" to portray the facts and to remove the pov portraying statement that is without any figures .. ( how many high ranking followers! and what percentage of followers was this .. basically its facts and figures that are missing here ). (Off2riorob (talk)) I imagine the issue was never considered in the review only the sources. Reliable sources is important however we are still responsible to portray thr facts honestly. Looking at the lede and reading it, it is impossible to know if the conspiracy involved all the rajneesheees or 100 or ten , there requires some clarification of this matter. I feel the lede has been left vague and this vagueness is unnessesary. The figures are I think that cirt has here are 8 otr 7 one was not charged, so a figure should be inserted. Many people only read the lede and never get any further. This for me is actually less about the fact that they were high ranking followers and more about the fact that if you read the lede you have no idea about the numbers at all. It is possible to read the lede and conclude that every rajneeshee was involved. (Off2riorob (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Reply to comments

Comment by Jayen466
I can't honestly say I find the sentence misleading. The people involved were the most high-ranking followers of Rajneesh at the time. If there are sources available, I would not be averse to adding how many exactly were part of the conspiracy (I think it was 6 or 8), but I think it is implicit in the phrase "high-ranking followers" that the number was small. It's also problematic to describe the followers in question as an isolated group, much as it would be problematic to describe any nation's government as an "isolated group" within the body of its people whenever such a government commits criminal acts without the knowledge of its constituency. The fact is that sannyasins accepted criminal people – or at least people who turned into criminals – as their leaders. While these leaders clearly had secrets which they kept from others, they were not "isolated" in any meaningful sense of the word. Jayen 466 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * they were isolated in the fact of this consiracy. They commited this crime in isolation. did they not? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC))


 * (edit conflict.) No jayen that is not the point. Are you accusing the people here of having a responsability in in its undemocrativly appointed representatives?

In that all the people of a democatly elected goverment are responsible for it's actions...In a court of law ? This is your opinion and not backed up by any facts.. You cannot do this. You cannot hold any of them responsible in any way.... There were 6 to 8 people involved in this crime out of thousands that had no idea about it at all .. and these people had not voted for anybody at all .. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by Cirt
Support using the phrase "high-ranking followers" to describe the perpetrators that conspired in the 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. Please see above source list, Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot. This phrase is highly supported by its usage in multiple reliable verifiable sources independent of the article's subject. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Peteforsyth
I would first note that this article has been through a Good article evaluation, indicating that an independent editor has endorsed a version of this article. While it's possible this issue was not considered, it's safe to assume that the article lead was read carefully in the process; so I believe that adds some weight to maintaining the status quo.

Apart from that, I agree with Jayen and Cirt that I simply can't understand how the current phrasing gives any false impression (either that the group was bigger than it was, or that it was representative of the whole Rajneeshee population). I don't see any problem with leaving the text as is; I also don't see any problem with adding more specific numbers, if they can be established through reliable sources. (I don't think using a vague or subjective word like "small" group would be a good idea, though.) -Pete (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - The very first subsection of the article already included the number of perpetrators convicted of the conspiracy to commit assassination. I have included this in the lede as well . Cirt (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Momoricks
The truth or falseness of the term "high-ranking followers" (or the rest of the article, for that matter) is irrelevant per the verifiability policy. The article exceeds the policy requirements by providing several reliable sources that use the term "high-ranking". As Peteforsyth stated above, a version of the article that includes the term met the good article criteria. I support keeping the wording as is.  momoricks   (make my day)  06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit by Off2riorob not supported by sources
- this edit by changes the article's meaning, and is not supported by sources. The sources state that seven followers of Rajneesh were convicted, but refers to the perpetrators as "high-ranking followers". There may have been other followers involved in the plot that were not convicted in the end of the actual charge of conspiracy to assassinate a United States Attorney, so best to leave the wording as is, as supported by existing sources. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it is more appropriate for the lede to flow chronologically, and list the number of those convicted in the paragraph discussing the convictions. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct about the edits, but I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that they were POV-pushing. Please, let's focus on the quality of the content of the article, and avoid speculating about one another's motives. -Pete (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Refactored.  Cirt (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

this section is not about the high ranking followers
the original title of the request for assistance. has been changed. this heading is my point not "high ranking" altering this has altered the emphasis of this discussion. Regarding the comments by cirt, your attacks are totally unfounded , please stop now. and rather than refracting an apology would be in order. My wanting to insert a simple fact can not be described as pov pushing. Cirt has reverted my edit and the edit was so simple and so easy and so correct ....here it is and youll see it is imformative clear and correct and removes any vagueness.......

