The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. essentially a list of non-notable people with inadequate sourcing & a very vague criterion. Not ruling out the possibility that a few of the individuals here might merit individual articles. DGG (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osho Follower[edit]

Osho Follower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is one big WP:NOR violation, using poor sources, blog postings, etc. The article's creator started the page in order to further push a WP:POINT violation from the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, where he is objecting to the use of the term "follower" in that article. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are plenty of good scources . I did start the article in relation to user cirt insisting on using the reliable sourced osho "followers" see our discussion hereSo as per his reliable sources I have started to create a page of Osho followers, it's true some of the sources will require clean up and some are from blogs /I read somewhere recently that blogs were going to / or are allowed to be quoted. Any way I am prepared to help bring the article up to wiki standard and reject the nomination for speedy delete. Osho has quite a few pages here and I feel that some of his notable "followers" will make a worthwhile inclusion . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I count at least 10 links (as hyperlinks within the article's main body text, I might add) to primary sources affiliated with the subject matter, Osho, and 2 links to YouTube. Not really WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure the article will get better with a little time and that there are other people who would like to improve it and do some work on it. personally I think the topic has a lot of value.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Perhaps, if it were stubbed to remove literally almost all of the current inappropriate sources, and renamed to List of followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, with each entry supported by a satisfactory WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, that would be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the use of this article? There is already an article neo-sannyas that needs developing. All this belongs there. Now, Cirt, look and learn. Here are cited Indian disciples who have nothing to do with any "Oregon power heirarchy" - never did. Completely different ethos. But in India they are now setting up their own little guru stalls, and now here is someone who wants to be a "Osho follower" - but the term is non-notable. It is simply an invention of the human herd instinct like your "high ranking commanders". None of these people has any power unless some idiot wants to join a pack. You two are both projecting your own fantasies. Please remove this page and integrate with the above article and, Rob, please refrain from this cultism - can you not see what happened in the USA. It is nothing to do with any Bhagwan, it is to do with wanting to be part of this, making the other the enemy. Cirt, also, you see? Redheylin (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Redheylin (talk · contribs) - Please keep comments focused to this discussion, namely whether or not this page satisfies WP:NOTE. Please observe WP:NOT#FORUM. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To help those of us not so familiar with the movement(s) follow along, I'm including the relevant navigation box:

Now, I concede that I don't have a great background on the subject, but it seems to me that it's worth having a single article about those-who-follow-Osho, or an article about those who are a member of that religion. All sub-groups and variations should be treated within the same article, so that the reader can get an overview of the whole topic without a lot of clicking around.

There is already an article about Rajneeshees, and a separate article about Neo-sannyas. In my view, that's already one article too many. Now, there is this additional article.

So, there are two distinct questions: (1) What's the best way to structure Wikipedia's coverage of this class of people? and (2) Is the content and approach of the article currently under consideration appropriate for Wikipedia at all?

On the second question, I'd say that most of what's in the article is unencyclopedic. We generally don't list people who don't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criterion. So I'd be fine with delete, perhaps with the thoughtful merging of a small amount of the content into those other articles. -Pete (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Pete - there WOULD be one too many articles, but in fact Rajneeshees diverts to Osho. I think it was removed as non-notable - it should link to neosannyas. I say merge first ask questions later! Do not want to destroy work out of hand. Redheylin (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I introduced some confusion into the discussion by mistake. I meant to link to Rajneeshee (singular). Rajneeshees (plural) is a redirect, and at the time I wrote that it redirected elsewhere. Now it goes to Rajneeshee. Sorry for the confusion. -Pete (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt - it will help the articles if you see that your attempt to portray Osho as the head of a militaristic command at another page is original synthesis and that you have misquoted references to achieve it. Given the seriousness of this you ought to be grateful for my empathetic response. You ARE a person are you not? I mean, sorry if you are actually a machine, but you are editing several related pages and your edits add up to an overall policy which is your policy, your POV - and I am pointing out it is non-neutral, in a nice, kind, helpful way.Redheylin (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 3rd time now: WP:NOT#FORUM. Your comments focus on a single editor and are unrelated to this AfD discussion. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cirt's proposal for deletion above)

