Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 8

Medical condition as possible pretext to enter America - source review.
For the sake of clarifying the conflicting views on this matter I will present relevant excerpts here over the next few days. Please place any commentary you may have at the end of this section in Discussion relating to the above sources so things don't get muddled with comments in each sub-section. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Milne
See quoted passage added above. Jayen 466 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll reproduce the passage just added here, for convenience: Jayen 466 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion relating to the above sources
First off, I note that you are severely misrepresenting Mullan in the above. Mullan is not arguing that there is "an obvious contradication running through much of the [petition to gain status as a third preference religious worker]" (your insertion).

Mullan is arguing that there is an obvious contradiction running through the accusations the INS raised.

The INS argued that Osho was ill, when that provided a reason to deny him a visa as a religious worker (he was too ill to work as a religious worker), and argued that he was not ill when that served their argument (Osho had come to the States under false pretences). Please reread page 135 of Mullan. Jayen 466 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The INS had an objection to the idea of a silent religious leader. The commune similarly vacilated as it suited there ends, see Carter. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course they did. The whole thing appears to have been like a cat and mouse thing, each party using interpretations of the law to achieve their own ends. Same with the land use, by the way – once the commune was gone, the Oregon court system decided that the commune had not infringed land use laws, after all. Jayen 466 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are emphasising various parts of FitzGerald at the expense of others. I could easily choose to embolden '''It is true that Rajneesh had fallen ill in the spring of 1981. His allergies, his asthma, and his diabetes had worsened and sapped his energies; finally, persistent coughing began to affect an old back injury – a prolapsed disk – and this caused him severe pain. Indian doctors and one of the world's leading orthopedic surgeons, brought in from England to treat him, testified to his condition''' in the excerpt you posted above. You have also omitted another section in FitzGerald which follows your first quote from her that you gave above: The following narrative by FitzGerald details regular crises and death-like experiences at seven-year intervals, including one almost exactly seven years prior: FitzGerald covers various angles, and that is what we should do here and I believe have done. If you want, we can add FitzGerald's "seven-year itch theory" as well. Jayen 466 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that the theory that the illness was "all made up" ignores the testimony by Milne, the most hostile source around, who recalls personally giving unsuccessful osteopathic treatment to Osho. Jayen 466 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC


