Talk:Adi Da

Welcome to the Adi Da Samraj 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!

Subpages

/David Starr – Specific issues with Adi Da

To do list

• Post revised draft of "Divine Emergence" and invite comment from editors.

 Done:Open discussion on moving "Legal disputes and media attention" to the bottom of the article.

• Format references to MoS standards.
• Weed stacked references; many of these were placed to prove a WP:Point; although it is not a formal policy, there are usually no more than three refs for any given point.
• Remove comments/quotes after the reference; it is not necessary to include the supporting text in the footnote.
• Routine copy edits for style, punctuation, grammar.
• Get a citation for the Saniel Bonder quote
• Improve the section on art career
• Open discussion on removing POV tag
• Item
• Item

Archiving Talk.

I would like to do an archive of this page. It is getting too long. Any preferences on where I should make the cut? David Starr 1 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No preferences, anywhere would be good. Was thinking about this the other day.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Please archive. Loading this page makes my CPU billow smoke. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga link

Thanks. I guess I missed the discussion. Perhaps though, a sentence to clarify that Rudi's version is unrelated to Kundalini yoga. I'd rather not make the edit myself as this article is a bit of a battleground at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

the input is appreciated. But I think it would be difficult to explicate this anymore without obstructing the read here. A lot of ground is quickly covered. I think it's clear in the phrasing of that sentence that is is something he invented that he called KY. Beyond that, I think the reader has to be left to their own conclusions. Much more detail is not really possible, or i think, necessary.Tao2911 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean reinserted link. Didn't address point here. I included a 'Kundalini Yoga' link at first - then I read the link and saw that it was inaccurate. Cited sources say it is not 'kundalini yoga' in any conventional sense of the term covered by link destination. So I'm removing it - again.Tao2911 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking does not entail any claim that Adi Da's kundalini is similar to Hindu kundalini. Please see WP:Linking. — goethean ॐ 03:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The links are fine. The problem is the wording. It is not clear to readers that he did not invent kundalini.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want the article to say that, then you need to cite a source which says that (yet another policy which Tao disregarded). — goethean ॐ 03:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I cannot think if a way to cite sources that says Rudi did not invent Kundalini, and make that clarification in the article. Kundalini predates Rudi, and lots of sources show that. I would just like to stay the heck off the article itself. There seems to be serious ownership issues going on. But there remains the problem: The statement in the article misleads readers into thinking that Rudi invented Kundalini. Please advise or edit the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yogic Super Powers not NPOV

So I reverted the paragraph about Adi Da employing his super powers to create shakti kundalini and whatever awakenings. I know this is a quote from GF. That doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion. You are supposed to summarize source info in your own words, in keeping with NPOV editorial voice of page. please review editorial guidelines about this.

This assertion is simply not a fact. I have serious problems even how GF accounts for this period - I don't think it is an especially apt summary of HIS sources. But in any case - some people reported experiencing such things. If you want that, well why don't I go find Lowe's quote about cultic group delusion and the people he spoke with who experienced nothing and though it was all hooha. You inserted it as if this is an acceptable account of facts for a general audience, as if everyone has some kind of familiarity with this terminology. The sentence as is covers it! 'Some people reported having profound spiritual experiences.' Enough. The detail you wish to insert is straight up transparent bias, and stood out like a sore thumb in the bio.Tao2911 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

here's the quote you added (even the spelling, punctuation had prob's): "For several months Adi Da use his yogic abilities to affect the psychic life of literally hundreds of his students.They experienced visions, bliss states,kundalini arousals, and several were apparently drawn into the mystical unitive state or even into temporary sahaja-samadhi." No way. Gotta be kidding me. Every single word of this is completely up for debate - these are not facts, but religious beliefs. Highly detailed, credulous religious beliefs described by specialized impenetrable language and concepts. This is faith - your faith. Not everyone's in a general readership.Tao2911 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

plus, that passage is already in a footnote.Tao2911 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is faith - your faith. Not everyone's in a general readership.

The explicit criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth or adherence to your ideology, or to what you imagine to be the ideology of our readership. — goethean ॐ 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not verifiable that Adi Da has yogic powers that blew 'hundreds' of minds. There are other sources saying that they experienced nothing. In the same way all POV's are represented elsewhere we will have to include this if this mention stays - and even if it does it will have to be rewritten to NPOV. Mention of reports of people having religious experiences is of course fine. Saying those experiences themselves are objective facts, and assuming that everyone knows what sahaja-samadhi is is just bad editing.Tao2911 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao 2911 Again blocking ANY editing by ANY other editors … This time because he is "disagreeing with tertiary sources" …

His assertion is simply not a fact. I have serious problems even how GF accounts for this period - I don't think it is an especially apt summary of HIS sources. Surprise, Surprise!… Tao you are AGAIN blocking any editing by ANY editor because of your strong bias. Today’s argument is that you disagree with somethings that a particular tertiary source(Feuerstein),says in one area,while using his comments in other areas as “legitimate.” Well… you know,I kind of doubt all the detail claimed by a lot of the ex-members described in the newspapers and TV shows are completely true, and I do disagree with some of the 3rd party sources you use in terms of their "opinion" and summaries of how they see various events. But since that is not wikipedia, I have to just allow it. Your bias is flaring in your select use and allowance of legitimate tertiary source and your blocking of information you "disagree"with.

This is faith - your faith. Not everyone's in a general readership. No it’s Feuerstein’s words … take it up with him. Again your bias is all over this last blocking of editing.The explicit criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth or adherence to your ideology, or to what you imagine to be the ideology of our readership. Not your opinion of what "you have serious problems with". Sorry Goethean, hope this isn't plagiarizing you... but your comment,as a more neutral observer, editor, whose commentary is more about wiki processes and detail here is worth repeating.

Highly detailed, credulous religious beliefs described by specialized impenetrable language and concepts. Again not my language, it's a legitimate tertiary source. With the language that Feuerstein uses I HAD pot in plenty of internal wiki links to deal with “pecialized impenetrable language and concepts” that you are pointing out . There is plenty of “pecialized impenetrable language and concepts” in the edits you have included and like this one that I put in the article, you too have clarified “pecialized impenetrable language and concepts” of your edits with plenty of wiki internal links. So this argument you bring up is weak.

Every single word of this is completely up for debate But in any case - some people reported experiencing such things. So shall we debate all of the other tertiary sources too. The ones others disagree with. No I think not. Also there where were several hundred people there during this time and Feuerstein writes that there were MANY experienced these phenomenom. It is common knowledge as well that this occurred with larger group of individual… although that is NOT the main reason for the small changes to this sentence.

What other editors have been trying to dialog with you,some of us in more civil terms:), is that this period of Garbage & The Goddess",yes was about sexual experimentation,but also very much a "spiritual experiences" To expand on a line by a few words and have that blocked by you is simply bias on your part.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you have a source doesn't make the info a FACT. I could cite a source that says the moon is made out of cheese. That doesn't mean I get to say that as a fact. This passage is on similar par. please. Use the reasoning faculties that you are able to muster. Just because you have a source doesn't mean everything that source says is equally valid either. Read your guidlelines again people.

This isn't be blocking you. This is me refusing to allow you to make a supremely stupid edit. Da's "yogic powers" are simply not a fact. Go ahead. Get an admin to help you suss that one out.Tao2911 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at this: "For several months Adi Da use his yogic abilities to affect the psychic life of literally hundreds of his students."

How can you seriously argue this is NPOV, or acceptable in any way? It presupposes Da had yogic powers, that objectively measurably affected the "psychic life"(?) of Hundreds(??). That in itself is not NPOV fact. It is a religious belief. Period. GF is used elsewhere for factual accounts, and his bias' are accounted for, qualified or removed. In the way that I said "some reported having profound spiritual experiences." I SAID THIS already - it is the summary from various accounts, including those that said they DIDN'T experience anything. We had the line. Your wish to change it reflects one thing - bias. Use of the word "literally" to increase impact and and weight. Makes no sense, doesn't fit voice of page at all. That is not acceptable journalistic tone. Think if you read that in a newspaper. Journalism 101: don't raise questions you don't answer - like, what is a psychic life? What is a "yogic ability"? who were these "hundreds of people"? and then 20 more questions...