The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by eight high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner,

cirt if as you claim that other rajneeshees were also involved then you should find some reliable sources if not it should be made clear. I can only think by resisting the insertion of a simple truth that you don't want to clear the issue you actually as you have said want to infer that other rajneeshees were involved .. as is your pov you have stated, you should provide reliable sources to insert this and not rather as you are doing now which is delibrately leaving the issue without clarification , in a desire to have the article express you pov which you have stated today is that you believe that other rajneeshees were involved but not charged. You also stated to me that Rajneesh was involved and after a lot of resistance from you I managed to insert the clarification that rajneesh was never charged with any involvment in this crime. You resisted that insertion as you resist this one as it is against you stated opinion.

The 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot was a conspiracy by eight high-ranking followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) to assassinate Charles Turner,

this is all I want inserted to clarify ..one little word and it is clear..eight. The facts are clear and their imo is no excuse not to do it.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

to quote cirt "There may have been other followers involved in the plot that were not convicted in the end of the actual charge of conspiracy to assassinate a United States Attorney, so best to leave the wording as is, as supported by existing sources". this statement here from cirt .. is this something that you believe cirt or do you have reliable sources citing this? Are you resisting the insertion of simple clarifying facts to help portray your opinion or belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)


 * The lede states clearly in the paragraph about the prosecution that eight members were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. As the amount of other high-ranking Rajneeshees is unclear, it is best to leave the wording in this section of the lede. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, the 2nd paragraph also lists out some of those Rajneeshees involved in the murder conspiracy. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...where are your cites to back up your opinion that other rajneeshees were involved. Either insert them or allow me to simply clear up the vagueness by adding facts and figures. You can't delibrately leave the lede vague in the desire to portray your stated opinion. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The article itself describes how other members were involved, and yet some were convicted of other crimes though not directly convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * where are your cites then cirt to back up your declared opinion . who are these other conspiritors in this conspiracy? and how many of them were they and why weren't they charged.? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Have you read the entirety of this article itself? Cirt (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, might there be merit in referring to a "group" of high-ranking followers? References to such a group can be found in Latkin ("a secretive group had masterminded a series of criminal activities"), FitzGerald ("she [Sheela] and her group planned ...") and Carter ("This group was later linked by testimony to a variety of plans which were never completely executed") for example, and I believe there are other sources. Carter and FitzGerald also refer to a "dirty tricks" unit/squad set up by Sheela. Jayen 466 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Cirt (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A compromise. great. how big was this "group" are there any names of this "group" that are not already listed here? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Cirt. please don't do that until concensus has been seen. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Off2riorob, we do have a reference to "prosecution of the conspirators", they are listed by name, we refer to eight of them being convicted, all of that in the lede. I don't think the lede creates an impression that a very much greater number was involved. As for the group's secretive nature, see – again, this states that the wiretapping and poisonings had remained uninvestigated until after the group left (see  discussion above), and were not general knowledge in Rajneeshpuram.  Jayen 466 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @, that source you link to fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a scholarly paper, originally published here: . Jayen 466 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, well that book you had linked to certainly fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I suggest we lose "of conspirators" in the following sentence ("assembled the group of conspirators"), for brevity's sake. Jayen 466 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Cirt (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding by  - please stop these attempts to de-emphasize the nature of this conspiracy, thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