This article is one big WP:NOR violation, using poor sources, blog postings, etc. The article's creator started the page in order to further push a WP:POINT violation from the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, where he is objecting to the use of the term "follower" in that article. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has introduced the question of the other page and the "leaders and followers" he wishes to introduce there, but now claims that these considerations have no bearing on the present discussion. I am struggling for a word to describe this behaviour. Redheylin (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right - Off2riorob (talk · contribs) started this WP:NOR violation page as an illustration of a WP:POINT violation. Other than noting that, a larger discussion of all of these issues at this page is wholly inappropriate. This should be a discussion of whether or not the page "Osho Follower" should be kept on this project. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be. But your proposal for deletion has resulted from the creation of the page, which has resulted from your own editing. which is NNPOV and which misrepresents sources to achieve OS (and you are dealing with biographies of living persons). It is therefore worth pointing out that your editing is responsible for the creation of the article, as you yourself admit, and that the whole deal, with your spurious warnings and all, looks sorta DISRUPTIVE. (I often use caps for EMPHASIS! but not for hostility). Redheylin (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redheylin (talk · contribs) has still yet to present an argument as to why this page should be kept. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Redheylin (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Osho and merge contents.Delete First, this article is horribly misnamed: it should be something like List of Rajneeshees. Secondly, it's poorly sourced. There is nothing notable about these people as a list. The only conceivable use is that some of the information here could be migrated elsewhere. —EncMstr (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@EncMstr - as you note, the article is poorly sourced, so there isn't really much reliably sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've changed my !vote accordingly. —EncMstr (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. I have yet to see any evidence within the article (or outside) that "Followers" (with a capital F) is a term used to denote followers/disciples of Osho; Rajneeshees or neo-sannyasins is the usual term,[1] and those are already articles or redirects (latter created by me a minute back). As EncMstr notes above, it may be ok to create a List of Rajneeshees at some point. But that article will need to meet the notability requirements and be properly sourced (which this article isn't!), especially since (1) many of the disciples are still alive and (2) Osho was a controversial figure and not everyone will regard being called his follower to be an honor or even neutrally; so WP:BLP is a concern too. Abecedare (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Abecedare - The proposer has said to me above Please keep comments focused to this discussion, namely whether or not this page satisfies WP:NOTE. Please observe WP:NOT#FORUM. I am at a loss to explain why you have received no similar warning, since your recommendation, like my own, is to remove the page but for another reason. Just one thing - as even the proposer concedes there may be valuable material here, and since I and others have proposed merger, and since the editor has successfully sought the blocking of the page-creator for three days, it would be wrong to delete too speedily. EncMstr - there is a page, as noted above for "Osho followers" at neo-sannyas, rather neglected - this is a better place than Osho, which is already huge. Redheylin (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Osho movement - WHY?? Redheylin (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails to meet any standard of notability or verifiability. See Neo-sannyas Rajneeshee for definitive, encyclopedic studies of the followers of Osho. A merge and redirect is not a viable alternative seeing as all those listed are neither adequately verified nor notable according to our guidelines. Steven Walling (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Redheylin, your comments above constitute a pretty reckless attack on Cirt. Those comments would be a big problem no matter what editor they were directed at, but in this case you're just digging yourself into a hole. Cirt is well known for his Featured and Good articles, including some of the ones you mention. His research and writing in those articles has been subjected to extensive community review, and is generally agreed to be of high quality. If you can't limit your comments to the article at hand, rather than attacks on your fellow editors, you should excuse yourself from this discussion. -Pete (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou for your comment Peteforsyth - it is always good to hear from another friend of Oregon. But you seem to have a mistaken idea of what has taken place. I know exactly what I am saying and why I am saying it. Your comments will be welcome in due course, but check the edit record carefully, thanks - unless you are volunteering as a proxy and are prepared to speak FOR Cirt? Otherwise please just explain exactly what accusations YOU are making and on what grounds. But use my talk page - otherwise you will be continuing to fail to "limiting your remarks to the article at hand", which looks a little sillly. I have not taken your remarks as a personal attack, though they differ little from my own. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge neologism Osho Follower, and Rajneeshee, into Neo-sannyasin (which currently redirects to Neo-sannyas) if the content in "Neo-sannyas" can be properly sourced, and remove all unsourced or unreliably sourced content from all three articles of which each has plenty. If "Neo-sannyas" can't be sourced, merge it and the AfD article into Rajneeshee, as there are many press sources showing these folks were once so-called. If what's left doesn't amount to much more than a stub/definition, the lot should be upmerged to Osho per WP:NOTDIC Katr67 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this merge too. Better to have one good, properly sourced article than three poor ones. Steven Walling (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Katr67 (talk · contribs) brings up a good point, WP:NOTDIC would apply to all of those pages, which could be merged into Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I was actually going to suggest upmerging Osho movement into Osho as well. Katr67 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. I'm not sure what purpose having all these separate stub articles serves. However, just as to the matter at hand -- are we pretty much all in agreement that this article should be deleted, with a little of its content (the well-sourced stuff) to be included somewhere, in some other article? If so, I think we should just park the contents of this article somewhere in project space so we can do that later. -Pete (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already parked it, seeing that the proposer had also secured a block of the creator. However, the movement has outlasted the man (who has a very large article already), so one article should remain but not four. As far as I know, neo-sannyas is the defining term. Redheylin (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible. You're right, the Osho article is pretty extensive, and a separate article on his various kinds of followers might be a good idea. By the way, your speculation about who is securing what, by what motives, in your comment above, does not help us get to where we need to be. Once again: content, not user behavior. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with merging the three "follower" articles into Osho movement. It makes sense since, as Redheylin pointed out, the movement has outlasted its creator. Katr67 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with Katr67 (talk · contribs) that the most appropriate place to merge anything to would be Osho movement. Also agree with Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) that this page Osho Follower should be deleted, as it doesn't have much reliably sourced content of value. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of these people would not fit into the localised category of Rajneeshee , You can not call someone a rajneeshee if he was never there . Can you ? few of the notable people on the page were actually there in Oregon .The thing is that I am also in favour of some kind of merge or deletion or a renaming of this page to noteworthy disciples of Osho or something as the expression of "follower" is really just "press slang ". The Osho page is too big already . I think some of Osho's sannyasins or Neo sannyasins are in themselves quite notable people . Many of them get a lot of hits on google and many have written books and have their own disciples or noteworthy story. I think it's a good idea and suggest I add whatever is noteworthy to Neo-sannyas . Rajneeshee should be merged only with the articles relating to rajneeshees which is bio terror and the assassination conspiracy , apart from that rajneeshee is not important in this , take one of the most active of these Neo sannyasins at the moment with a book and active profile "Rajneesh" this guy was never a Rajneeshee but he is notable in himself . and another, Veeresh , very big in holland and all round the world in therapist and new age circles , he was never in Oregon and therefore could not be called a rajneeshee and Lord Bath , never a rajneeshee and the actor , Terance Stamp never a rajneeshee and so on.. so these things actually require separation . I want this page Osho Follower page to merge with Neo-sannyas ( which is specifically about osho disciples)and to have it's own section called,(something like) Notable Disciples/ Neo sannyasins of Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I think we're getting close, but several of us are talking past each other.