"They experienced visions, bliss states,kundalini arousals, and several were apparently drawn into the mystical unitive state or even into temporary sahaja-samadhi."

No, some, reported that they experienced "profound spiritual" states. You can't rattle off a list of esoterica like that unexplained - and the explanation is not possible in the bio. These are just claims, not facts. Must be qualified. Read. Summarize sources. Reread your guidelines. I find it unbelievable were even having this argument, tho I shouldn't at this point.Tao2911 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a neutral summary re: "powers"

"Some followers at Persimmon reported having profound spiritual metaphysical experiences in Free John's presence, attributing these phenomena to his spiritual power as guru." So I added that line. I hope you can discern the difference, and that this is a satisfactory middle ground.Tao2911 (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

much better. just changed 'spiritual' to metaphysical to avoid word repetition in sentence.Chaschap (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao continued insertion of "bias" language ... this time with original writing.

1983, he moved with a group of about 40 followers to the Fijian island of Naitauba, purchased by a wealthy devotee from actor Raymond Burr.[86] He called it his "hermitage", and travel to and from the island is highly regulated by Adidam. It became his primary residence until the end of his life.[87] Tao you continue to insert bias ,weasely language to suggest innuendos that may or may not be true. There is no detail in the citation you quote about, that I can find, that travel being restricted to the island. I can only surmise that you are "creating" your own interpretation. It is common knowledge that the Island is a meditation retreat place where I think when Adi Da was alive many, many of his devotees came there for retreat with him. This is not unusual for a primary place where a teacher resides to have only formal students come there. If your going to insert this kind of bias suggestive language then at least explain the fact of it being a mediation place and therefore formal students are the ones invited there. If that is too long than keep this bias language out of the sentence. The statement was actually neutral before you added bias language. I believe (but will have to find source for this) that one of the SF papers even was allowed to visit the island during the expose and found nothing salacious to write about. Again, will have to do a newspaper search to verify. Bottom line your carefully weaseled language suggest all kinds of suspicion that is not verifiable and bias on your part.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not unusual for a primary place where a teacher resides to have only formal students come there.

There was nothing 'usual' about Adi Da's island hermitage. — goethean ॐ 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're just wrong, JR. No one was allowed to visit - reporters talk about that (Today Show, SF Chron); numbers requested. Even if one did visit, they were "allowed" to, as you say. That would be, uh, regulation, don't you think? GF talks about this too, in 1992, how regulated travel was. There are numbers of sources. I will add citations. I added the line when Dev added 'hermitage' to reflect and reinforce that status - the place as 'hermitage'. As in, you don't just get to go. You have to have permission. Even the guy who bought the island for Da didn't get invited for months, and was only able to visit once he had that invitation. The Fiji Sun stories talk about this too, how workers are brought in by Adidam. You have to have permission to travel to the island, they own it, and from what I've read in sources and seen in videos, the only way there as a visitor is by Adidam boat. You can keep accusing me of bias, but I'm just trying to get the most thorough info there in the fewest word count.Tao2911 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Today show transcript on Rick Ross is only a snippet of the whole but it did have this:"Maston: For eight years O'Mahony was a Jones disciple with access to the inner circle. She charges that when she decided to quit the cult last year, she was held on Fiji against her will. Beverly O'Mahony: I was there for a week asking, "Get me a helicopter, get me a boat, get me anything. I want to go." And I was not allowed to go."" However, elsewhere in the vid, Maston (the reporter) says requests by NBC to visit the island were refused. Again, other reporters said the same. I'll find more citations.Tao2911 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's something from a devotee blog: "Naitauba is a very isolated Island of the Lau group of Islands situated on the far east of the main Fiji Islands group, 3.5 Sq miles in area and encircled by a coral reef, it is approached by boat or seaplane (more rarely) Naitauba is a religious hermitage based on the model of an Indian Ashram, My Guru or Spiritual Teacher Adi Da is always in residence there. Only practicing devotees, invited guests and the local Fijian people reside there."Tao2911 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As in, you don't just get to go. You have to have permission. Yes of course you do it is considered by Adi Da's followers to be a "sacred" place of retreat with their teacher. Why would you want the media all over a place you hold as important to ones "spiritual relationship " to Adi Da. The media does not tend to respect this kind of sanctuary.So instead of yack yack of all this "permission needed" why don't you just state a simple statement of it's use to indicate why their is restricted travel. I am not asking for tons of additional info. Just the facts that it is used for retreats.

But I'm just trying to get the most thorough info there in the fewest word count So do it! I added a very simple line taking into account your suggestion that it be brief and paraphrased. I am not trying to get any great,"Da propaganda" in here. Just balance the insert of restricted as to it being only for Da's students. That's my sole intention here. Balance. The paragraph now is simple succinct and does what it has to do about Fiji Island. No more... no lessJason Riverdale (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

darn it JR, can you pls work on spacing, grammar, and spelling when you insert this stuff? its yet another mess of yours - and still smacks of Adi Da propaganda. Stop saying 'many' every single time you mention his devotees. Bias, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the spelling, grammar will try to be more careful. "Many" is appropriate term since the citation implies this. It is also common knowledge that many of his devotees have gone there over the years.Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao if your going to say "restricted" then it would be good to say why. Why put in "restricted" in there? Unless it is your intention to put into some sort of "dark, sinister" innuendo and bias. It is odd to have that there.Why is that important to have there?Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"restricted" implies nothing positive or negative. Its the simple truthful description of 'you have to get permission to go there'. You say its for one thing, so people can go have a loving meditative retreat of joy and bliss states and kundalini shakti wowza - I can cite New Religions saying how it is to keep people with 'bad vibes' away from Da and his 'empowered places' with the list of requirements before you can go - books to read, legal waivers, medical tests, $400 for Adidam course, etc. Would you like me to add that?Tao2911 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hermitage link

Dev, your edits continue to somewhat defy my logic. You internal-linked 'hermitage' for no apparent reason. The link destination wasn't 'disambiguated' or whatever, so there are 500 choices to choose from. And why would you even link this? Why not link the word 'house' or 'island'? His use of the word was one of his special capitalized words, making it even more Adidam specific and not related to any link you might end up at. Plus, the word hermitage is not some obscure concept you really need to spell out for for folks.Tao2911 (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Line about travel to Hermitage is fine. Main issues I am seeing with this article are in the "DIvine Emergence" section. If there is a lack of information in tertiary sources, then we will have to refer to Adi Da literature to add content to this section. Could you look into this, Tao?

As for link, sorry, I found a good link that was in line with Adi Da's definition, I must not have linked it correctly. Let me fix this. I think it will help to have it linked to this article. Take a look and you'll see.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

also, 'metaphysical' was fine. It means 'beyond the merely physical.' ie Spiritual. It's a 'synonynm' - check a thesaurus. It was a better sentence. (def from dictionary: "of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses" synonym: spiritual)

No way jose to the Adidam sources for Divine Emergence section. I will be happy to quote GF or New Religions saying how basically untrustworthy any information from Adidam is about Adi Da though, and how he radically re-edited all of his books into awkward reading 'final editions' that are trademarked 'forever' in his will, essentially damning him to irrelevance in perpetuity. Will that work?Tao2911 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tao, I hope you know how much I really appreciate your sarcastic smart ass character and replies to otherwise benign questions. It is completely valid to be using Adi Da's own books to support content, if there is nothing else available. Find the sources about the '86 and '00 event like you said you would, and make this section work. It does not work right now, I have raised this point before. You said you were going through some sources that discussed this. Where are they? All I'm asking is for you to bring those forth so we can work on this section.