- This edit by is inappropriate - as there were others involved in the murder conspiracy that did not receive convictions, but the edit made by  implies only "the eight" were ever involved, which is factually inaccurate as per the sources already cited in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cirt is correct; a number of other people, listed at the end of the article, testified and were not indicted, even though they had some sort of involvement (at the very least knowledge of the plan, combined with a failure to alert authorities). Jayen 466 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict...: I would call eight rajneeshees out of thousands "small" Have you got any cites to qualify that it was anything other than a small isolated group. ? Please stop attacking me with your unfounded allegations (Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Agree with this comment above comment by, indeed multiple others were involved in the assassination plot in varying ways, which is also described in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * right! so there is a cite ..multiple others? what does that mean? are there any names? were they interviewed and cautioned ? revealing details of all involved . so let us insert the details in the lede ... this was by all definitions a small group of rajneeshees .. or was it a big group? or was it 100 people.. imo the facts are being left out of the lede to delibrately allow confusion as to the facts .. so lets insert the facts.. if it was a large group then lets insert that for clarity if it was a small group lets insert that. but we are doing the encycopedia and all the totally inocent rajneeshees a disservice and implying their guilt by association. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * , you have not answered my question, above, when I asked you if you had read this entire article, or just the lede? Cirt (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated here I saw a report that most people never get past the lede and as I have been as yet unable to sort out my issues within the lede, such as so far I have fought tooth and nail to remove inferences in the lede. I have read the entire article although I can't see this comment and cite that your talking about about the multiple others, could I have a link to it. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC))


 * do you mean the other three ..? that gave evidence and in the list at the end? If you want to credit those 3 then that counts as 11 . where is the reliable source to the term "multiple others" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)


 * If you had read the entire article, as you say, you would be aware that in multiple different instances in the article multiple others are stated (and sourced) as having been involved in the murder conspiracy, though some were convicted of other charges, and some accepted plea deals on condition to testify in cases of the others that were convicted of the more serious charges. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

so "multiple others" is your opinion and your expression and is uncited? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * No. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No! is hardly debate cirt! How many is multiple others?How many others are cited here in total? What is the whole total of others that can be cited as involved ? Multiple others is a totally delibrately vague expression .(Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * It is getting tiring to debate things here on the talk page that are readily apparent by reading the sourced material in the article itself. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * yes it must be tiring trying all the time to have your article reflect your stated ( here today) opinion. ::(edit conflict) I am right. You have left the figures out of the lede in an attempt to allow speculation to portray your stated (today, here) opinion that "multiple others" were involved . This does a disservice to yourself and the encyclopdia and the vast number of innocent rajneeshees. So lets clarify the facts in the lede. It was a small group of rajneeshee that were involved ..I am also tired of this , I have been working for 16 hours(Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The facts and figures are already in the lede. See also this comment by . Cirt (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No they are not. Be specific cirt, facts and figures , this vagueness is not helpful. Who are you talking about? and how many rajneeshees are you refering to? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I want this "group" identifying by its general size compared to the number of rajneeshees there.. was it most of them or just a few or was it a small (isolated group)group ? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The names of those convicted of conspiracy to commit murder are listed in the lede, but there were others involved in the conspiracy, so the best, most factually accurate way to represent that is to use the current wording in the lede. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, what kind of group was it? a big group a small group? would you like to insert multiple others? Look at it like this cirt... I went to the pub today and there was a group of my friends there! Please from this work out how many of them or what percentage of my friends were there? its not possible is it? and this is what I want clearing up, clarifying. if you asked me how many? friends and I replied .. oh multiple! you would still be non the wiser and you may well be thinking that I was trying to hide the imformation. Even including the people named here that were not charged but with some involvment you still have only about 12 or 13 and this is clearly compared to the number of rajneeshees there ... a small group of rajneeshee involved in this conspiricy. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * In my research I have come across multiple WP:RS sources that use the phrase "high-ranking followers" to refer to the murder conspiracy perpetrators, but not "small group". Unless you have come across different sources? Cirt (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not all about cites cirt, we are still responsible to use those cites to reflect an honest unbiased article. You are unable to look objectivly at this .. its about facts and figures and "high ranking followers" is a meaningless phrase. All of your sources put together amount to a tiny percentage of the total number of rajneeshees that were there being involved. Why will you not allow this simple statement be inserted to clarify thr facts.. there are quotes to the number of rajneeshees there and there is the total number of real time people that you can cite as being involved.. divide them and see if you get a small percentage. you will be down near one percent .. so 99 rajneeshees out of 100 were not involved in this conspiracy.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Again, the relevant facts and figures are already in the lede. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No they are not. there is no relevant fact or figure about the size of the "group" and your stated "multiple others".
 * I want to insert in the lede that it was a small group of followers of rajneesh.
 * have you got any facts and figures that dissagree with this simple fact? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Sources do not use such phrasing, and the lede already states the relevant facts and figures. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I will use the same technique  when someone asks me  ..how many pints have you had.. reply..all the facts have already been stated.. I have had a "group" of beers....... yes but how many multiple pints.... for... sake how many .. pints have you had? well... there was 4000 pints on the table and I drank a group of them!. this cirt is the reality of the disimformation that you "facts" are portraying. Why are you resisting the simple insertion of simple truths to clarify the percentage of followers that were involved in this conspiracy. ? You have stated here today that you "believe" that multiple others were involved but you have no cite to back up your opinion, so why are you resisting this simple insertion to clarify the facts?(Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I have not come across reliable sources using such phrasing to refer to the perpetrators of the murder conspiracy, have you? Cirt (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UT