 * My intention was not to misrepresent Mullan, that's hardly necessary, the INS believed he wasn't ill, Osho later pleaded guilty and was convicted of giving false information on his initial visa application, it was part of the Alford plea bargin. Note also that Mullan's tone clearly indicates he is cautious about presenting the offical version as fact; note the quote..unquote for medical reasons, and the use of 'allegedly'. I omitted the FitzGerald sentence precisely because it is citing the official biography, you can provide the actual source instead. The 7 year interval claim sounds like mythology to me, but by all means, cite it if you wish. Note also Gordons caution: His coughing supposedly aggravated his back condition, perhaps causing a disc to herniate. Please present whatever other sources you may have, including a cite for Milne, if you have it. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that when it serves a particular view both Milnes (and Shella's) testimony are deemed admissible, that fact speaks for itself. Also, are you disputing that Osho was found guilty of falsyfying statements on his original travel visa for 'medical purposes'? Curious too that he mentions valium curing his back as this would appear to support the idea that the whole thing was psychosomatic, and that is the reason no operation took place. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who has often had back problems I can assure you that Valium is often prescribed for non-psychosomatic back problems. Also Osho was found guilty of falsifying statements in his visa extension, not in the original application. jalal (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * yes you are right, my mistake, I misread the information, it was indeed the October 21st 1981 application for a visa extension. I had confused this with the details given at an October 14 1982 meeting with the INS where he "knowingly and willfully" made "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" by declaring that "he had never discussed immigration to the United States with anyone prior to coming to America". Semitransgenic (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, I think I actually got it right the first time, he pleaded guilty to two felonies, one being the false statements made on the extension, the other being concealment of intent to stay in the country when applying for his initial visitors visa. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Osho made an Alford plea to two of the 35 charges: one count of intending to remain in the US, and one count of conspiring to have his followers stay illegally in the country (Gordon, p. 201). Jayen 466 15:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So basically one of the felonies relates to statements made on the original visa application and the fact that he concealed his intent to stay, i.e. that the medical reasons were used as pretext to enter the country for an extended period. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the only count in the indictment relating to an intention to remain in the US was count 34, which referred to the interview regarding his application for an extension of his original visa. The October 14 interview mentioned in count 35 (to which he did not enter an Alford plea) would appear to have been related to the extension as well; he had been in the country for sixteen and a half months by then. Jayen 466 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to FitzGerald, you are incorrect, both felonies were in relation to the visa:
 * Semitransgenic (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the The New Yorker article, which has the benefit of that publication's renowned fact-checking department, it says 1981: Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, note that the New York Times at the time reported that both counts related to the arrangement of sham marriages. Given the amount of detail and research presented by Gordon, as well as the fact that he reconciles the various accounts referring either to false statements made to officials or the arrangement of sham marriages, I am inclined to accept Gordon's version. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1987 British edition of Cities on Hill, published by Picador (Originally 1986 Simon & Schuster in the US), states in the acknowledgments that "Much of the book appeared initially in The New Yorker" she then mentions those involved, at the New Yorker, the fact that they made important contributions and improved the manuscript, and then lists the names of those (5 individuals) who "performed the heroic feats of fact-checking". This seems like an unusual discrepancy that will need to be cross checked with other sources, I would like to see the New Yorker item also if I can get access to it. However, this can be authoritavely checked by looking at records of court proceedings some of which are accessible online Semitransgenic (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, read Gordon above, he is dicsussing three charges. The sham marriages are what they had enough evidence to convict him on, the bargin was based on accepting guilt for the visa information falsification, that seems pretty clear in what Gordon states.
 * Semitransgenic (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read Gordon above, he says, "As I read through the indictments and consulted with neutral immigration lawyers and former INS officials, it seemed that the INS was reaching pretty far to arrest Rajneesh. He might well have known about the sham marriages, but I didn't see how, apart from taped evidence of a conversation with Sheela, this, or his aiding and abetting them, could be proved." Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, Osho only spoke to immigration officials after his arrival in the United States, in connection with his visa extension, and it was immigration officials that he was accused of having lied to. His original visa was arranged for him via the American Consulate in India. He did not attend the Consulate himself.
 * Whatever counts other than the 33 sham-marriage counts Gordon is referring to, they refer to INS meetings held in the States, in 1981 and 1982. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Having just looked through other sources, via goole books, it seems pretty clear to me that the felonies had to do with false statements made to the INS (information presented in a visa application constitutes a legally binding statement) one of which, related to the intital travel visa for travel purposes. Are you holding to the position that this is not the case? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe he did not speak to INS officials prior to his arrival in the US, and Gordon, who seems to have read the indictment – since he comments upon it at length – says the two counts concerned refer to meetings with INS officials in October 1981 and October 1982, at which Osho is supposed to have concealed an intent to reside in the US. Mehta (p. 119) also refers to false statements made to immigration authorities in 1981 (copied from FitzGerald :-) ). More I cannot say at present, pending further research. I'll try to find sources on the original arrangement of the medical visa; I think this was done by Sheela on his behalf. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The INS as FitzGerald says above "contended that the guru had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States, and that false statements had been made on his application", this refers to his original visitors visa application. When it came to the plea bargin, it was based on him accepting guilt for the original charge, against guilt for the arranged marriages charges, which they claimed they had enough evidence to convict him on. It seems pretty clear that this is what happened. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What FitzGerald is referring to is the Portland INS reasoning given in December 1982 for denying the subject permission to stay as a "religious worker". Mullan covers this as well, p. 135–136. That decision was later withdrawn (January 1983) because of procedural violations (Mullan p. 136). What Gordon is writing about is the grand jury indictment issued on behalf of the INS on October 23rd 1985 (i.e. almost three years later, and after the religious worker visa had been granted in 1984), and Gordon is quite specific that the accusations of having made false statements to INS officials raised in that indictment related to INS meetings that took place in October 1981 and October 1982, and statements made by the subject in those meetings. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that is not what I am seeing, Mullan also states "Bhagwan had been in the USA on a tourist visa for only five months prior to his application in November 1981; inaccurate information concerning Bhagwan's health in Poona and his need for medical attention in the USA was given; and, finally, his purchase of property in America by his rajneeshees indicated that he had prior intent to come to permanent resident and not only for medical reasons". These are the exact charges that were finally levelled against him when the plea bargain was hammered out. Yes, they were dropped the first time round, and the religious worker status was finally given, however when the finale came, they returned to the original two charges and made them stick. That is my reading of it based on the information I have seen. Further discussion on the matter is fruitless until either you or I find the exact breakdown of this as it happened. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it looks like I have got in a muddle with the various accounts, it appears that it may be as Gordon states, I lost track of exactly which 'visa' was being referred to. Gordon on p.201 also says that Osho "pleaded guilty to intending to remain in the United States when he applied for his visa [I had presumed this was the first visa] and conspiring to have his followers illegally stay in the country". I'm still not clear why Gordon and FitzGerald charge summaries differ. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The FitzGerald anomaly may relate to the fact that the indictment states "Since December, 1980, the defendants conspired to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal and cover up by trick, scheme and device, a material fact in a matter within jurisdiction of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), in violation of Title 18, United States Code 1001." The defendants being Osho, Sheela, and six others. Only two of the counts were specifically aimed at Osho, 34 & 35 and they relate to falsifying information on October 21, 1981 (lied about intent to remain in America permanently), on October 14, 1982. No further detail on count 35. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, from what I'm seeing now, it appears that the October 14 1982 deals with the issue of medical reasons being used as a pre-text to enter the country, so it looks the conclusion I had originally arrived at was correct. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that the October 14 meeting discussed actions prior to coming to the US, you may well be right. FWIW, according to the official Osho "autobiography", the indictment alleged that he "participated in arranging marriages among his disciples and that he misstated his intent on his original tourist visa application" (p. 258). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the source for your quote from the indictment above?
 * There is definitely some confusion around all of this in the literature. A number of sources (like the NYT article linked above) report that in the plea bargain, he agreed to plead guilty to two counts of arranging sham marriages, while other sources do not report this, and only speak of his pleading guilty to two counts of making false statements to officials (e.g. Carter, p. 236–237). What is consistently reported, I believe, is that he pleaded guilty to 2 out of the 35 (34 in the autobiography) charges against him. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the discrepancy between FitzGerald and Gordon, remember that FitzGerald is talking about a reasoning given for an initial rejection of his application for permanent resident status (which was later granted), while Gordon is talking about the grand jury indictment which occurred some years later, and which formed the justification for his arrest. The two accounts are not about the same thing. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Brecher quotes directly from the court transcripts a lot (p341-344). He states that "the deal was that Rajneesh would plead guilty to Count One, an all-purpose conspiracy charge, and one other count." When interviewed and asked "Is there any other proof for your contentions besides the [plea bargain] agreement?" Charles Turner said the signed plea agreement was the proof of his entire case.jalal (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Time Magazine reported on Mon November 11th 1985: "In reported frail health from diabetes, assorted allergies and back ailments, the Bhagwan was incarcerated in the prison infirmary. Rajneesh's need for back surgery was the purported reason for his coming to the U.S. from Poona, India, in June 1981. The surgery was never performed, and Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have charged him with lying about it. The Government also charged the guru and seven of his aides with arranging sham marriages so that foreign disciples could move to the U.S. as spouses." Semitransgenic (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Brecher covers the move in Passage To America (pages 51-52 mainly). I'll just provide a summary now, if you want the exact quotes I can type them in later (or if you don't trust me on that, I can scan the pages and post an image somewhere). He makes a couple of interesting observations. 1) that in March 1981 the Ashram imported into India, a 12 ton, armor plated stretch Rolls-Royce, at enormous expense. He observes that this is an unlikely move from Sheela, Rajneesh et al if they were planning a move to the USA. 2) that Osho's passport was issued on May 13th 1981, 19 days before the journey. At that time he quotes Arup as saying that Sheela was also very upset: "[Sheela] was trying to get him to agree to go, and that he had said, 'No'. He wasn't ready to agree to that. He had never left India, and he didn't want to leave India". jalal (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He (Brecher) then goes on to detail some of the memorandums between various INS offices. The visa officer in Bombay (now Mumbai), Ms Joyce Smith, reports that Sheela first came to see her on May 4th to discuss a "highly confidential matter". Sheela told her that Rajneesh was very sick and needed medical treatment in the US. "Ma Sheela then enquired about the possibility of the Bhagwan [sic] residing in the US for some years as a minister of religion if the climate suited him and if his recovery was positive. She said that she was asking this on her own, and that the Bhagwan [sic] had not expressed any interest in immigrating to the US." Ms. Smith said that this "posed a conflict of interest" with his request for a medical visa and then required a lot of medical certificates and other documents to prove that Rajneesh would return to India after treatment. She also noted that she "would be unwilling to issue a visa without guidance from the Department of State, as I felt that the Bhagwan was a highly controversial figure whose presence in the US could lead to considerable problems." jalal (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ms. Smith then told Sheela that nothing would happen for 2-3 weeks (taking it to about June 8th). Meanwhile, an unnamed sannyasin had hired a Washington DC law firm, O'Connor and Hannan for "services rendered" regarding the visa application. He was charged $7500 for the services and $30 for a cable from the State Department to the offices in Bombay, sent at 17:34, May 28th, asking why the visa had been denied. The cable also mentioned "INTERESTED PARTY.HAIG" (Alexander M. Haig Jr, Reagans secretary of State). The next day the Bombay office replied that the visa hadn't been denied and that the visa would be issued unless the department advised otherwise. The following day (a Saturday May 30th, when the office was normally closed), Ms. Smith issued a visa for Rajneesh. And the next day an armor plated Rolls-Royce cruised in a caravan of cars down to Bombay airport. Interestingly another consulate official, Amstutz, sent a cable at lunch time on Friday. The cable reported that the Ashram had been the target of three separate bomb attacks in the last 48 hours. "The police have requested assistance from the military [...] and believe the bomb attacks to be the work of a local group hostile to the Ashram" jalal (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All the Brecher stuff is deviating from the issue at hand, and obscuring the main discussion here, moved to below. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit other editors comments! jalal (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please pay attention to discussion requests and do no veer off topic.The thread was split to avoid confusion. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a bump to keep the thread active: should automated archiving attempt to remove it. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bump. will be returning to this. Do not archive. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Competition
Just for reference and comparison, there is a useful article on the same subject at encyclopedia.com, from Gale's Encyclopedia of World Biography. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Brecher