Really tired of your attitude at this point. Just want to bring this section into proper balance.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious about this - the only source I have post '91 GF is New Religions, and what is there is essentially in the entry. I can try to work some more in, but the devotees will squawk. It's not an especially positive appraisal. Fair, balanced, but too honest for the devotee sensibility I fear. If we don't have tertiary sources, we don't go to later Da in bio. Talking about his teaching is one thing - in that case you can go to said teaching for clarity. In bio, as is already established, Adidam is entirely too prone to hagiography and reediting of past events to be trusted as source. Early Knee is one thing - the fact that he so radically changed his story after that is proof that he shouldn't be used as source - per WP guidelines, exactly the reason they created such rules. If that's all we've got, then we have to wait until more appears. I will try to get GF 2006, I assume he covers some later bio material. I know JR has it, but he's not offering up the details GF lays out there. I wonder why?Tao2911 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we will work on this. I'll write more later on what we can do with the limited resources we have. Thanks for listing the sources. I have re-added the POV tag, however, because there are still disputes in this article, and we are still working on it quite a bit. So, I think it should stay up until all editors have reached a consensus about this article as a whole, where no sections seem problematic to anyone, and it can be agreed upon (generally) that this article demonstrates NPOV. Obviously, everyone will have their own qualms about certain things, but I mean generally and as a whole, when editors can agree that this article demonstrates NPOV to the best of its ability, given the current array of tertiary sources, then we should remove the tags. Because right now, there are still disputes happening. So its not a negative thing to have this tag up, it should motivate us to get this article seriously good, and NPOV. Inevitably, there will be things I won't like, no big deal, I'm willing to overlook those things if the article as a whole is pretty neutral given the sources.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev, while I know you would like to have the Divine Emergence section fuller there is very little material in any books to use. GF 2006 has some, but not much more than the earlier editions. Maybe some source materials from Da writing, but you and Tao would have to work that out. It's not totally against wiki policy to quote SOME materials from source but it would be very little that could be used. I think that some submission and discussion with one of the formal editors of wiki would be best. Or else.... a lot of back and forth debating and fighting.Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

you have to put forth specific points of contention. Until you do, no POV tags. Follow guidelines please.Tao2911 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for POV tag

The "Divine Emergence" section is currently biased, specifically here, "Saying he was beset by “dark forces”, there were reports from his community that doctors had prescribed tranquilizers for what they diagnosed as anxiety attacks."

this is almost an exact quote from New Religions. There is some more info there about energy moving from his feet to his head, because he was beset by dark forces. So I can add that. But I reject absolutely any insertion of Adidam theology into this section. We have one tertiary source, so we use that source.Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And again here, the discussion about Lenz, "Later that year, Adi Da recruited the following of Frederick Lenz, or "Zen Master Rama", following the latter’s death in 1998. Adi Da said that he was a reincarnation of the renowned Hindu teacher Swami Vivekananda, and stated that Lenz had been a disciple in a past life. Some of these followers did join Adidam, creating some measure of conflict among long-time disciples within the community who felt the new members were overly privileged. The last line is irrelevant to the "Divine Emergence", and reads as a clever side note to cast doubt. Not a necessary mention, only adds bias.

You find the community part irrelevant simply because you don't like it. But it's cited from New Religions encyclopedia entry, again - this is the information they chose to present, indicating what info editors assumed would be found of interest to a general audience. As such, I think it makes for a good guide. There is a line or two more - again, you may not find them flattering. I find this information interesting in that it gives another picture into the community, however small. There is plenty more in new religions about the 'depleted' state of the community and pervasive exhaustion among longtime devotees. I will work that in I guess.Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This section can be improved with a short description of what these events are from Adi Da's point of view, and how they represent "changes" in his teaching. If that doesn't want to be added, then the section should be reduced to one or two lines and included in the bio, mentioning them as major events in his life and teaching, and leaving it at that, removing it as a distinctive category.

Find a tertiary source, fine. Not going to allow you to bring your own experience of sitting in Da's presence and the stories you've heard, and certainly not his own accounts, which (as I will happily quote tertiary analysts explaining) are prone to "mythologization and auto-hagiography".Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Books" section only (critically) mentions The Knee of Listening, giving an overview of it's publication history, without giving any mention to the other 60 + books Adi Da wrote, and not mentioning that various topics he wrote about, even as a simple overview. To have a books section only talk about The Knee of Listening is absurd, and to argue that it is his most popular book, and therefore should be the sole focus of this section, is equally as ridiculous. This section needs to be expanded. If there are no tertiary sources, then it needs to be from Adi Da literature, carefully used. As I've noticed, Tao himself has used the dawn horse press website as a citation in this article. It is not banned to use Adi Da literature in this article, but tertiary sources should make up the majority of this article, and where there isn't anything in a tertiary source, then content will have to come from the dawn horse press itself, although used sparingly, and with discrimination.

find the sources. You can't analyze, summarize, or research your own overview or interp of books. I have yet to see another source presented - this section is a fair representation of GF and New Relig, who only mention or discuss Knee with any substance. It is by far his most famous book. This is a fair presentation of it, giving both pro and con.Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The lack of mention of "venice biennale" in the Art section is an attempt to underplay Adi Da's exhibition and recognition, is a clear bias, and there is no argument against it, given the amount of sources and citations available that directly associate this as a "solo collateral exhibition at the Venice Biennale".

There is an argument against it - all of mine. Re read please.Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the points I disagree with, and that other editors have disagreed with. They demonstrate bias, and need to be neutralized. They have not been addressed properly. The POV tag thus stands, until there is consensus and no dispute in this article. I have consistently witnessed disputes take place on this talk page, nearly constantly, so clearly "neutrality is in dispute", given Starr's comments, and JR's most recent comment. And now I have given my overview. So I think Tao is the only one who feels this article is totally neutral and fine, while everyone else disagrees. POV tag stands until consensus is reached.

I would like to encourage other editors to speak up as to whether or not they feel the neutrality of this article is still in dispute, deserving a POV tag or not, and what specific areas they are concerned with. And Tao, no lengthy angry rebuttal please, if you want to you can address these points in a calm fashion, or give constructive feedback in another way, making suggestions, or just stating your point in clear un-emotional terms. Thanks, and I appreciate the work you have done with this article. It has come a long way, and is very close. These are my only contentions, which is rather small given the whole article. We are getting close. Lack of sources IS a problem, and we will have to work with it, artfully.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: I support Devangari's application of the tagging of the article. Tao, please re-read Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Disputes over tags. I think you are currently the only editor who feels the tag is not warranted. A consensus of editors feels that the tag is required. Therefore, the tag should stay in place until consensus is reached to remove it. --Diannaa ^TALK 06:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag is fine. Tag with no specifics wasn't. I will discuss these points case by case.Tao2911 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

While I very much appreciated Tao’s work on the article, which in many way have made it a better article, the last few weeks with the kind of lack of civility, strategic insertion of bias language and then the threats that follow as means to end dialog, seemed to indicate that a tag is again warranted. I feel the article is actually close, but needs to step out of this kind of rancor for completion.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

