Talk:Adi Da

Welcome to the Adi Da Talk page. Please add new content under old content. Please start new sections at the bottom of the page. Please use colon to indent added discussion. Thank you!

Garbage and the Goddess

There are several second-hand sources which apparently serve as citations for a dramatic allegation that all the extant copies of "Garbage and the Goddess" were bought up by Adidam and burned. This may be a cited fact but it is also a dubious one, given that used copies are quite readily available, and given that he released other works with extremely similar titles. The book went out of print simply because it was superseded by newer works. It is no harder to find on the used-book market than any of his other works from that period. Also, the 1985 lawsuit is massively overemphasized. Right now, this is the main event of his life and everything which happened afterwards during Adi Da's time on this earth is depicted as an anticlimax. But, that last quarter century (even though it was scandal-free) was in fact the most eventful years of his life. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We go by sources here - preferably 'second-hand' and even third hand are (ie secondary and tertiary) since those are the recommended sources by Wikipedia. None of them happen to share your estimation about the "last quarter century of his life" which are little documented due to so few events of any significance, save a profound emphasis on his silence and solitude. And we have sources both pro Da, neutral, and more critical that all attest to Adi Da/Jones having Garbage burned. That doesn't mean copies don't exist. But Adidam also fails to include it in his official bibliography. Don't let your bias cloud your evaluation. We reflect sources - most sources emphasize the most active and media-attracting periods of his life. That would be when he was building his church and garnering attention from a small specific segment of the public as guru, and of course when the larger public became aware of him through scandals - which were extensive and widely reported (look at the sources, including the Today show: a two-part 'expose' that was totally damning.) By his own admission he retreated after that, after having a nervous breakdown/spiritual transformation, and was little seen or acknowledged by the wider public after 1986. The church stopped growing. This is what our SOURCES say. Not perhaps what his followers or fans necessarily wish to believe. The Garbage passage was banged out by editors on all sides (including Adi Da devotees), as was the rest of the page. The article has GA status, reflecting this neutrality and thoroughness.Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't care about the editors; I don't know you guys & I am not a member of your little club. I just care about getting the story straight. And I think the story is far from straight the way it is. But I am not sure if straightening it is possible. But, I will ask: when was the Adi Da's "own admission" after 1986 and what did he say which you are construing as an admission of "retreat"? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You should care about the editors - they are the ones that write the articles and actually constitute the Wikipedia community. The quality of the editing exactly constitutes the measure by which an article can be evaluated and trusted. This version has been written, with considerable effort, argument, and research, by numbers of editors with many different points of view. It was subsequently reviewed by Wikipedia administrators, who approved this article's nomination for 'Good Article' status (the final reviewer in fact declared it "not just good, but very good")- at that time one of only 75 articles (of potentially thousands) on religious subjects with such a designation. Virtually every line in the article has been disputed at some point, hence each has at least one source citation if not several. Those sources have been compared with other sources, which often have been quoted verbatim in footnotes at the bottom of the page. If you read them, and check those sources further, most of your questions should be answered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you made extensive biased edits to the entry without any sources whatsoever. This is not the first time. I am not the first editor to have to reverse such edits, which contradict existing sources. If such behavior continues, you face possibly have your IP address blocked from editing on Wikipedia. This page has faced contentious editing in the past, and admins have stepped in to block editing a number of times. When pages have this kind of historical contentiousness, it is suggested by WP guidelines that editors bring disputed edits to talk to be discussed before adding them to the entry. In addition, the edits you are making do not cite accepted independent sources. Please review guidelines for such sources, and perhaps basic editing guidelines, before proceeding. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My previous comment about "your little club" was on the snide side and I apologize. But I am baffled by the insulting nature of your response, especially given that my edits were quite innocuous and quite factual. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