Off2riorob, the idea of merging Rajneeshee into another article is not the logical equivalent of saying that all followers are Rajneeshees; I think what we are supporting is the idea of a broader article having a section on the Rajneeshees, which could state clearly that they are a distinct kind of Osho follower (or neo-sannya), and that they're known more for their history in Oregon and the criminal events. So, I don't think you need to worry about the final article giving the mistaken impression that all Osho followers are Rajneeshees, or are closely related to the Rajneeshees.

If we do merge the three articles, it seems we have two options. Redheylin has proposed that neo-sannyas is the best name to use, while Katr and Cirt prefer Osho movement. I honestly have no idea which is the better title. Are Rajneeshees considered part of the Osho movement, or is that term used for something that's mostly distinct? Are Rajneeshees considered a specific kind of neo-sannyas? I have no idea. I really don't have any expertise in this area. But it would be nice if you guys could lay out clear cases for why one term is better suited as an article title than the other.

Unless Off2riorob strongly opposes merging the articles, and can make a persuasive argument why we should maintain separate ones, I think the article title is the one remaining thing we need to determine to move past this issue and get to work. Is there anything else? -Pete (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, there is not consensus for a possible merge to include this page, Osho Follower, which is poorly written and poorly sourced. At present it seems the general consensus (including myself) is to delete the page Osho Follower. As for what to do with the other pages, I suggest we migrate further discussion on that to Talk:Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Pete (talk). Thanks for your openness. Rajneeshee was an expression created colloquially in Oregon and in pockets of the press at and around the time of the crimes that were committed there in Oregon . Previous to this the movement was in India and the people known as Sannyasins which is the Indian word for disciple and after the Oregon time the movement all went to back to India where the people again began to be referred to as Neo-sannyas -ins or Disciples , the term Rajneeshees is inextripically and colloquilly linked to the period in Oregon so you can't call someone a rajneeshee if he was never in Oregon and the term rajneeshee is as good as redundant in the world apart from in Oregon , where the expression was formed 25 years ago . All of these events would make up what is being refered to here as the Osho movement.

The complaints from cirt that the article is poorly written and sourced can easily be addressed. If there is to be a vote I notice there are people here from the Oregon project , invited by cirt. I would ask these people to consider the fact that the majority of these people were never in Oregon and have nothing to do with the crimes and events that happened there 25 years ago .