own your part in rancor. persistent biased edits, unwillingness to acknowledge this bias and engage in reasoned debate, inflammatory accusations, and sloppy, poor editing not in keeping with page and WP standards has in many cases led to further frustration. I still question having a POV alert on this page when you both keep saying how balanced the page is save for a couple problem passages, but so be it. Starr set the precedent, and you both seem willing to follow in his wake in attempts to burnish Da's image. You both have clear patterns of trying insert grotesquely biased language that is unacceptable for any encyclopedic entry. You have also insisted on some good information, but nearly always in need of radical rephrasing to drain it of pro-Da apology. So, let's push on - what needs to happen now is that you need to propose alternative passages here. We can discuss abstract concepts all day long. Write some alternatives to passages you don't like, and let's review them here in talk. Its the only way to move forward.Tao2911 (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the entry reads in a balanced fashion. I am familiar with much of this material, and do not feel there is any mis-characterization here. Adi Da's later period is not well documented, reflecting his considerable propensity for isolation - alluded to in lead. The sources, the two here that are clearly reliable, seem well represented - no distortion for POV. I am not aware of any other tertiary appraisals. The Divine Emergence and few subsequent events are phrased neutrally. It fits. I have to concur with Tao on book section also. I do not see a way without another scholarly source analyzing his oeuvre how to say much more. There does not seem to be any bias in the voice of entry there; again, I think it reflects sources accurately, which is the goal.Chaschap (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I disagree that the Divine Emergence section is phrased neutrally. The first paragraph is good, but after that is becomes strange. I will post proposals after taking a look at sources, taking into account what you said here about the Books section. I will have to look at wiki policy about whether or not it is appropriate to use non-tertiary source in this case, or if that isn't true.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think this Venice Biennale debate is a complete red herring. I understand Tao's questions about it, and don't see how it matters having that one line. I think that Adidam does overplay its mention, in a concerted effort to make it seem as if Adi Da was in it - and there does indeed seem to be an argument to be had about that. "Collateral" to it? Why is it not enough to say he had an exhibition curated by a renowned figure, and that the show traveled? This is a reasonable way to address everyone's concerns.Chaschap (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't matter, so why does it hurt to have it? Why is it being strategically removed on the basis of some abstract argument? I agree, Adidam makes too much of it, but there's nothing wrong with having it mentioned, and stating it for what it is, a solo collateral exhibition. Sources agree with this, personal opinion does not matter, and neither does Tao's own logic. Sources state solo collateral exhibition at Venice Biennale, so why is there argument?--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the article we don't have to say what Adi Da made of it or how much he emphasised it. The source clearly states it was a collateral exhibition of the Venice Biennale; there is no reason to leave this fact out. --Diannaa ^TALK 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at that source again, I see it is simply the Adidam press release with excerpts from an Adidam book. It is not an independent review. This is the pattern - there is no independent analysis of this show. It all comes back to Adidam. Diannaa, why don't you explain to us what 'collateral' means? And if you can come up with that, how is that made clear to a general audience without creating a distraction in an encyclopedic entry?Tao2911 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thorough Wikipedia entry on Venice Biennale makes absolutely no mention of "collateral" events, tho it has history and explanation of all aspects of the Biennale exhibits, much as I described here in past:

"Format: The formal Biennale is based at a park the Giardini that houses 30 permanent national pavilions. The assignment of the permanent pavilions was largely dictated by the international politics of the 1930s and the Cold War. There is no single format to how each country manages their pavilion. The pavilion for Great Britain is always managed by the British Council while the United States assigns the responsibility to a public gallery chosen by the Department of State. The Giardini includes a large exhibition hall that houses a themed exhibition curated by the Biennale's director.

The Aperto began as a fringe event for younger artists and artists of a national origin not represented by the permanent national pavilions. This is usually staged in the Arsenale and has become part of the formal biennale programme. In 1995 there was no Aperto so a number of participating countries hired venues to show exhibitions of emerging artists."

This supports my own experience at the Biennale - collateral events are simply everything else happening at the same time as the official Biennale, taking advantage of crowds and press present for "official" events. If WP entry mentioned collateral events and described their part in the Biennale, I wouldn't mind the mention here, because a link could clarify. But even the WP entry doesn't bother to mention them - because THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE BIENNALE. They have no official connection, no oversight, no funding. Get it?Tao2911 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 153, the source for the statement in the article, is this link: Venice Biennale Collateral Exhibition : Adi Da Samraj. This link: [1] clearly states that the exhibit came to Firenze "Direct from its widely acclaimed official participation in the 2007 Venice Biennale". Two sources clearly say it was so, including one that is already referenced in the article. There is no reason to omit this fact from the article as we could probably find additional citations as well. Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a source: see the guideline at Wikipedia:Sources#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia. This important artistic achievement should be included in the article, in my humble opinion. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another Adidam website. This is the point. Adidam tags all press with Biennale, tho he wasn't IN the Biennale. Address my point please - WP entry makes no mention of 'collateral' events. Its not a source - its an indication of what I am telling you. No one has adequately answered my question about what a 'collateral' event is? I have thoroughly researched this - you can keep dragging these links in - they all lead to Adidam. Collateral is confusing. You don't understand it, nor will a general audience. It's one phrase - it is confusing. There is no need for it. No tertiary source mentions it - all these links are Adi Da press or sites, not in keeping with WP source guidelines. He had a show, curated by an established curator. It was in two Italian cities. This is fine. My argument, like it or not, is informed and reasonable. If there is a dispute over this small inclusion, then it should be left out. it doesn't affect the information in any substantive way, and addresses my valid concerns.Tao2911 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Divine Emergence Re-consideration

This is a difficult section that I have had problems it, aside from it's first paragraph. Since there is a lack of available sources, I am proposing we drop this section as a category within the Biography, and instead include a few simple sentences in the Biography. I don't think it will work as a separate section like it is now, it is not clear, and most of the material is heavily biased and negative on these events, which is okay to mention, but then we have no sources highlighting how Adi Da described them as spiritual events (aside from first para), and how they signified changes in his teaching, and manner of relating to devotees. So we won't be able to get a clear picture of these events, and the section doesn't feel helpful to the reader in that sense.

So if we did a few lines in the Biography mentioning '86, and then '00, then we would also have a better chronology happening. This would solve that issue for me. As for the Books section, I see what Chaschap is saying, and that may be it. I don't know yet, I will have to research further before settling on this section, but I may have to just settle, given the lack of sources again.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Again Dev, you are simply wrong. There are "spiritual reasons" for each event in that section (which is as long as others): "In January 1986, "burned out by months of long partying" during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples psyches, Adi Da was frustrated and grief-stricken by what he perceived as the futility of his teaching work. He experienced a near-death episode, that he came to call his "Divine Emergence."[107] Adi Da described this event as a spiritual transformation of his body that allowed it to become a "perfect vehicle for his spiritual transmission". Before, he said he had not been fully inhabiting his body, but from then on he did so, "down to the bottoms of My feet."[108] It was then enough for disciples to simply meditate upon his image to participate in his enlightenment." I don't see anything biased in any way here.

"By the year 2000, Adi Da had publicly predicted that he would be recognized by the entire world for his enlightened status. When this failed to occur, Adi Da experienced another death-like event similar to the one in 1986, which he said signified the start of another new period in his message. His "divinity moved from the bottoms of his feet to above the top of his head, where it had been before 1986." This return was necessary because he was beset by "dark forces" that could no longer be allowed into his body. There were reports that doctors had prescribed tranquilizers for what they diagnosed as anxiety attacks." This is neutrally presented, a series of reported events. What is negative. be specific. You just keep saying its too negative. Why? It's sourced - how will you excuse removing it? The page reflects sources. not what you want things to say.

The Lenz event too mentions Vivekananda reincarnation, another spiritual 'reason' and event. These are sourced as well as anything else in bio. You don't like them for some reason. Ok. This is not a reason to remove. Tao2911 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the books section, the Dawn Horse Press website lists at least 60 titles written by Adi Da; there is only one title covered in any depth in the article. Other authors have their entire oeuvre listed in their article, for example, 14th Dalai Lama, Pema Chödrön, even Dan Brown. There are listings on Amazon and other sources that we could use to collect this information. Worldcat.org lists over 300 entries for Adi Da. Surely this part of his life deserves better coverage? --Diannaa ^TALK 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that all 60 Adi Da books are self-published; his best selling book (Knee) is estimated in one source to have sold 40,000 copies. This is almost nothing compared to books by the authors you list (a peculiar mix, I might add) - this is simply a false comparison. Those authors have reams of analysis and peer review. Where is Adi Da's?