 * Brecher reports that Count 34 claimed that Rajneesh had lied [...] on October 21, 1981 and Count 35 on October 14 1982. There was no mention of the original medical visa application. The indictment reads: "during an interview conducted by INS examiner George Hunter for the purpose of reviewing his application for permanent residence status, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh stated that he had never discussed immigrating to the US with anyone prior to coming to the US, whereas in truth and fact as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh then and there well knew and believed this statement and representation was false, fictitious and fraudulent; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2". There is then many pages of court room drama, too long to transcribe here, but the gist of it is that there was no direct evidence of Osho's having lied, but there was circumstantial evidence and that was enough for a conspiracy case against him. It's also pointed out in the court proceedings that it is legal to apply for one type of visa (medical in this case) and have the "intent to remain permanently if the legal opportunity presents itself". jalal (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are claiming there is no mention of the medical visa, as a point of contention for the INS, in Brecher? a book you clearly have becasue you offered to scan pages, are you holding to that? Semitransgenic (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that matches what Gordon quotes the indictment as saying. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And from reading Gordon p. 199, as well as the context in Brecher, it would appear that Brecher is quoting here (i.e. in your italicised passage from "during an interview ..." to "... Sections 1001 and 2") from Count 35. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Brecher covers the move in Passage To America. I'll just provide a summary now, if you want the exact quotes I can type them in later (or if you don't trust me on that, I can scan the pages and post an image somewhere). He makes a couple of interesting observations. 1) that in March 1981 the Ashram imported into India, a 12 ton, armor plated stretch Rolls-Royce, at enormous expense. He observes that this is an unlikely move from Sheela, Rajneesh et al if they were planning a move to the USA. 2) that Osho's passport was issued on May 13th 1981, 19 days before the journey. At that time he quotes Arup as saying that Sheela was also very upset: "[Sheela] was trying to get him to agree to go, and that he had said, 'No'. He wasn't ready to agree to that. He had never left India, and he didn't want to leave India". jalal (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He (Brecher) then goes on to detail some of the memorandums between various INS offices. The visa officer in Bombay (now Mumbai), Ms Joyce Smith, reports that Sheela first came to see her on May 4th to discuss a "highly confidential matter". Sheela told her that Rajneesh was very sick and needed medical treatment in the US. "Ma Sheela then enquired about the possibility of the Bhagwan [sic] residing in the US for some years as a minister of religion if the climate suited him and if his recovery was positive. She said that she was asking this on her own, and that the Bhagwan [sic] had not expressed any interest in immigrating to the US." Ms. Smith said that this "posed a conflict of interest" with his request for a medical visa and then required a lot of medical certificates and other documents to prove that Rajneesh would return to India after treatment. She also noted that she "would be unwilling to issue a visa without guidance from the Department of State, as I felt that the Bhagwan was a highly controversial figure whose presence in the US could lead to considerable problems." jalal (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ms. Smith then told Sheela that nothing would happen for 2-3 weeks (taking it to about June 8th). Meanwhile, an unnamed sannyasin had hired a Washington DC law firm, O'Connor and Hannan for "services rendered" regarding the visa application. He was charged $7500 for the services and $30 for a cable from the State Department to the offices in Bombay, sent at 17:34, May 28th, asking why the visa had been denied. The cable also mentioned "INTERESTED PARTY.HAIG" (Alexander M. Haig Jr, Reagans secretary of State). The next day the Bombay office replied that the visa hadn't been denied and that the visa would be issued unless the department advised otherwise. The following day (a Saturday May 30th, when the office was normally closed), Ms. Smith issued a visa for Rajneesh. And the next day an armor plated Rolls-Royce cruised in a caravan of cars down to Bombay airport. Interestingly another consulate official, Amstutz, sent a cable at lunch time on Friday. The cable reported that the Ashram had been the target of three separate bomb attacks in the last 48 hours. "The police have requested assistance from the military [...] and believe the bomb attacks to be the work of a local group hostile to the Ashram" jalal (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is on page 51 and 52 of Brecher. Snippet views are available in Google Books. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, please consider that the Brecher book is a dubious source, much of it consists of a largely conspiratorial thesis, published by a little known publishing house, in Bombay, with no track record of reputable publishing. From what I can find out, Book Quest Publishers is actually a book distributer. There is definitely a fact checking issue with this publication. In terms of guidelines on source material, I'm not sure it should be presentented as a reference at all. Personally, I'm not sure about the books tone, and the very first sentence, in the foreward, is problematic, largerly becasue it is false. "Osho Rajneesh had millions of disciples; he had also many million detractors who felt his teachings threatened to tear the carefully woven fabric of Christian soicety and its moral norms." Millions of disciples? The premise of the book is that Reagan and the Vatican conspired to undo Rajneesh. Sorry, I'm all for a good conspiracy but I'm not sure this is the place to present it. Also, regarding the ranch value, there is a blatant contradition, have you spotted it? perhaps it is a misprint, but it simply does not compute. There are some interesting things in the book, but how much of it is fiction, is something that remains to be established. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the book is actually quotes from interviews and published transcripts of official documents. Although Brecher is sympathetic and therefore of dubious value, the sources that he quotes are reliable and have a place here. Alos the sections that I laboriously typed in were in the correct places and I do not appreciate having you edit what I do here.jalal (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I clearly requested above that discussion stick to the sources presented, so the thread is clear - should one of us need a third opinon or other - as this makes more sense long term, it was not my intention to interfere with your efforts but please appreciate that I have also spent time extracting material for the purposes or review. Yes there are quotes but we have no way of fact checking that any of the interviews actually took place. Some of it could be complete fiction. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi, please do not move other editors' contributions. Any editor is entitled to present sources for discussion. As for your problem with the Brecher foreword, the foreword was written by Khushwant Singh. (If you're not familiar with the name, please read our article on him; he is one of the most respected and highly honoured journalists of India, and has, over decades, contributed to Western quality papers like the New York Times). I don't share your assessment of Brecher. Brecher names his sources, and all of his interviews are individually dated. His book is cited by at least two academics (Aveling and Fox). While the publisher is a small publishing house, I recall that some of their titles have citations in University Press publications. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm simply trying keep the discussion clear, this stuff about armour plated cars has nothing to do with the information as presented above - and the question at hand regarding the precise nature of the INS charges. I requested, quite explicitly, that editors discuss the sources presented above. Whomever wrote the forward the millions of followers and detractors claim is not the best place to begin. It was published in India for obvious reasons. I think the reliability of the source needs to be explored further and I concsider it pretty low on the scale of usable sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not find Jalal's posts extraneous to the discussion at all. As we have seen, Brecher corroborates Gordon, and adds further detail. I'd be in favour of restoring the comments to their original point in the flow of discussion, and reserving this section to the discussion of any general concerns about using Brecher as a source. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like a nuetral opinion on that before you take any action, as I feel you are being discourteous in ignoring my original request. I also took the time to present sources that clearly demonsrate where the original disupte regarding facts existed, I then attempted to keep the discussion specific to the material presented. This was done precisely so that a review by a third party would be easy should an issue arise. Your attitude is counter productive to long term progress. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the Brecher texts make more sense in the places that they were. If you wish to edit others contributions then I suggest you get a neutral opinion on the validity of doing so. Should you wish to dominate and control what should be a free and open discussion, then please provide some good justification for doing so. If you cannot work with other editors, rather than against them then I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you views. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not conflict. jalal (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the guidelines on split threads what I did reflected the fact that you had veered off topic. The questions at hand were 1) did Osho use his back injury as a pretext to move to America - both you and Jalal say no I presented sources that appear to contradict that - 2) did the INS charge him with lying about his medical condition as a pretext to staying in America. You then gave information about conversations with visa officials and armoured cars, could you perhaps be more succinct and stick to the main questions as requested? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jalal gave quotes from the grand-jury indictment, which is relevant to the question we were discussing (i.e. what he was charged with). Besides, Semi, you yourself introduced other sources in the discussion in question, as did I, and we discussed those – it was just a natural development, and all related to the topic. As far as I can see, Jalal did nothing else. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would recommend the visa and plea issues be tabled for a week or two. Things are starting to get more than a bit contentious and it would be of benefit to everyone if the topic was revisited after a little time for perspective and cool-down is permitted. There are plenty of other points for discussion and improvement that could be addressed in the mean time. In general, everyone should try to remain polite, constructive and focused on improving the article. Avoid side discussions about the general topic and expounding on the topic in-depth. After returning to the issue, it may be helpful if the general points raised by the body of reliable sources are summarized. I believe everyone here is familiar with what the sources have to say about the matter. After a break, it would be appropriate to try and hash out how the information should be presented in the article. If there are conflicting accounts, avoid relating the views only presented by a small minority of the sources and explicitly attribute conflicting views. Continuing to push the issue at the current time would seem to only aggravate issues, rather than bringing things down a notch. Revisit the topic when heads are a bit cooler and tongues a bit friendlier. The issue and article will still be here in a week or two. Vassyana (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of the involved parties, I'm agreeable to a two week cool down period. I am assuming that applies to the Talk page as well as the article itself. jalal (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback and advise Vassyana. Those concerned can read my comments above, I have nothing more to say at this time and will not be providing further replies on this particluar matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Judith Fox weighting issue