I would like to reiterate that if this page is deleted I still have the desire on the grounds that it will be of benefit to the encyclopedia, to create a section in the Neo-sannyas page on the topic of Noteworty Disciples of Osho. best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I went to this article and learned about a few things that I would have probably never known about. I don't think deletion is the answer to the above problems. Niubrad (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you learned those things from poorly sourced material, i.e. personal blogs at blogspot.com, etc. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If poor sources is the issue then I suggest we discuss that. (Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:RS and WP:V has lots of helpful info on sourcing standards on this project. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts this is not the place to discuss this . I can see no strong concencuss for delete here so as wikipedia thought is only to delete in that case then I suggest mergeing into Neo-sannyas. Can an independant admin close this Rfd. ? (Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please see WP:AFD regarding the time period of the deletion discussion. And I disagree with your interpretation of the current consensus in this discussion - so far the majority of contributors have stated that the page Osho Follower should be deleted. Regarding what to do with the other pages - that can be discussed at Talk:Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no strong consensus to delete here . I have started work on the article to improve it and am presently removing copyrighted material copied from websites . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

these people are notable . Many have written books that have sold well and I will expand the article to explain that. Verresh is a massive new age personallity. Terrance stamp has if you look the information on his page here that he dropped out and was at an ashram .Lord bath and so on ....so this would be an expansion about that .. Rajneesh has had many thousand of downloads of his book from his website . It is true that none of these people are noteworthy in Oregon which is were cirt has gone to get people here to support him in his delete request.. all of the negative comments are from people from the Oregon projest where cirt left a message asking people to come here to support his personal point of view, but these people that I am talking about have nothing to do with Oregon . What you have here is a group of people all from a localised ares attempting and encouraged by cirt who himself is unable to deny his anti rajnneshee point of view attempting to bias a situation that actually is nothing to do with Oregon and more to do with India.

A lot of these people are notable in India only . and in nepal Arun is huge , verresh is huge in holland and the new age world . These negative comments are from people wrongly commenting on this issue when what they want to comment on is the bio terror attack from 25 years ago in which these people were not involved at all . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It seems like three users User:Katr67 and User:Abecedare and User:Peteforsyth appear to be in agreement with merging or keeping in some way as they have all in unison edited (apply good faith ..to improve the article) edited the article ,quite severely. which is also what I was starting to do .. In reality what is left is just a beginning and the development of the "renamed" section "notable disciples of Osho" which should be merged into Neo-sannyas which is the primary description of the majority of these people will be one of my priorities. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Only the opinions stated on this page should be taken into consideration. My (or anyone else's) editing or not editing the article is not a !vote for keeping, merging or deletion. To be honest, I simply couldn't stand looking at how poorly formatted, full of unnecessary info, etc. (see my edit summaries) it was anymore. By removing much of chaff, I find it a bit easier to see if there is anything in there worth keeping. I don't have an opinion on that except for what I stated in my !vote above, which was to merge anything that can be reliably sourced into another article, which consensus apears to be leaning towards Osho movement. That may or may not default to delete depending on whether the info in this article is worth merging. And to address Off2riorob's previous comments about editors weighing in on this Afd per Cirt's invite--Although I have worked with Cirt from time to time, my opinions are entirely my own, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please stop attributing actions to editors without proof. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just happened to look at this page (to check why it hadn't closed yet), and was surprised to see the comments Off2riorob has made about my and other editors' opinion/motivation. To clarify:

• As I have clearly stated above I think the article needs to be deleted since
  • it has no reliably sourced content that needs to be merged,
  • even the very first senetence defining the article subject is unsourced and false as far as I can see.
• I think Off2riorob's allegations of bias against all the editors who have voted for deletion or merge of the article are inappropriate, uncivil and disruptive. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any Oregon, or Rajneesh related article, nor interacted with User:Cirt (except possibly in wikipedia space like ANI, RSN, FTN etc) and even if that had not been the case, such assumptions of bad faith are unwarranted.

Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neo-sannyas These people are individuals and as such they are not connected to the osho movement some are neo sannyasins or connected to Neo-sannyas (Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment This is really not the place to be having a detailed discussion about how to adjust the content of any article. I think those of us with more experience have erred here, by veering in that direction. There is not a whole lot of difference between "delete" and "merge-to"; either way, there is a pretty strong consensus here that the page Osho Follower should be deleted. How much of the content gets preserved on another page, like Neo-sannyas, then becomes a content issue, and should be discussed on the Talk:Neo-sannyas page. There's really no reason not to close this right away; any of us with an interest in following the discussion in more detail can then follow it to that page.