There is absolutely no independent analysis or description of Da's books, except numerous sources saying that they are prone to "auto-hagiogrpahy", "self-mythologization", peculiar use of capitalization and extreme use of the pronoun 'I.' Sources go on to say that due to these reasons, the books will remain obscure and almost unreadable to all but a few - save early editions of Knee "which had the ring of truth" but has since been rendered unreadable (see footnotes). I do not exaggerate. I feel I am being forced to bring more of this analysis into that section. Again, this is not about balance. This is about proportionate coverage that reflects what tertiary sources say - to reflect the estimation in the culture at large. WE do not get to research and analyze. We report on what sources say. Again and again I ask, bring me the sources. No one ever does. I'll continue to make the page reflect those actual sources, not the ones I wish there were to support my position.Tao2911 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify.... cause Tao and I have been down this road before :) are we debating how many books have been published, if they were actually published, therefore be listed in reference section or something about other of his books get written about in the article, or if they are readable and can be used for tertiary sources or... all of the above? Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again - please read my comments. Don't make me cut and paste them again. Address my points. No peer review, analysis, outside of what is already on page.Tao2911 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao I am not trying to be cute or sarcastic...really... Dianna seems to be saying that more of his books could be mentioned in the article and POSSIBLY listed in the reference section. That is what your addressing right? I am just trying to get clear here on what is being addressed since there has been a lot of back and forth on all this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I thought we were talking about why there is no list of the books written or published by Adi Da. Just because the books are "self-published" does not mean he did not write them. In fact most of them have ISBN numbers, and lots are availabe on Amazon, which gives a pretty concrete indication that they exist. In that vein, it does not matter if they are obscure, unreadable, or even unobtainable. He wrote them all the same. It does not matter if they are written with lots of caps, no punctuation, or whatever. The encyclopedic thing to do is to include the facts that can be collected, and let the reader make their own value judgement about the worth of the books. You are right, Tao, it is not about balance at all. It is about collecting and presenting the verifiable facts and letting the user make up their own mind. I still hold the opinion that more needs to be said about the over 60 books he wrote. I am not sure, Tao, what you mean by these remarks about peer review and analysis. That is not what is needed to detail his literary career. I was thinking more along the lines of a list of his published books.--Diannaa ^TALK 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What purpose is a list of self-published books? Since you are comparing to other writers, other writers have analysis and interp to accompany the books in an entry, by OTHER analysts (not the author) - pro-Da editors have at times tried to bring the Adidam analysis of his books here, but that doesn't meet standards. This is not a commercial. Its about sources - no one apparently has deemed Adi Da's corpus worthy of the analysis he and his followers gave it. So the page has to reflect this standing. A twenty page analysis on Adidam in an encyclopedia on "New Religions in America" gives not one paragraph to discussing or listing Da's other books, besides Knee. Feuerstein, in a relatively admiring profile in his book Holy Madness in 1991, mentions only Knee and Garbage by name (both mentioned in WP entry) and says that his books as a whole amount to an act of "crazy wisdom" since they are so essentially unreadable. We could put that in. Its sourced.

The 'books' entry reflects the standing in other sources. Many of his books are re-edited version of other books. You planning to research that? Oh wait, you can't. The entry is supposed to give a picture of how this figure is viewed by tertiary sources. Right now it does. Adding an original research list of books without any tertiary guide to that body of work is not within WP guidelines.Tao2911 (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, Tao. Other articles do not analyze or comment or attempt to interpret the books in any way. They merely list them. Look at the Pema Chodron article as an example. I am not proposing that the books be used as source material for the article. That would not be appropriate as the article would then be self-sourced. Nor should they be listed in the reference section. But the man was a prolific author and the article should reflect that fact. The quality of the books is immaterial. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is NOT what I am saying - I am saying that the entry should accurately reflect available source info. If Jones was a significant literary figure, there would be reams of analysis, and yes, discussion of what his most famous books were, per sources. Just as this one does. it says he was prolific. It says only one book was well known. And then it says what that book's reception has been according to sources available. Address these points please, not your desire to put a bunch of book titles in the page.Tao2911 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So Diannaa where would they be listed? In a separate bibliography? Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dianna! Finally someone understands my point here. Pema Chodron has a bibliography. In the past, an editor who reviewed this article for GA, suggested something of this nature. I think we should proceed on that basis.

As for the Divine Emergence section, I didn't see these new edits, they must have just happened. Good edits. Here are the issues I still see:

"There were reports that doctors had prescribed tranquilizers for what they diagnosed as anxiety attacks." So a tertiary source lists this, fine, but what is the point of including it in the article? I find it to be a negative statement that is unnecessary.

And then this: "Some of these followers did join Adidam, reportedly upsetting long-time disciples who felt the new members were undeservedly privileged". What is the purpose of this statement? I don't understand the reason for it's inclusion.

Other editors, feel free to chime in with your views regarding these statements.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement about anxiety attacks does have a bit of a negative spin, but that shouldn't be the basis for the keep/drop decision. Is it relevant; well sourced; what are similar articles doing? My opinion is to keep. Many articles about public figures touch on their health issues, such as the ones about Winston Churchill and Neil Young. --Diannaa ^TALK 02:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive

I am going to archive out some of the old talk. By the way I was going to do this yesterday, and I noticed there is no talk between October and December. I find this hard to fathom due to the present level of activity on the page. Just a heads up to you all, that some of the talk seems to have gone missing. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa, I think Starr said he was going to archive some of the past talk.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I wasn't active during that time, having left the page to the devotees. I can imagine that without me around to fight the propaganda effort, the page simply went quiet.Tao2911 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dianna, it could very well have been quiet during this time.Thank you for archiving.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dev, luckily you are right. Nothing is missing; I checked the history --Diannaa ^TALK 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bibiography ideas

The thing is taking too long to load and save so I have started a new section.

Typically if the bibliography is short and/or the article is short, the books are listed as a section of the main article, like in the examples already shown. Another way, if the writer has been very prolific, is to make a separate article and refer to it from the main, example: Robert Heinlein has a subarticle Robert A. Heinlein bibliography. The main article uses the template

Main article: Robert A. Heinlein bibliography

to guide the user to the list of works, and has a couple of short paragraphs summarising the writing career. Here's another one that groups the books by decade and year: Nora Roberts bibliography. (Nora Roberts is one sick woman, don't try this at home folks.) --Diannaa ^TALK 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dianna, could this simply be listed at the end of the article, as in the Ken Wilber article?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate page is a much less offensive idea to me that the alternative. However, there are no independent summaries of his "writing career" or analysis of his books! This is exactly my point! So who is going to write this summary? One of you devotees quoting Adidam.org? No - that is not NPOV. Who do we have? We have New Religions and Feuerstein. What do they talk about? Knee of Listening, comparing early versions unfavorably to later. Which takes us back to the page as it is, which says he wrote a lot of books, but that only Knee is well-known (as far as it is known at all). This is what sources say - page should reflect them. But clearly you have different agendas. This is completely circular.

Also, other books get mentioned in Wilber 'reception' section, but to repeat that info in books would be redundant. He is the other critical voice, but that becomes a seperate topic and is given its own section, per WP precedents.Tao2911 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well anyone could write the bilbliography. You could, I could. That's what most of us do; we write the articles, rather than argue about the articles on the talk page. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm already creating a bibliography in the format of Ken Wilber's bibliography, to appear at the end of this article, like his does. We could consider further about separate page. Is this agreeable?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Write the articles? Like my researching and writing 90% of the current content on this page? Gee, what a concept. Wow, I feel so burned Diannaa. You don't write the bibliography. That's original research - especially with a guy that radically rewrites his books, and that sources document recalling all copies of at least one controversial one and attempting to burn them (Garbage, talked about in New Religions. I can see this info is going to have to get worked in). You find an authoritative bibliography from tertiary source. I don't see this getting proposed. Tao2911 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not about "writing" a bibliography. See Ken Wilber. It's a simple list, I'm already doing it. Easily verified, as Dianna indicated above. Only including books with ISBN numbers.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev attack on page

Dev radically altered page without any explanation here. His edit completely ruined a hard fought and worked chronology. Section in question was no longer about "controversies." 'Controversy' sections are supposed to be called 'reception' for neutrality per WP guidelines as long established here in talk. That section was now an integrated, central part of a carefully crafted chronological bio, placed to remove redundant mentions of controversial info, per other editors concerns (Dev even approved of this in past) - Dev just taking it out and moving it was probably well intentioned, in terms of him getting what he wants, but was a violent and aggressive edit and essentially destroyed the page. Slow the heck down and propose such radical edits here. This one was a terrible idea.