 * There seems to be an issue with the dependence upon Judith M. Fox's book in this article. I question why of the 350 odd citations, 100 (including ibidem's) are taken from one 54 paged "booklet". Some sections in the Osho article depend almost entirely on Fox. This would appear problematic considering the abundance of material available on the subject.
 * In light of this observation, I am seeking an opinion as to whether or not this issue warrants the placement of an appropriate tag, or tags, to highlight this concern.It is essentially one editor, Jayen, who is responsible for the weighting issue arising from the use of this source.
 * Notable also, in terms of questioning the quality and reliability of the source, is the fact that the book in question is published in conjunction with an Italian organisation called CESNUR, owned by one Massimo Introvigne; who seems to have a reputation for his stance against so called anti-cultists, or cult-apologists.
 * Generally, I have found that there is resistance to the inclusion of material that questions offically endorsed appraisals of Osho Rajneesh; despite numerous valid sources being offered, for example Talk:Osho & Talk:Osho.
 * The officical view, that endorsed by individuals sympathetic to the Osho movement, is always presented as the primary version of events, with all other perspectives sidelined as secondary. This is not a neutral presentation of verifiable sources.
 * Another observation is that the weighting of Fox's assessment of Osho's teachings gives it primacy over the views of other scholars, such as Carter, Metha, Urban, Mullan, etc. all of whom have written on the nature of the subject's teachings. Instead some of their views are relegated to one small section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion. This simply adds to the imbalance.