Off2, one thing you should be aware of is that the word notable has a rather specific meaning here on Wikipedia. It's typically used for people or entities who meet the notability criterion. Typically, a list of people like this would only include people who meet that criterion, and who have a Wikipedia article. For instance, lots of editors like to add their favorite Portlanders to a page like Portland, Oregon in a section called "notable Portlanders"; if no action was taken, we could easily wind up with a list of 1000 people as more and more people get added. So if you're going to pursue this on the Neo-sannyas page, you may want to think about why this case should be an exception to that general principle. What is the criterion for whether someone makes the list, and what reliable source determines that each person has exceeded that threshold? -Pete (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment -- I am an active member of WikiProject Oregon, and I did come here at Cirt's request. However, I would strongly disagree with Off2's characterization that Cirt was seeking people to come here to "support his personal point of view." I believe Cirt requested that I get involved (and others on the Oregon project) because he sees that we have a little bit of general familiarity with the subject matter, and respects our ability to find consensus and work in the interest of the encyclopedia's mission. Off2, if you disagree with what I said above -- that there is a strong and legitimate consensus to delete the Osho Follower page, regardless of whether or not any of its contents are merged into another article -- feel free to solicit the input of people from another project, such as WikiProject India, who you feel might be in a better position to weigh in with some expertise on the subject matter. The re-listing of this AfD means that it will stay open for a while longer, so you should have ample time to do that if you like. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete thanks for your comments and you are right ... that there is a consensus to delete the page osho follower (not strong-actually a weak consensus , including a oregon element .. mostly actually almost nobody cares a sausage.) I am new here, I have not like you people been here years and know each other, I am here on my own . I have no chance at all , I am not the type of person to go off seeking support from other groups . I don't want any more time on this , . I don't want re-listing . (Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

while any one is considering this nomination I would ask them to consider cirts comment on the conspiracy to murder chalres turner page ... and I copy it here ....

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)

As you can see cirt is into "follower"'(Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

ah .. that was easy abecadare ..User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_7#reliable_sources_at_rajneeshee_assination_plot. here (from your archives) are you getting involved previously on a rajneesh question and now you are here ..attacking me and feigning injury and innocence

from your archives..... reliable sources at rajneeshee assination plot. hello abecedare... your comment here was totally on the mark.. it is not the book I care about but this comment said by taylor at a press conferance which is reported in the book .. I have found the quote in another book as well ...both books have been disputed by the other editor on the page.I actually don't care about the books .. it is the comments reported from the press conference that I want to include...

Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC).... (Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Off2, you (and Cirt, too) have both had things to say that indicate you don't entirely trust each other's motives. I would like to strongly discourage you from continuing down that road. You clearly both have a desire to improve Wikipedia's content in areas related to Osho. I think we have established that it's possible to work together. But until you both decide to stop letting your personal history get in the way, we're all going to be dealing with more than we have to. It's unpleasant. Much better when we all focus on article content, rather than editor behavior and speculation about motives. -Pete (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please leave cirt out of it . what I am asking is what about the fact the I have produced a cite were abecedare was recently commenting on these matters and here on this page he gets all like he is totally innocent and was wandering by and starts attempting to create a bad reflection about me ...here is his untrue comment from this very page ......"I have never edited any Oregon, or Rajneesh related article, nor interacted with User:Cirt (except possibly in wikipedia space like ANI, RSN, FTN etc) and even if that had not been the case, such assumptions of bad faith are unwarranted". Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ...(Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have responded on the user's talkpage, since this does not deal with the notability of the AFD article.

Suggestion: Could someone refactor this page and collapse the off-topic discussions. I won't be doing so myself, since it is likely to bring forth more bad-faith allegations. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, I see the value of what you're requesting, but I suspect that anyone attempting to refactor the page would wind up fending off charges of bias, from someone in the discussion. Maybe someone will be bold enough to try. Speaking for myself, I've about reached the end of my patience on this matter, at least for the moment. From my point of view, we have a very strong consensus on the specific matter we came to discuss. It's possible that Off2 does not buy into that consensus (difficult for me to tell), but even without him it is a stronger consensus than we usually see on this sort of thing. So I don't really see what further contribution I could make to this discussion. I'm taking it off my watch list (though I'll probably check back at some point to see how things are going). -Pete (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense that someone with an outright preference to delete this article should be editing it to improve it. As far as refractorizationing goes , if you look at one of my recent posts I have asked for the closure of this , and as I am the only person wishing to keep anything then I ask again please close this . (Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment: Just to reiterate that as AfD nominator, I am against a merge and for delete, per my comments above. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side issue ...if Osho "follower" is removed then I will also be looking to remove the repeated referances to the "follower" expression from related pages . (Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.