It was not about critical reception. It was about the most well-known, most public period in the history Adidam or Jones/Da's life. You don't unplug that and put it "at the bottom of the page" as much as that reflects your desired hierarchical placement for any of that info. Also, Scientology page is not a paragon of organization or a model for this page. Tao2911 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Chill out, Tao. I just thought it was weird having that in the middle of the Biography. I didn't know about "reception", etc. You need to calm down, and I have been making slow edits, you are the one I have noticed making dozens of edits per day, having me search around to see what you add constantly. I hardly make edits compared to you. I thought this was a no-brainer edit, it had no aggressive intentions, so take it easy, and it's very simple to cut and paste it where it was before, or to just undo my edit. It's that easy. No attacks required.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

dude, my edits now are generally to citations, adding footnotes, fixing bad punctuation from other editors, etc. I'm not taking whole chunks of the page and moving them around to suit some misguided idea comparing the page to Scientology. You have a history of making these totally clunky biased moves. So expect flack when you do this kind of thing. What did you expect - no discussion in talk? Moving the most controversial part of the bio? Come on...Tao2911 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I arguing with your reasoning to put it back to normal? No. I had no biased intentions. Please don't make aggressive assumptions. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? I am not arguing with you at all, I didn't know the full reasons behind the placement of this section, I apologize for not discussing it in talk, I had thought its current placement was a simple oversight.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I created the Bibliography, and have made a new section for it. I followed the format of how the Bibliography appears in the Ken Wilber article, and have placed it at the end of the article after "Reception", as it appears in the Ken Wilber article. All ISBN's are given, verifiable, and can be found on Amazon.

The "Books" section can now be reduced to a simple few lines summarizing that Adi Da wrote prolifically, without getting into numbers, or descriptions of his books. The Bibliography supercedes any need to describe books, list books, or review his oeuvre.

Also, as I was creating this Bibliography, I noticed how illustrative it is of how many editions of certain books were published, how much they changed over time, etc. That is some of the big points Tao wanted to make in the "Books" section, but I find it to be illustrated much more effectively in the form of this Bio, for example you can see all the editions of The Knee of Listening, and Method of the Siddhas, and how titles of books changed, etc. So I think it serves its purpose in many ways.

I would recommend editors take a look here: WP:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Bibliographies. I included subtitles for thoroughness, but here it says, "Provide the subtitle too, unless it is painfully longwinded". This is the case with a few subtitles there, so maybe some subtitles should be removed. And providing ISBNs is something to consider, I don't know if it is worth providing an ISBN for every edition, I simply provided the ISBN for the latest edition, given the number of editions I think this may be the best way to go about it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's ugly, and probably still far from authoritative, but at least you put it at the end. But this is the kind of problem I have - Knee subtitle changed like six times - your listing doesn't reflect this. So maybe start by removing that subtitle. Also you have the same subtitle for Garbage and some other book later. They both say last teachings, etc. Not that he wouldn't say that (he kept doing so every year, with new 'last teachings', but are they really the same here?)Tao2911 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, did I not indicate the subtitle changes for Knee? I had it as two entries, from 1972, and then again in 2004, but then reduced it to one entry. Let me fix this. Do you think I should remove some of the longer subtitles or do you prefer their inclusion?

That is a mistake, the subtitle for "No Remedy" is not the same as the subtitle for GG. I will fix it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just not have subtitles, but a list of editions (72, 73, 76, 78, etc) As long as we were expanding this book info, I expanded the book section with heavily cited and footnoted material. The main points of discussion re: Jones' books in most sources are 1)Knee 2)editing of older material 3)recall of Goddess 4)use of the language 5)self-published nature of the material. I also went through and cleaned up citations, punctuation etc. Before complaints about bias, please read footnotes, and see if changes are not indeed fair representations of that material.Tao2911 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well according to wiki, Bibliographies should contain subtitles, unless they are "painstakingly long". Also, I disagree with the content of the "Books" section, totally biased, and unnecessary discussion. This section should be reduced to a few lines, simply mentioning that he wrote prolifically about his spiritual philosophy, end of story. The Bibliography is there for people to see all the various editions of single books, changes in name, title, honorifics before his name, story, etc. Leave it for them to conclude.

It is not legitimate to have a Books section focusing on what you would like to focus on, which is: 1.) Adi Da "changed" his teaching 2.) Adi Da's books are hard to read 3.) GG was recalled 4.) Scientology was removed from Knee. That is all bias. The books section should give a simple overview that he wrote many books, and that's it. There is hardly any tertiary source discussing his ouevre, so we don't discuss it, we just leave it to a simple few lines, and let the Bibliography speak for itself. Your personal issues and pet peeves about Adi Da's writing is not what this section needs to be about, whatsoever.

Other editors, feel free to speak up regarding your views on this Books section, also. It can be tiring being the only voice sometimes, and I know there are more people here with opinions, please give your opinions.--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no sources, how is the entire section thoroughly sourced and footnoted by agreed-upon authoritative texts? Riddle me that one. It ain't biased if its fact, presented neutrally. Like, Jones did remove Scientology mentions. Jones did recall Garbage books. Jones was criticized for capitalization. Etc. All cited as such. Remove, and be a vandal. Your call.

Again, Dev - not a court case. Not about 'leaving out' bits you don't like in order to win 'your case' by having people reach 'their own conclusion.' Its about accurately reflecting source info, to create thorough entry for a general audience. if their are common criticisms/appraisals, you don't leave those out to help your case. You say "here are common estimations" as mentioned in sources. Keep chewing on this, as bitter a pill as it may be to swallow. If you are going to put a self-researched bibliography of all Da's dozens of books, then what little tertiary estimation and analysis of that corpus needs to be mentioned.Tao2911 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Kripal has written about Adi Da's total corpus, in his foreword to the Knee of Listening and also again there are thins in Gurus in America along these lines. Obviously, they are in support and praise of his writings, but could be used to support general statements that Adi Da wrote 23 books specifically detailing his spiritual teaching called "source texts". That's the kind of thing that this Books section should mention, simple facts that Adi Da wrote books, something about "source texts" as what he called them. There could be mentioning of capitalization. There is some statements in Gurus in America like this: "These volumes, although certainly not without their rhetorical, literary, and theological challenges..." we can leave out the praise that appears afterwards. But this statement could paraphrased.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

this is all I've ever challenged you to do - bring forth the sources. if you have something that is not an endorsement from a Dawn Horse publication, then we can work that info in. I'm all for it. But I can't change the passage without the source. Bring some quotes here and we can figure out how to work them in. I would suggest that you go ahead and add something to the section, but I'm have come to distrust you ability to summarize or neutrally present source info. I can adjust if you do insert something, but maybe best to try here first.Tao2911 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The subtitles are a significant part of the titles. I recommend the inclusion of subtitles as well as a list of all published editions. If it gets too lengthy, a sub-article can be created on the model of Friedrich Nietzsche bibliography. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao "retaliates" after entry of Bibliography, a legitimate insertion according to wikipedia .

Tao, it is interesting that after at least months of the Books section staying the same, you choose to put bias lines in there AFTER a totally legitimate insertion of a bibliography of Adi Da's books is done, which is a totally neutral addition. Coincidence ... or ???Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

wrong (but what else is new?) I considered putting all of that info in previously, but it wasn't absolutely necessary, and I knew it would create a fuss from you devotees. I gave my reasons for including it above. It's not biased, one, and two, a bibliography of that size deserves what tertiary analysis there is to be reflected. I didn't concoct any of that info. it's sourced and footnotes, and presented with an absolutely neutral voice. Don't accuse 'bias' and bring no specifics. As I said, Dev is bringing some other analysis, and this can also be worked in.Tao2911 (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Books Section Consideration

I don't think we should get into the specifics of books, but here are some quotes we can use to support content in this section:

Garbage and the Goddess was published in 1974 as the third book to appear from the community, following the guru's early autobiography, The nee of Listening (1072), and a companion volume of some of his early talks, The Method of the Siddhas (1973). In this third volume, however, the guru had made his first name-change, from Frnalin Jones to Bubba Free John...In terms of content, the voume's combination of philosophical sophistication, elaborate an ddelightfully honest descriptions of the devotees' ecstatic and visionary states...and certainly one of the most entertaining things to come out of the American guru culture...This book also has a fascinating history. Other than The Knee of Listening, the guru's autobiography, no book published by the community has sold as well and as fast as the Garbage and the Goddess. Unike their previous print runs of five thousand, the press published twenty thousand copies. Despite the text's obvious message that the "miracles" of Bubba were over, and that the spiritual life has nothing to do with extraordinary experiences (hence "the garbage" of the title), people began showing up at the ashram, ooking for both these same extraordinary experiences and the parties portrayed in the book with such color and warmth. This was not the message the guru or the community wanted to send, and yet clearly on some level that was precisely the message the book was sending. Ultimately, then, despite the book’s commercial success, the community chose to withdraw the book from the market. Hence they gathered as many as they could from the bookstores and burned them. This poignant, deeply ambivalent event captures well the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of portraying the religious nature of what were essentially Tantric experiments of transgression and sexual experimentation to a public audience. What began as a remarkably honest attempt to document a particularly creative period of the tradition ended, quite literally, in flames.