your edits are clearly biased. This page has achieved a hard won stability after a lot of hard work. nearly every change you wish to make has already been discussed and dismissed in the past, due to innumerable reasons. As requested, please bring your proposed edits here to be discussed - again, I suggest you carefully review footnotes and get your hands on sources cited to see why the phrasing exists as it does. Your phrasing is biased in every instance, and your edits clearly show a pro-Adi Da POV. This isn't that complicated.Tao2911 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're just a random volunteer like me; please get off your high dawn horse. Perhaps you would care to explain why "all" my edits are biased. I will admit to being pro-Adi Da, but it is not unusual for Wikipedia articles to be sympathetic to their subjects. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on no horse. Your edits are biased, don't adhere to guidelines, and don't respect the integrity of the hard work of a lot of preceding editors. My explanation for why your edits are off-base was just nixed with your intervening comment. But basically they simply don't adhere to existing sources, which invariably explain all of your questions about them if you'd read them. You're just writing stuff they way you'd like to read it, sources not withstanding. All your "who?" tags for instance - every one is explained by the source cited for that line or claim.Tao2911 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The main reason so much hard work was needed is obviously because you have bullied everyone else who has tried to edit the article over the past year or two, by responding to even the most innocuous changes with a barrage of adverbs and adjectives. You have impugned the integrity of several other volunteers by questioning their motives and by trying to "out" them as Daists, even though you yourself reveal little if anything of your own background. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll simply respond by asking you to bring up specific points of contention on the subject in question (being Adi Da), if you have any, and we can discuss them on their merits - not either of our perceived personal qualities or linguistic acumen (I clearly have my own issues with yours). Again - the article has been stable since achieving GA status. The bar is set high for any major content edits.Tao2911 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking back three months to your September 30, 2010 edit, Tao, I see that only one substantial change was allowed. (The other changes are just minor alterations to references.) I also see a massive volume of insulting comments in the discussion page. That tells me that it is futile for anyone other yourself to try to edit this article. It is also evidently futile to try to "discuss" anything related to the Adi Da with you. Or maybe I should say that the bar has been set so high that no one else can make edits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Looking back three months to your September 30, 2010 edit, Tao, I see that only one substantial change was allowed." That is because we (multiple editors) have been trying to get the page to stable state which is one of the criteria for Good Article status. It reached that state, and people have been respecting it. This is yet another aspect of WP guidelines and community awareness, of which your user talk page indicates a consistent failure to comprehend or respect.Tao2911 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking back over your edit history, I see that you have been working this article over since July 2008, deleting anything positive about the Adi Da's life, insulting anyone else who works on it, and applying your own unique standards of how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be put together. Your behavior is inappropriate. This is not the place to debunk the Adi Da. The Wikipedia is a repository of the conventional wisdom on any subject known to man--- and this article, like all bios, is supposed to be a brief and (mostly) positive overview of its subject's life and work. The 1985 lawsuits are part of that life, but they were settled out of court, they weren't repeated, and they were just one incident in a long and eventful life. Happily, the article is not all bad, and the POV issues are blatantly obvious to the unfortunate folk who read this article looking for actual information on its subject. I doubt that anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses is being fooled. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have actual issues to discuss re: the entry, or do you just wish to insult me? If it's the latter, please note that's against WP guidelines and can get you banned. If it's the former, I'm happy to discuss your points, as I have been with many others - including the editors above who all nominated and worked together to get this page to GA status.Tao2911 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