 * You are using the sources In a delibrate way to detract from the reality of the facts to portray your stated (here) opinions.
 * It would be quite reasonable to insert the word small group into the lede using the facts and figures that we have irrespective of the fact that the word was never used in reportings at the time.. Its simple facts and figures and attempting to reflect an honest reality.
 * So when I am asked .. don't give me that multiple pints ,,how many have you had...well there was 4000 pints on the table and I only had a small group of them...(this is clearer but still not specific... so exactly how many have you had ...Ihave had only a small percentage of these pints ...eleven pints...there I have spat it out .. the truth.. and that is all I am asking the article to portray .. not to leave loose expressions that don't reflect the reality of the facts but portray someones opinion.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Do you know of any WP:RS sources that use such phrasing to refer to the perpetrators of the murder conspiracy? Cirt (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied many times here today about this and you keep up with this resistance. did you even read this... You are using the sources In a delibrate way to detract from the reality of the facts to portray your stated (here) opinions.
 * It would be quite reasonable to insert the word small group into the lede using the facts and figures that we have irrespective of the fact that the word was never used in reportings at the time.. Its simple facts and figures and attempting to reflect an honest reality.What do you dissagree with about this?(Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Can you answer my question? Cirt (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cirt's question is perfectly on point. Please answer it or quit arguing that synthesized ideas and modifications to the sources should be added. —EncMstr (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

please don't come here tag teaming and attacking me together with cirt. I have answered cirts question numerous timesThere are no quotes that say there were more people involved than you have already written in the article which is between 10 and 15 .. and there were approximatly 4000 rajneeshees there .. this is easily described as a small minority.. All I would like is for the lede to honestly represent these undisputable figures .. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)_
 * We as Wikipedians should not be making these sorts of characterizations and interpretations, which could be subject to our own biases and points of view. That is why it is best to take our cues from what reliable sources have to say on the matter, and that is what I have done in this article, and that is why I ask you to back up your assertions and statements with reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address Off2riorob's accusation of "tag teaming". EncMstr is one of the most fair-minded Wikipedians I know. I know his opinions are wholly his own and not because of any association with Cirt. Nor is his question an "attack". I weary of the continued assumptions of bad faith on the part of anyone who weighs in on these Osho-related articles. Katr67 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if we were getting anyone independant coming here from say italy or france then that would be great.. neutral input.. in fact please could we have an independant comment.but nothing apart from oregon involvees... As far as assumption of bad faith are going .. I am getting as many as I am giving.. Cirt on more than one occasion has revealed his opinions regarding this.. he has actually stated here that he believes that Rajneesh was involved in this conspiracy and that multiple other rajneeshees were involved... for these comments there is absolutually no evidence . So if my coi is to be questioned then cirts is also questionable Lets get someone that is experianced and that none of you know to give a little neutral opinion. and EncMstr has questioned my motives on my talk page and he hasn't questioned cirts bias.. when cirt has stated his opinions already. so .. and you katr67 are also involved and from oregon, I am not accusing you or anyone of bad faith but you are "involved" (Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * is falsely misrepresenting my earlier comments, I said nothing of the sort regarding my personal opinions - rather I have defended what is reflected in reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may make a mediation attempt, perhaps Cirt and Off2riorob should take a break from editing here and the article for a day or so. The discussion has gotten heated to the point of counterproductivity. Returning with cooler heads may help in coming to some sort of compromise.  momoricks   (make my day)  00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in, please take a moment to read the above comment by admin . Cirt (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, I have made a thorough search in google books and google scholar for any references to a "small group" of followers in this present context. I did not find a single one. I therefore support Cirt's position. If reliable sources do not use this turn of phrase, then neither can nor should we. Jayen 466</i> 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the situation was past the point of "taking a step back". My bad.  momoricks   (make my day)  21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob frames the RFC dispute in a POV manner
@ - Please do not frame a Request for Comment in such a non-neutral POV manner, as you did here. Labeling the subsection heading of a Request for Comment, the purpose of which is to solicit neutral point of view comments from previously uninvolved editors, as "RfC: this comment in the lede falsifies the facts. and portrays a biased pov." - is most certainly not a matter of fact neutral presentation of the dispute. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Off2riorob was blocked (after a WP:ANI report) for 72 hours. -Pete (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
The following passage in the "Mercy for expat in US kill plot" article appears to have the timeline back to front:

Our article dates the origin of the plot to May 1985. The investigation of wiretapping in the commune and its involvement in the salmonella outbreak only began in September 1985, after the authorities gained access to Rajneeshpuram. (They had no evidence or reason to suspect wiretapping prior to the September press conferences.)

Of course, Turner had been investigating Rajneeshpuram for some time, trying to find evidence of illegality. He focused on immigration-related matters (Gordon, p. 209). The May 1985 murder plot was a response to these prior investigations (cf. FitzGerald, Cites on a Hill, p. 373). The 35-count grand jury indictment that Turner issued in October 1985 was all about immigration (ibid., p. 364).

The passages in our article affected by this are these:

I propose we drop the explicit mention of wiretapping and the bioterror attack in describing the illegal activities Turner was investigating at the time the plot was hatched and reflect that these investigations were focused on immigration matters. Thoughts? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The investigation focused on multiple different aspects of illegal activities at the ranch, including wiretapping, sham marriages, illegal immigration offenses, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder of public officials and law enforcement, and the planning and carrying out of bioterror attacks. These all deserve at the least a mention in the article. Please do not remove sourced information from this article. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the investigation was not into anything specific was it..the investigation was described as an investigation into illegal activities on the ranch ....the other crimes were discovered during the investigation..in fact they had no idea what was happening ..as I have quoted from turner the objective was the closure of the rajneeshpuram.All the evidence was gathered by offering of immunity against prosecution.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
 * The current wording is appropriate and backed up to multiple reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the wiretapping was only discovered after mid-September, when the perpetrators had already left. Turner was not investigating the bioterror attack before September (investigations had concluded earlier that year that food handlers were to blame, as reported in the NYT), he was investigating immigration offences for the grand jury indictment. It does not matter an awful lot, because certainly all these things were investigated eventually. Just a timeline thing. When I get some spare time I'll check through the relevant sources and report back to you. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, note that I did not remove the mention of the bioterror investigation. It needs to be mentioned, because it was in the course of that investigation that this present plot was discovered. But that is the correct place to mention it, not in the description of what Turner was doing at the time the plot was hatched against him in spring '85. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here some quick press sources: New York Times: "plotting to kill Charles Turner, who had led a grand jury investigation that brought charges of widespread immigration fraud against a commune in Oregon."


 * New York Times: "Mr. Turner, who since has retired, led a grand jury investigation that resulted in charges of widespread immigration fraud at the Bhagwan's commune in central Oregon."


 * New York Times: "The evesdropping scheme, uncovered after the departure Sept. 15 of the Indian guru's former personal secretary, Ma Anand Sheela, was "without precedent in the District of Oregon," United States Attorney Charles H. Turner, said in announcing the five-count conspiracy indictment.