I see nothing here that is especially useful for the entry, except maybe the burning, which is mentioned elsewhere, but this is authoritative. This is covered in lines as they stand. The G/G period is covered and explained already. We're looking for book analysis/info/facts at this point.Tao2911 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And indeed, this is the movement and the message of the book: that, as of now, the extraordinary events of the early community, so lovingly recounted in the book, are no longer necessary to the practice (GG, 19, 296-297, 330, 339, 345, 353). As manifestations of the goddess and her phenomenal world, such dramatic experiences (kundalini phenomena, synchronous experiences, numinous dreams, possession states, involuntary bodily movements, shouting, a miraculous storm, etc. ) may or may not continue to arise; regardless, they are non-essential to the realization of Consciousness itself. Baldly put, they are “garbage” to throw away for the grace of that which is always already the case, Consciousness itself.

again, more Adidam apology. This is a positive spin; there are negative spins too. The facts are covered - the interp is extraneous. We don't get into either - but some of this could make a footnote (in G/G period mention) Tho I think GF already covers this view. He's very sympathetic in 1991 version - much less so soon after.Tao2911 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The image of garbage comes from the life of Bubba and his first guru, Rudi (Swami Rudrananda, born Albert Rudolph, 1928-1973), who used to hand Bubba (as Franklin) a greasy bag of garbage whenever he visited (GG, 102-103). Through Rudi’s teaching, throwing away the garbage became a simple ritual with a message, namely, that one must ignore the unusual states of mind and body that inevitably accompany spiritual practice. Throw them away, with the greasy garbage, and move on. From now on, Bubba’s “Force,” manifested through the devotees in the period of miracles, will be replaced by a kind of pure “Presence” (GG, 338, 349).--pgs. Gurus In America (pp. 198-199)

I don't see what this has to do with anything at this point. This is all covered already, by NR and GF. Too much credulous detail, not needed. Book info, please.Tao2911 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

...the community has initiated an ambitious source-text publishing project designed to publish in a new format all twenty-three of the guru’s source texts: The Five Books of the Heart of the Adidam Revelation, The Seventeen Companions of the True Dawn Horse, and the master-work itself, The Dawn Horse Testament of the Ruchira Avatar. These volumes, although certainly not without their rhetorical, literary, and theological challenges, certainly rank among the most philosophically sophisticated and doctrinally extensive of all the western guru literature.--"Gurus In America (p. 194)

Ok, at least this is about books. I'm looking more into Kripal - just read his foreword. Let me try to work something in here. Oh, now I see you point out below this is all from his Knee foreword. not ideal, but is that's what there is, we can say that.

It is not from his foreword, it's a separate essay in the book Gurus In America. I was going to post more from his foreword, but instead decided you could read for yourself what is useful. More to the point analysis there. Don't have to include his bias.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than post more here, the rest of what can be found is here: http://www.kneeoflistening.com/f1-kripal.html, so why don't you also read through that. There is some analysis (amidst praise) of Adi Da's literature. We are not trying to go for praise...just a supporting source for factual statements. So see what you think.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple lines with Dev's material, including a longish Kripal footnote and a link to Adidam book page (to illustrate the line about 'complex hierarchy of texts.') I think this rounds it out well, without padding it out too much. Kripal, as the author of an Adi Da book foreword/endorsement and wildly, uncritically, gushingly positive, is hardly the sort of tertiary authority one would hope for - he uses a lot of straight up Adidam language in his Gurus in America essay too, but a couple lines fill it out a bit, and seem workable in an overview.Tao2911 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Kripal. His statements require paraphrasing and neutralizing to meet wiki standards. But they are still usable, albeit tricky. Here is my draft of the Books section. I appreciate your work on it, and feel some of your edits were good. But in general, I don't think this section needs to be delving into the details of The Knee or GG or any books for that matter. It also doesn't need to mention the re-editing and new standard editions, because this is plainly obvious in the Bibliography.

As it is stands now, this section is a highly critical analysis of Adi Da's books and writing, which I find is unnecessary. This section is surpassed by the Bibliography section, and in a sense, its not even necessary to have it anymore. But if we want to keep it, it should be a pretty minimal discussion saying that he wrote, describing what he wrote, and pointing out some things about his writing like capitalization and unique grammar, hard to read, etc. That's it, really. I think my draft is pretty summary, and presents Kripal's analysis, as well as what you put in of Lowe and Feurstein. Let me know what you think. I'm running it by here, instead of posting it over your edits:

Adi Da wrote prolifically about his spiritual philosophy and related matters, creating the Dawn Horse Press in 1972 to publish them. His total corpus can be summarized in a series of 23 books called “source-texts”, the magnum opus of which is The Dawn Horse Testament. In addition to the series of 23 books, Adi Da described "The Aletheon" to be his "first and foremost book", designating both The Aletheon and The Dawn Horse Testament to be the two most significant books of his spiritual philosophy.

This is all just Adidam nonsense - some of the 23 'source texts' haven't even been published. No way. Credulous esoteric Da speak. I made a link to the webpage - reader can't wade in on their own. No independent analysis of any of these claims. Not proportional.Tao2911 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da's writing has been described as being “philosophically sophisticated and culturally challenging” but not without its “rhetoric, literary, and theological challenges”. One of the signatures of his later writing was an eccentric use of punctuation and unconventional capitalizing of many first letters of words, indicating special meaning or import. In a foreword to the 2004 edition of Knee of Listening, religious scholar Jeffrey Kripal describes this positively as "a new type of mystical grammar". Others, including scholars Scott Lowe and Georg Feuerstein, have been critical, declaring problems with readability and accessibility for a wider audience.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No WAY - you can't use (the) one pro-Da endorser to frame the guy's entire body of work. Those comments are in a footnote. Not going to happen. The goal is to give a proportional overview. You give Kripal three quotes in one paragraph overview? You have got to just be doing this to annoy me.Tao2911 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about proportional coverage. we have multiple sources, including Kripal, discussing (endorsing?) Knee, and G/G, language use etc. Everything in that section is cited by tertiary sources, in proportion to mentions in those sources. Again, its not about a balanced overview. its about reflecting what information has been deemed of import by tertiary sources. I have Lowe, Lane, GF, and encyclopedic New Religions writing about these things. Now mention of other books except in passing, nothing about 'source texts' or DH Testament, etc. We cover what they cover, in the proportion they cover it. This section right now is covering what is most significant according to tertiary analysts - not Adi Da, clearly, or his devotees.Tao2911 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, we don't have to mention source texts. For example, the "mystical grammar" quote can go. I just kept it because you had it. That whole sentence that starts with "In a foreword to the 2004..." is unnecessary and I have no issues with it being gone. I am interested in this section being as short and summary as possible. In light of the Bibliography hardly any discussion is required except that he wrote books, and had an unconventional style of writing. What you are trying to get into is heavily biased, because that's how the tertiary sources are. All of the content out there in tertiary (of which there is very little) is critical, aside from Kripal. So to justify inclusion of it on a "tertiary" or "proportional" basis is fine, but it does not pass NPOV policy, even if it is verifiable. If you don't want me to mention 23 books, and so on, then fine, l am all for just saying "he wrote prolifically". Honestly, I have hardly any interest in this section anymore, and no agenda for it. Maybe not even have it altogether. I mean, look at Wilber's entry, they don't have a "Books" section, they just have his Bibliography, and discuss his philosophy