re: lawsuits - multiple reliable sources state, as reflected by the entry, that lawsuits/threatened suits extended beyond 1985, and Adidam was forced to pay settlements in subsequent years. There is no rule that says articles should be "mostly positive" - rather, they should be neutral and accurate on balance to secondary and tertiary material on the subject. If you have new sources that would add material about Adi Da's "long and eventful life" that is not already here, I am happy to know about it. A number of us got our hands on what appear to be most if not all the secondary/tertiary materials, as well as a lot of primary (ie Adi Da penned) materials in various editions, on Adi Da and his church and worked vigorously to get it all to sync, in proportion to that coverage in sources ("proportional coverage" - another guideline to bone up on, Tim.) Again, points backed by sources. That's where it starts here - but which is by no means the end of the story.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading the last few days discussion. A couple of things. I think that Tim's entries are very benign and simple. The example of O'Mahoney wife being "estranged" is actually true. The issue is,as Tao points out, are there some 3rd party source that can verify that. Tim, Wikipedia is a strange creature. It is not about fairness, or necessary truth of issues, or even accuracy. It is about a verifiable 3rd party sources. Sometime these sources are true and accurate, sometimes they are not. Personal opinions creep into these sources, especially in authors writing books. They are building their careers on being "authorities" on subjects etc. and will have strong opinions, which they will sometimes try to "mask," but still are there. So it can be sometime hard to get a "fair" article when a controversial figure such as Adi Da was covered mainly in the 1986 lawsuits through the media and authors who are not necessarily always positively disposed to him. But if change in the article is to occur one has to work within the "rules" set here. Tim, I have been one of a number of editors, who has been working hard to get 3rd party sources, for more accuracy about all aspects of Adi Da that can be used in the article. Tao, myself and others did work cooperatively to hash out issues and to get more balance into the article. However it is by no means all accurate. Tim I want to encourage you to stay involved here. Your contributions are welcomed. By the way Tao... threatening Tim with being banned for insulting you certainly is odd, since this has been an issue pointed out to you many times by a number Wikipedia editors. Pointing to and asking for civility is however appropriate for all editors to remind each other. We have managed to work cooperatively at times here ... so that makes it work and give some balance and allowed GA status to occur. But as you say .. is by no means the end of the story Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By his own admission, Tim is an Adi Da partisan - like you, Jason, so I understand and expected this exact response on your part. His edits invariably showed this bias, and I did not find them "benign" - in most instances he simply changed wording and even added new passages (once again about the Aletheon/Source Texts etc) without changing or adding new sources. In other words, just winging it as to soften the controversial aspects of Adi Da's legacy, and increase the stature of Adi Da without any substantiation from accepted sources. He's said as much - in regards to the "Garbage" section, he evinced clear (willful?) ignorance about the matter. Understandable, if you believe and wish to promote the Adidam line. Also, he added a bunch of "who?" tags that just didn't make any sense (like saying "some (who?) followers of Zen Master Rama became followers...". We don't need to know who. It simply means "not all". Other tags were simply answered by the source and footnote already there. Random tags like this again simply impugn the integrity of the text, which seemed their intent - they only occurred in sections that Timothy admittedly found offensive.) And in the controversy section, like others before him, he tried to remove all mention of anything but the O'Mahoney lawsuit, despite multiple sources contradicting this; and the addition of "estranged" (not used in ANY of four sources cited for that passage) in this larger pattern is highly suspect - it clearly is meant to undermine the credibility of the plaintiff in the lawsuit (which happens to be the exact attitude Adidam took at the time and since). Again, these are all things that have occurred over and over and over in this section by Adi Da partisans. My attitude is that I will continue to defend this article, hard won as it is, from what are sure to be the periodic attempts of Adi Da followers to get this page in line with Adidam's hagiographic rewrites of history - or their obverse, the rabid critics whose edits I have likewise had to reverse. Remember, I have made many edits throughout the page expressly to neutralize all POV - my goal is to have an un-impugnable, thorough, objective article of the kind I came here wanting to read three years ago. We've achieved it, as evidenced by the admin. review above. I am all for decent edits, and have been happy to see some nice clean up edits in recent weeks. As I said, if someone finds a new source and can add some modest new info here or there, I'm all for it. I just happen to doubt that info exists right now, and the page clearly strikes a careful balance right now between all partisan POVs, largely due to finding the sources the necessity of which you rightly indicate.Tao2911 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I stopped trying to improve the article is NOT because I saw the wisdom of anything Tao said. I still think he is totally out of line. It was because I have a life and fighting with Tao isn't worth the trouble. There is nothing to be accomplished by continuing the fight, and nothing to be learned. Tao didn't even let Goethean use an M-dash improperly— I am unsure if he would ever allow me to make any substantive changes, no matter how civil I was, and no matter how extensively I discussed those changes in advance. I am not all that sure that I agree with what Jason said— although I certainly thank him for his kind words. I think it is perfectably acceptable to use first-hand sources judiciously in the interest of telling the story truthfully but positively— especially when, as is the case here, the subject is noteable primarily because of his writings and speeches. And I think the best way to edit an article is to go ahead and edit it, not to have endless discussions about how to edit it.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your "First hand", ie "primary" sources as used in WP guidelines, are highly discouraged, ESPECIALLY when dealing with such a contentious figure, your feelings about it not withstanding. If you'd been around longer, you would have witnessed this debate get exhaustively played out, until it was realized by all concerned that the only recourse was to stick to the letter of WP guides, and avoid primary sources at any cost - especially because Adi Da (as everyone who's written about him, pro and con, points out) changed his story, or his interp. of his story, over and over, making him highly unreliable as a source for factual information. Also, anyone involved with his church likewise is heavily invested in precisely NOT being objective. So your argument is, in a word, specious. However, editors (including myself) have used certain agreed upon instances of Adi Da's writing when it has verification from secondary/tertiary sources or is backing up those sources, and when they are more factual or believable prima facie. Again, you can keep insulting me, but if you have actual worthy proposals, they will be considered by everyone interested in this page. Re: Goethean, he's made some fine edits to the formating and grammar of the page that I've had no problem with. In this case, he made what I felt to be an easy enough mistake with an mdash (the use of which is tricky). The passage is clearly a parenthetical, not an addendum.Tao2911 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for wikipedia articles to be slanted positively, even when the subject is involved in much worse scandals than those 1985-1986 lawsuits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