 * Trust me, I am not trying to have you remove references to the wiretapping and bioterror from this article. They can all be mentioned in their appropriate place, and it's perfectly proper to mention them. It's just about getting the facts and the timeline right. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. Added info, cites, The New York Times . Cirt (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. And thanks for the changes. I think there is still a problem with this passage in the lede: "... assembled the group of conspirators after Turner was appointed to investigate illegal activity at Rajneeshpuram. Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages." At the time when the assassination plot was hatched (spring 85), Turner was investigating immigration-related matters only. The investigations concerning the bioterror attack and wiretapping only began after the group's departure in September (see e.g. the third NY Times quote above). Those are the facts as I see them, based on my reading of the sources. Do you agree, or did your reading of the sources lead you to different conclusions? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Turner headed an investigation into the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack in The Dalles, Oregon, and also investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages." -- Yes, this sentence is factually accurate and supported by multiple sources. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sentence is factually correct when viewed by itself. But look at it again in context:
 * I think most readers will come away from this thinking that Turner was investigating the bioterror attack and the charges of wiretapping at the time the assassination was planned, and that his investigation of these matters was the main reason for the planned assassination. That is all I am saying. In spring 85, Turner was not investigating the bioterror attack, nor the wiretapping. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reordered sentence structure . Cirt (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It still sounds like he was investigating charges of wiretapping, and the bioterror attack, at the time the plot was hatched. Do you dispute that he was not investigating wiretapping and the bioterror attack at the time the attack was planned? Because then I can do some work on putting together some sources outlining the timeline. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take another look at the sources, and the wording, and comment further here. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added info, sources, modified wording to reflect he headed investigation of the Rajneesh immigration fraud, and then later prosecution of the bioterrorism, . Cirt (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, getting there, but we've still got the wiretapping in there ("Turner investigated charges of wiretapping, immigration fraud and sham marriages ..."). According to the New York Times, quoted supra, the wiretapping was only discovered after the perpetrators' departure from the commune Sept. 15 1985. Is it your belief that Turner was conducting investigations of wiretapping prior to Sept. 15, i.e. in May 1985, around the time the plot was apparently conceived? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ✅. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources. ..an apology to Cirt.
I have located the original source of some edits that I was trying and you reverted as unreliable and I have uploaded it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statesman-journal_july_23rd_1986..jpg] underlying this statement in Brecher's book.  I note though that what I was attempting to insert, and what you reverted,  was not what it says in Brecher, whom I cited without giving a page number. The journal article Brecher cites did not say what I wrote either. I wrote...Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes.” What Brecher and the Statesman Journal wrote is... "Asked if the big fish hadn't gotten away, Turner said the government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh of other charges." You will note that this is quite different. My wording came from an online article, I wrote to the Editor of the online article to ask where the quote came from and was told that it came from the brecher book. I trusted the reply and even though I had not read the brecher book I attempted to insert it. this I know was wrong and I am sorry for my rash edits, I got a bit carried away. So it turns out that it is me that is an unreliable source and not the brecher book which is comfirmed as quoting correctly this article in the statesman journal. Again I am sorry and will adheer closer with more dilligence to Wikipedia policy. I have now undergone the effort to locate the actual source, and would like to present it for discussion although now having the source I can see little new to add. Again I apologise for my foolishness and rash edits. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you for the apology. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Title
I cannot find any use of the phrase "1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot" on the web that does not appear to derive from this article. Have to ask if this is the most correct and notable title? Redheylin (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a search for rajneesh + "assassination plot". There's no doubt that these words may figure in the article, but as it stands the first sentence and title appear to be OR/OS. Redheylin (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also similar to the term used for the bioterror plot, which is used verbatim in other sources. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/12/21/cult.plea.ap/index.html
 * In 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot on 2011-05-25 05:14:54, 404 Not Found
 * In 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot on 2011-06-07 11:51:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/Oregon-Biographies-Ma-Anand-Sheela.cfm
 * In 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot on 2011-05-25 05:14:54, 404 Not Found
 * In 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot on 2011-06-07 11:51:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Italicized news source in reference.
= no need to do this, as the cite news template already makes the "work" field into italics. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got your message. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  13:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)