Semitransgenic (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to my analysis, the article lists 201 different source locations. Of these, 35 (not 93) are pages in Fox. However, it is true that some of these pages have multiple citations. Overall, the article has, according to my reckoning, 347 individual source citations. Of those, 98 are to Fox. So there would seem to be some potential justification in raising the question of undue weight. To check if this is borne out by the facts, let us look at what is actually cited to Fox, taking each citation in turn, from the beginning.


 * Fox p. 9 (3 cites) is used for the number of Osho's siblings and the occupation of his father, his going back to live with his parents aged 7, and his youthful flirtations with politics.


 * Fox p. 10 (2 cites) is used to source Osho's criticising Gandhi and socialism, and his speaking against Brahminism.


 * Fox p. 12 (1 cite) is used to source that sannyasins wore a locket with his picture.


 * Fox p. 11 (1 cite) is used to source that his sannyasins did not live an ascetic lifestyle.


 * Fox p. 15 (1 cite) is used to source that the number of Western visitors increased.


 * Fox p. 16 (1 cite): the arrival of Western therapists in the ashram.


 * Fox p. 17 (6 cites): the Ashram beginning to offer therapy groups, these becoming a major source of income, there being Dynamic Meditation at 6 a.m., Osho holding a spontaneous morning discourse, the way therapies were chosen, the fact that therapies allowed violence and sexual contact between participants.


 * Fox p. 18 (3 cites): daily meditation and therapy programme in the so-called "buddhafield", visitors having darshans, "madhouse" carnival atmosphere in the ashram.


 * Fox p. 20 (1 cite): some individual sannyasins engaging in drug running and prostitution.


 * Fox p. 47 (1 cite): sannyasins discussing planned drug runs or prostitution activities with Osho and Osho giving his blessing.


 * Fox p. 21 (4 cites): alternative commune locations in India sought, Saswad castle commune started, tensions with the Desai government, Osho entering a period of silence.


 * Fox p. 22 (4 cites): Sheela becoming the new secretary, back problem and move to US, Sheela claiming it was for health reasons, Sheela being keen to go to the US.


 * Fox p. 26 (1 cite): Osho's AIDS warning.


 * Fox p. 27 (1 cite): Osho ending his period of public silence.


 * Fox p. 50 (1 cite): lack of evidence linking Osho to Sheela's crimes.