a somewhat sad argument, in favor of what exactly? Bad editing? If you were to find such cases, one would hope for action to correct such biases, in order to adhere to Wiki. directives to create profiles that reflect available information/sources accurately and in proportion.Tao2911 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The purported "gathering of all copies" and book burning never happened. Franklin Jones (AKA Adi Da, etc.) made an offhand remark about burning them once. That's it. I have one on my shelf and if you go to "Open Secret" bookstore on C Street in San Rafael, you can find them. A quick search on Bookfinder.com finds 56 copies for sale. Amazon shows 1 new for $354.79 and 19 used, plus 1 audio CD of the talk. I am very critical of Franklin. But this contention about gathering them up and burning them is obviously false. And before you kids get all heated up about "no original research" fact checking is not "original research". It's obvious that if copies are out there, easily available for purchase, that it didn't happen. 69.237.70.238 (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)AncientWasThere

This has been covered before. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Just because copies exist doesn't mean he didn't burn some - as the passage states, the first run SOLD OUT, and they shipped the second before recalling what they could, but weeks later. They didn't go door to door to retrieve the thousands of sold copies. Numerous reliable accepted sources discuss the burning, and that is what we use here. It was stupid and weird to burn the books, granted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And even a pro-Da book discusses the event in detail.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Craig Lesser, Louis Lesser, Brainwashing, Adi Da real estate, Geothermal fields and alternative energy companies

Does anyone have any reliable sources on Craig Lesser, Louis Lesser, their real estate in Adi Da territory, or their mineral and energy rights in the Adi Da area geothermal fields? PPdd (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Brainwashing, Phenobarbital

Can anyone recommend reliable source reading on Brainwashing techniques used by Craig Lesser in Adi Da, or on use of phenobarbital to create the appearance of dementia, memory loss, or vertigo, e.g., to gain power of attorney, or attorney in fact status to sign grant deeds? PPdd (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any editor who is in Lake County who can check county records?

Is there any editor who is in Lake County who can check county records so I can verify what an acknowledged reliable source is saying, which otherwise seems so unbelievable that I do not want to include it in the article, unless an editor can actually check the primary source records to verify what the secondary source to be used for Wiki is saying? PPdd (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