 * Fox p. 48 (1 cite): allegations that Osho was addicted to nitrous oxide.


 * Fox p. 29 (1 cite): Osho returning to his ashram in Pune in 1987.

This covers the first 33 citations to Fox. As the article grew, I used Fox as a convenience cite for several reasons: Her book is short and contains the essential outline of Osho's life. Second, it is, unlike FitzGerald or Carter, strictly choronological, making it easy to find things. Third, having been written quite recently, it is one of the few books that covers all of Osho's life, from his birth to his death. Fourth, along with FitzGerald, Fox was one of the first sources I bought for working on this article.

There is nothing cited to Fox in the above that could not just as easily be cited to Carter, FitzGerald, Joshi, or Gordon.

CESNUR is an organisation of mainstream scholars of religion. According to this Oxford University Press publication, CESNUR is a recommended source of objective information on new religious movements. The same publication also mentions that Massimo Introvigne lectures at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome.

"Judith Fox (= Judith Thompson, = Judith Coney) holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from the London School of Economics, University of London. For more than twenty years, she has researched new religions, culminating in such books as The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism and Sahaja Yoga. She edits a series on new religions from Curzon Press." Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then the solution is simple, most of the quotes can be pulled from alternative sources. It just needs care to make sure that no source is unduly represented, especially if that source should be 'sympathetic'. I'm not sure why this is an issue though. jalal (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox, include the ibidem's.


 * Cites in the teachings section are almost entirely from Fox, particulary the first sub-section, and it is mostly Fox that is being paraphrased.


 * Her work The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism was not a culmination of 20 years research, as claimed above, it was written in 1986.


 * Fox is not a practicing academic and does not currently hold a research position at a university.


 * Fox's Osho Rajneesh publication appears to hold many biases and is not a neutral source, I would point to the first paragraph of page 9 as a good example: where she essentially states that Rajneesh was the reincarnation of a man who lived 700 years ago.


 * Semitransgenic (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.
 * There are indeed many cites to Fox in the teaching section. This partly reflects the fact that she devotes a whole chapter to a complete outline of his teachings and gives the best overview. Other sources tend to have scattered references to various aspects of his teaching here and there, and to focus on particular points. But the various aspects that Fox describes of his teachings can be found in accounts by others as well. (For the record, the Teaching section has 76 citations, of which 48 are to Fox. Note that every sentence sourced to Fox has a separate citation, even where these are 3-sentence units, and that each primary source quote that is given in Fox and is reproduced in this article has a separate, double citation to both Fox and the primary source.)
 * Bromley disagrees with you about the neutrality and objectivity of CESNUR, and he is a leading scholar of religion. It is true that Fox reproduces a legend about Osho's former incarnation; I did not think (and still don't think) that section was encyclopedically relevant for our article. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether a scholar working at a university or not is necessarily relevant to this discussion, but according to this page, relating to an Oxford University Press publication of hers, Judith Fox taught at the University of London in 2000 at the time her book on Rajneesh was written (the copyright is 2000). (She married or divorced or something, hence the name change. But she is also generally known as the leading scholar on Sahaja Yoga.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this thread has been cross-posted to Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard


 * This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.


 * go to the reference section, look at the cites, count the ibidem's. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Fox is not the only source with ibidems. If you count her ibidems, you also have to count the ibidems for the other sources. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * number of citations attributable to Fox is disproportionate what ever way you look at it. This is the view of one person, taken from a single 54 page booklet, how many cites?
 * I believe she was mentioned here as an academic at one point or another; that is generally someone with a track record of peer reviewed, university endorsed, research.
 * The question relates more to the neutrality of the Signature publication - it's usability as a reliable source, and the degree to which it is being depended upon, in light of the fact that it is essentially a 54 page booklet, and that other sources are largely ignored, relative to the disproportionate coverage given to Fox's views - than to her academic credentials Semitransgenic (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I mentioned above that her book on Sahaja Yoga was published by Oxford University Press. Judith Fox/Coney/Thompson has a twenty-five-year history of contributing to peer-reviewed journals, including on this specific topic. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But this is not an article about Sahaja Yoga. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see what you're getting at, Semitransgenic. As far as I can see from a quick survey, Judith Fox has a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology, an M.Sc., a doctorate in the Sociology of Religion, she taught at London University's Study of Religions Department, previously produced a book on the subject of this article (as yet unreferenced here) with Paul Heelas, (The Way of the Heart: The Rajneesh Movement, mentioned e.g. here in [Aveling), she contributed a paper entitled Recent changes in Rajneeshism to the Journal of Contemporary Religion, and contributed a chapter covering Osho to this 2000 State University of New York Press publication. We cite few, if any, authors in this article who have a longer track record of researching Osho than Fox has. And the cites above, like the number of his siblings, the ashram earning money with therapy groups, some of his disciples engaging in drug running and prostitution, Osho giving morning discourses, Osho talking about AIDS, etc., are not Fox's views, but facts reported by her, and many other authors. I'll grant you that much of the teaching section is sourced to Fox, but that is because she gives the most complete overview. [[User:Jayen466| Jayen ]]<i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked no further into Fox's background than what is immediately available via google, and there is very little for one Judith Fox. The name change since 1986 was not apparent to me becasue I viewed the credit to The Way of The Heart on the 2000 work, for a woman of the same name. The question of the publisher and its reputation is beyond the scope of the discussion, and I don't have time look further into allegations relating to CENSUR accepting funding from various NRM's with public image problems.


 * Obviously, it's not possible to get wider feedback here on the tone of her Signature publication but I personally find it questionable, relative to the range of sources available on the subject. It does not feature the type of writing I would expect from someone with academic training, but then again this is far from being an academic standard source, not that it is a requirement, but there are a number of academic publications on the subject that could be referred to in place of Fox.


 * The issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that almost one third of the citations stem from one persons assessment of the subject when there are a number of commentators to consider, this is not in keeping with provisions for a summary of sources.


 * I do not accept your claim that she gives the most complete overview and this runs contrary to the summary of sources requirement, she provides her overview, other commentators have offered views on his teachings but they are corralled into a short sub-section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion.


 * In summary what we have is undue weight given to a concise and sympathetic little booklet which reads like it was written by someone who is unashamedly a fan and perhaps once a follower, not that either of those facets are in themselves problematic, it is the credence that this 54 page book has been given here that is the problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Teaching section sets out to give a description of his teaching. People's views on the teaching are treated in the Reception section. That is fairly standard practice. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps you may be choosing to miss the point. By my understanding of the matter, there is no codified set of 'teachings' attributable to Osho. Fox is simply one of many who have written on the subject, but the weighting is leaning heavily in her direction, becasue in your view her perspective is definitive. You can run around the issue but it is very plain. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there something that prevents the use of alternate sources to provide greater diversity in references cited for the reader? I appreciate that certain sources will simply be easier to use and somewhat valuable as a reference because they provide a clear overview of a subject. However, we should avoid being overly reliant on a single source, especially in such a potentially contentious article. It can lead to claims of bias and undue weight, which are often legitimate concerns. If the material can be cited to a wider variety sources, diversifying the citations a bit will be of benefit to the article and the editing climate. Vassyana (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look for some alternative citations then and drop them in. FWIW, I don't believe Fox is or ever was a follower. But when it comes to describing Osho's teachings, I don't think it is inappropriate to use a sympathetic source. For example, to describe Islamic beliefs, we use Islamic sources, not Christian ones; to describe the beliefs of Scientology, we actually use primary sources – pages off their website – rather than Operation Clambake. I think this article already does quite well ín using scholarly sources and restricting primary source quotes to those quoted by scholars. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not necessarily disagree. However, diversifying the citations will go some way to minimizing disputes and avoiding an appearance of bias or undue weight. Even if you disagree with the complaints made about the reliance on Fox, think of the diversification of the citations as both a pragmatic action (resolving disputed issues and reducing the appearance of bias without great impact on the article) and of some benefit to the readers (providing a great diversity of citations gives readers more variety for research and verification). Vassyana (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The diversification of citations is already in progress. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * regarding Jayens comment above, the comparison made would appear to be redundent if one considers that both Christianty and Islam lend great credence to books they believe to be not only holy, but indisputably the word or god. There was one book, Rajneeshism, allegedly of Sheela's design, that as we know was denounced when Osho disolved his religion. Also, much of what he thought is derived from other belief systems, particulary Hinduism and Zen Buddhism, very little is unique to him, but what is original is his synchretic approach. There does not appear to be one codified set of teachings, discounting the '10 commandments', that can be definitevly attributed to the Osho, if I'm wrong, please clarify things for me. There certianly does not appear to be one, great, holy book that is the word of Osho, in the same way that Christians consider the Bible 'the word of god'. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what you say here does involve some oversimplification. For one, the Bible is a very large, and often greatly contradictory document; in practice, modern-day Christianity emphasises some elements and deemphasises others (notably parts of the OT), based on a centuries-old tradition of exegesis (with diminishing pluralism; there were early competing traditions, such as gnosticism, with different emphases, and the Bible itself was only formed some considerable time after the beginning of Christianity, and not without dispute). Even today, there are considerable differences in dogma and practices between Catholics and Protestants.
 * Similar things can be said for the Qur'an; modern-day muslim beliefs are shaped by the Hadith and many, many centuries of secondary Islamic literature, as much as they are by the Holy Qur'an. Again, the differences between Shiites and Sunnis, say, should make that obvious.
 * I guess what we have in Osho's case is a "very large holy book", recording the words of someone who was, in the eyes of his followers, an "enlightened master", a concept based on an Eastern view of divinity. It's a book comprising some 100,000 pages – all of it available online – with various recurrent main themes that we must attempt to present. And it may amuse you to know that scholars like Süss, who have looked at the way Osho's video discourses are used in Pune and elsewhere, as the central focus of a daily practice of worship, have actually drawn parallels to Christian rituals like the Holy Communion. Complete digital archives of Osho's writings, audio and video records are preserved on several continents, to guard them against loss. Doesn't this effort seem like a modern-day equivalent of the scribes that preserved the Bible or the Qur'an through centuries up until the present day? Those that engage in such efforts certainly appear to attach an extraordinary value to the words they preserve for posterity.
 * Scientology likewise has such a body of literature at its core, with Hubbard's writings – which even manage to exceed Osho's in length – constituting the Church's "Holy Scriptures", being similarly preserved, and again forming a central element of Scientologist worship. And the point I was making was that in establishing what should properly be presented as the core tenets of Scientology, out of that body of literature, WP is actually guided by Scientologists, just as Christians or Muslims tell us what Christianity and Islam are about.
 * Osho is certainly seen as an innovator; see e.g. the referenced comment by Khushwant Singh. The same applies, again, to Jesus and Muhammad; they referenced and acknowledged prophets that went before them, but saw themselves as giving the perennial teaching a new and improved form, better in line with the needs of the time. In fact, this is almost a perennial theme in the self-presentation of spiritual teachers. It applies to Guru Nanak as much as to modern-day teachers like Idries Shah or Osho.
 * Of course we can also just drop all this religious analogy and treat Osho as a secular philosopher, respecting his hostility to religion, but I guess the end result is the same in that we have to portray the main themes of his teaching, just like we do for someone like Marx or Kant.
 * The one potential shortcoming I see in our current summary of Osho's teachings is that it may fail to give sufficient weight to the love theme in Osho's thought. In purely statistical terms, references to "love" in his discourses exceed references to "meditation" or "ego" by a factor of about 3:1 and 4:1 respectively.
 * Your mention of Rajneeshism is salient however; we should perhaps cover its creation and subsequent repudiation by Osho in the Oregon section. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sufficient weight to the love theme - 'Love' has a number of extra meanings ('divine love', 'love of ice-cream', 'in love') and a statistical view may not indicate as much as it might appear to. We (as in all the editors of this article) only refer to the English discourses, the flavour of the Hindi discourses is significantly different and not easily translatable. For a fully rounded biography we should really include his ideas as expounded in the Hindi talks given to an Indian audience. The article still gives an inordinate amount of space to five years in America :^) . jalal (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a cite putting Osho in the Indian advaita context. As far as the Hindi discourses are concerned, do you know of any sources discussing them? As for love, you are of course right; some occurrences are generic uses of the word, but many occur in contexts like the following:

Earlier sources like Prasad (which I don't have) may talk more about this; I believe there was more emphasis on the heart in his early talks. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Love "this" and love it so deeply that your love transcends "this" and reaches "that." That's what I mean: roots into this earth, and wings into that heaven.
 * When you argue, you assert. Assertion is violence, aggression, and the truth cannot be known by an aggressive mind, the truth cannot be discovered by violence. You can come to know the truth only when you are in love. But love never argues. There is no argument in love, because there is no aggression.
 * Silence is the door. Inner peace is the door. Non-violence is the door. Love and compassion are the doors.
 * You cannot understand but you can feel, and feeling is a higher understanding, love is a higher knowing. And the heart is the most supreme center of knowledge, not the mind; the mind is just secondary, workable, utilitarian. You can know the surface through the mind, you can never know the center.

Fox bibliography
other than those attributable to Osho, and published works in English only.












 * . (Includes a 135-page section on Rajneeshpuram previously published in two parts in The New Yorker magazine, Sept. 22 and Sept. 29 1986 editions.)








 * ASIN B0000D65TA.













I would also suggest the creation of a list of works that offer overviews of Osho's teachings that are not included in Fox, with a list of relevant sections. Amongst others that would include Carter, Goldman, Metha & Desai, Mullan, Urban. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Teachings section
Jayen, I notice you have removed the articles weighting tag, I am considering placing a new one in the teachings section. I appreciate you are addressing the issues raised but I'm still not sure the weighting is healthy just yet.Perhaps you are still planning to add material that will counter balance this. By my calculation, approx., the distribution is as follows. What is your view? Semitransgenic (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Prasad 1
 * Times of India 1 (plus 1 from The Hindu)
 * Fitzgerald 1
 * Lewis and Peterson 2 (4, refs 177 and 181; in addition, the 2 citations of ref 181 covers a whole subsection comprising 14 sentences, but it would look unsightly to reference each one of them.)
 * Urban  3 (I make it 7, distributed across refs 167, 172, 178, 180)
 * Mullan 3
 * Osho   4
 * Aveling 5
 * Carter 6
 * Wallis 9
 * Gordon 9 (10, refs 168, 174, 183)
 * Fox   34


 * My count comes out different for some of these; I have added my counts in brackets where they differ from yours. Basically, I don't have a problem with 34 out of 85 (or 97, if you add the uncited Lewis & Petersen material to the total) citations being to Fox; as I said before, she is the only academic who, writing well after Osho's death, attempted to give a complete overview of his teachings. Besides, much in the section on the ego is closely paralleled by Wallis. But on the other hand, if you have something in particular of his teachings that you miss, and would like to put forward a source that covers that, let's look at it. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, I was skimming. It seems to cover all the bases apart from his notions about capitalism and how he believed it related to spirituality. However, one third of the cites are attributable to one person, from seven rather lightweight pages, featured in a 54 page booklet. She is adding nothing new in those 7 pages so I don't see what she is bringing to the table here that isn't available elsewhere. The only information in the book which I haven't seen much of in other sources (other than Goldman, 2005), is the stuff in the I leave you my dream section, elements of which have not yet been touched upon in this article but are relevant to the legacy section. Perhaps you can tone down Fox in the teachings section and instead use her where she would be useful, but with elements of Goldman included also. Regarding the weighting, if you like, I will make a request for a third opinion to reach a conclusion on this. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If we are agreed, then, that she is covering in a compact form what could be pulled out from various other sources, I can't see what we would gain by doing so, but fear that if we did pull the same bits from various unrelated sources to stitch them together somehow, we would most likely lose the logical flow the section has now, and arrive at something that feels more piecemeal. Hence I am in favour of staying with what we've got now.
 * I've added several secondary references to Urban, who covers some of the same ground as Fox, and one to Aveling.
 * I have no strong feelings on the "I leave you my dream" bit. What do you think, Jalal? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I couldn't find that section :-( jalal (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re capitalism, note that the biography section has a strong statement from him endorsing it. The last section by Urban also touches upon it a little; it could be made a little more explicit there. However, I feel that Urban concentrates on this point to a degree not found in other sources (subtitling his contribution in Forsthoefel/Humes "The Spiritual Logic of Late Capitalism", for example); it seems more his teaching than Osho's. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)