this is very unclear. And your previous questions, above, seem to not have to do with the article here, and are therefore not actually appropriate. This is not the place for "general discussion" of the topic, or message boarding. I would suggest that if you have a proposed addition to the article, posit it here, and then perhaps ask for additional help sourcing it. Though really, it will probably come down to you doing the leg work, and not someone else. Remember also, we don't break news here, ie "original research." We encapsulate accepted reporting of events as documented by acceptable second- and third-party sources.Tao2911 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "seem to not have to do with the article here, and are therefore not actually appropriate" - Before Adi Da got it ALL, Louis Lesser owned a lot of real estate in Adi Da's controlled city, in the large number of corporate names of his huge number of corporations, which was all grant deeded to Adi Da or its members, as well as owning engergy rights for the geothermal fields on and surrounding the Adi Da controlled real estate, what is called "the richest geothermal area in California". Louis Lesser's son, Craig Lesser, was alleged to be the #2 in Adi Da, and to be involved in kidnapping and brainwashing and the use of drugs in doing so, according to the source in the linked Wikipedia article. There are old pre-internet small paper news sources, which are still reliable, that say some pretty wild things about all of this, including that Craig Lesser's signature was forged on grant deeds to Adi Da, and signed by "attorney in fact", which is not a legal transfer to Adi Da, all before his unwitnesed and uninvestigated accidental death in Lake County. Craig Lesser also appears associated with international fraudsters in these small papers, and to have bilked his father out of a huge sum over the years. Before writing what these news sources say, since it is so unusual, I would like to verify it before including it with the reliable secondary source as reference. PPdd (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your syntax is unclear: presumably you mean Craig Lesser died an unwitnessed and uninvestigated accidental death. Adi Da Samraj died of natural causes before several witnesses, and in Fiji rather than California. Are you saying the Daists were victims of the younger Lesser's scheme, or were they part of it? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is some very limited property info available on the Lake County government's website to anyone: you can see who the sellers and buyers were, basically. Someone named Craig Lesser did make some real estate transactions between 1996 and 2004. One of them involved selling a property to a local dentist who is an Adidam devotee. The dentist in turn also made some transactions. But there is nothing that looks like a conspiracy, aside from the fact that Lesser was dealing with mortgage companies. I found nothing which involved an Adidam corporate entity aside from a tax lien against the Adidam Emporium, which is a Daists mail order house. Digging through the property records might in fact be original research, by the way. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

as already stated below, none of this really matters for this page. There is no independent source or coverage of this, so really, there's no point going much more into it at this time. Even if there were, still highly questionable for inclusion.Tao2911 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, such allegations certainly add to the already questionable modus of Adi Da and his minions, but unless you have this stuff already discussed in an acceptable source (and some unsubstantiated rumor in a small town newspaper three decades ago, if it exists, would hardly count), there is nothing to do with it here. That Louis Lesser page is a right mess, and if anyone cared to that entire section on Craig could be gutted. Note that the Miller lawsuit against Da never went to court, and it is sourced and discussed in the Da page as is - and not just from the court papers themselves, but by news orgs and books (ie secondary and tertiary sources). Again, all these allegations MAY, I repeat MAY, be true. But you have absolutely no Wikipedia-worthy sources saying anything about this. You are simply drawing a series of conclusions, ON YOUR OWN, with no substantiation. That is 'original research.' I suggest you become an investigative reporter - then I will happily use your published article as a source here.Tao2911 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are absolutely correct that "unless... discussed in an acceptable source... there is nothing to do with it here... no Wikipedia-worthy sources saying anything about this". I am not "drawing conclusions on my own", however, since I am getting them from others saying the same thing independently of one another, such as in the plently of (unusable at Wiki) primary source document images linked to in this thread here, and others like them about Craig and his corporate partners Gamnboa and Korem, but I can't find secondary source documents to use at Wikipedia. The number of aliases used by Craig Lesser's partners' Korem (Pedley), Gamboa, and Rooks on their joint corporate filings with Craig] confuses a search for secondary sources, which may exist under aliases not serached for. PPdd (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I brought the Craig Lesser mention at least within the general bounds of wikipedia - though it really still needs a secondary source. And so here, you are bringing up some whacked out, New Age conspiracy theory thread on a chat room to back up your argument? Dude - in plain English: there needs to be a reliable news story about this, laying it all out, connecting all the dots FOR US, not BY US, or there is nothing more to talk about. So, again, this is NOT a chat room. Take your theories back to "quatloos.com" and have fun. In the meantime...Tao2911 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography should indicate the name under which each book was originally published. For example, see Wendy_Doniger#Works. — goethean ॐ 15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fijian citizenship?

On December 4, 2011, someone named "Bulabrian" tried to add a comment about Adi Da Samraj's Fijian citizenship: his/her edit was promptly reverted by the ever-vigilant Tao2911. I have seen a video of a ceremony on Naituba Island where Adi Da Samraj was given Fijian citizenship by local officials. His Fijian citizenship was also mentioned in various Adidam publications. Those are all self-published sources which wouldn't pass muster with Tao2911, and it is a minor point anyway. He never renounced his U.S. citizenship and he visited his native land many times after taking Fijian citizenship. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a non-self-published source for Ad Da's Fijian citizenship: an obituary published in a Fijian newspaper. However, this info probably came from Adidam, and the tone of the obit is certainly too positive for Tao2911's taste. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)