I've been looking through other articles like Osho, Ken Wilber, Pema Chodron, none of them have a "Books" section and a "Bibliography". In Osho's case there is neither (and he wrote a lot), but the Osho article is very detailed a long...but I think there is a legit argument for just having a Biblio in the case of this article. Look at Thich Nhat Hanh he wrote quite a bit, no "Books" section, just a Bibliography in "Further Reading".--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude - the differences are profound. These comparisons (to Thay, to Ken Wilber, to Dalai Lama, to Heinlein?, to Pema) are ABSURD. What Da did was unprecedented. No one has ever self-published so many books. No one was so maniacal about reediting them. No one used/abused? the language in the way he did. No one was ever so prone to "auto-hagiography and self-mythologization." That is why these things get mentioned in sources, and discussed at length. They are what distinguishes him. As you say, only Kripal bucks this trend - there are numbers of other sources saying just what gets said here, and not always so dryly. Don't make me dig into them. I use New Religions because it compiles that info and does our work for us - its already an encyclopedia, which WP guidelines say is the ideal sort of source to use. Those editors have already chosen what will be of interest to a general audience, what should be given weight. In my review of info for this page, I see the same things come up in all sources - so we summarize and include. You don't like the info. Fine. But as with much of the other stuff here you don't like, it reflects sources, is cited, is carefully presented for NPOV, and is not given undue weight per those sources. As again, you acknowledge.

A simple list of 80 books would normally mean one thing. When they are all self-published, and many are heavily edited, this changes the view. When a (relatively) well-known book is known as one thing, and then becomes a radically different thing, this deserves mention. And so all the sources give it mentions, bunches of them, and go on and on about such things - even your Kripal. So should this entry. We follow the sources - the sources for Thay saying other things, because such matters are not an issue. With Da, they are significant issues, by his own testimony, and that of his apologists. He made them issues.Tao2911 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion by Diannaa Hi all, I was just looking over Dev's draft for the "Books" section and recceived his message requesting comment whilst doing so!

• Make sure you don't use oblique quotation marks in the actual article; apparently they do strange things to the indexing. Use only the straight-up-and-down type.
• Book titles should be in italics (not quotation marks).
• I would substitute the word "idiosyncracies" for "signatures"
• I prefer the new version to the one currently in the article. The words "presumably" or "possibly" should not be used in our articles.

I see you are still discussing it, so I am working on a third version in the sandbox. Hope to post it shortly.

I also looked at the bibliography today. It's huge! If you want to spin it off into a separate article, and need help, let me know. I've done that sort of task before. One suggestion for the bibliography: Add a short paragraph such as "Below is a partial listing of books written by Adi Da" or something along that line. You don't want people to mistakenly think these books were used as source material for the article.

Thank you for asking my opinion. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, as you see I went further into this consideration and am now thinking that maybe it isn't necessary to even have a "Books" section, as you can see in my comments just above yours. Appreciate your comments, thanks a lot.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are on crack if you think you are removing the books section. Read my points above.Tao2911 (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another draft of the book section for your perusal
Adi Da wrote prolifically about his spiritual philosophy and related matters, creating the Dawn Horse Press in 1972 to publish them. Best known among these is his autobiography, The Knee of Listening (1972), the 1973 edition of which contained a foreword by well-known author Alan Watts. Many, including Watts, praised it as an authentic and remarkable mystical testament. Subsequent editions have undergone extensive changes and additions tending toward auto-hagiography and self-mythologizing. For instance, mentions of his connection to Scientology are no longer included, and there are added chapters, as on "the secrets of Adi Da's "pre-history"(before his birth in 1939)." The first edition was 271 pages; the last edition is 840 pages long.

Adi Da heavily re-edited many of his earlier books in later years, reissuing them in "New Standard Editions" while developing a complex hierarchy of what he viewed as his primary texts. One of the idisyncracies of his later writing was an eccentric use of punctuation and irregular capitalization of the first letter of many words, indicating special meaning or import. In a foreword to the 2004 edition of Knee of Listening, religious scholar Jeffrey Kripal describes this positively as "a new type of mystical grammar". Others, including scholars Scott Lowe and Georg Feuerstein, have been critical, declaring problems with readability and accessibility for a wider audience.
--Diannaa ^TALK 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, what I object to in this draft is the discussion of "auto-hagiography" and "mythologizing", alongside the mention of how Scientology was removed. is this really crucial information that would be included in a section like this? It sounds like most third party sources are just negative, and so we have content like this, which is highly opinionated, and I find this "in-depth" discussion of The Knee of Listening seems to exist only to cast doubt on it. What is the purpose of it? I appreciate your creating a draft, and these are my only contentions. Perhaps you can help me understand this more, and correct me if I'm in the wrong, according to wiki policy or something.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to cast doubt - to reflect sources, numbers of which discuss all of this. Nothing in this section is not mentioned in numerous sources! There is no 'doubt' - all of this material is significant, because it is singular. And Knee, again, is his most famous book. I'm going to bed.Tao2911 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao you should place your remarks on the bottom where they are easier to find. I just wanted to say that I never intended to compare Adi Da to Heinlein of the Dalai Lama or anyone else. These were just examples of article layout for you to look at. Pema Chodron I chose specifically because you might consider her to be self published too, as her publishing house is owned by the monastery where she resides. Dev, I was just trying to make a compromise that includes bits from both drafts. I don't know what's important and what's not. I like your idea of leaving it out altogether or just stating that he wrote 60 or so books. It's just not working out --Diannaa ^TALK 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I put them at the bottom, but there's too much activity going on here, and I keep having to reinsert to what I am responding to. Pema's been published by numbers of publishers, including (mainly) Shambhala (no connection to her monastery - not aware of her monastery publishing anything.) No way to get rid of it. Not happening.Tao2911 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Book section: keep/discard discussion

I understand your reason for making those comparisons. Thank you Diannaa. I think this is just too problematic and polarized. Hardly any tertiary sources to make this a balanced section, I am in favor of leaving it out at this point. All editors who support leaving it out, please post a reply stating your support, or make an argument for the inclusion of this Books section. I will wait for more feedback from other editors, instead of engaging in any further discussion about this section, which has been a long time issue with this article. Tao has his own reasons for wanting this section to exist, and one only has to look at his edits to find out what that reason is. I have had my own bias in the past, but have not touched this section in a long time, and my draft was very benign, and I did not even object to Tao's comment asking to remove some Kripal quotations. This is in the hands of editors now, Tao and I cannot just have a back and forth. Others need to speak up, that is why I asked Dianna for her opinion. Tao does not rule this article and neither do I. I say no more Books section. Tao says no way. So what. That doesn't mean anything. Others, please speak up.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ok. I think the section should stay. It's cited and sourced. It seems a fair representation of the materials. Dev says that most sources lean critical, with only one positive (Kripal). Both sides are represented, but most of the info is just neutral facts. Dev seems to not like the facts. That's not a reason to remove. Remember, to remove well cited material, the bar is set pretty high.Chaschap (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I was just rereading it. I can not really see what the problem is, especially with Tao's additions last night. There is a Kripal quote, an appreciative footnote, everything has at least two sources if not three - these seem like significant observations about the author's work. If the sources talk about it, I don't understand the argument for removing this material. That seems like simple bias to me. It's simple and neutral. And that arm-length bibliography demands some kind of context. Tao doesn't seem to have any great love for Adi Da, but he's doing his homework and presenting this material neutrally.Chaschap (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Chodron's publisher is Shambhala Publications. The name was influenced by contact with Chogyam Trungpa I think, but there is no official connection to any Tibetan Buddhist institution. It is perhaps the preeminent publisher of Eastern religious traditional material, as well as of New American Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I think the comparison with Dawn Horse is not a good one. Unless you are pointing to the differences - thousands of titles by hundreds of authors, replete with actual editors, bestselling books, a who's who of contemporary spirituality authors/teachers, etc. In which case, it gives more good reason to keep the book section as is.Chaschap (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chas, it looks like I was wrong about Shambhala. Sorry about the confusion. Please stop adding things for a bit while I archive the talk page. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey, all done --Diannaa ^TALK 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to Tao, No you do not need to post under the topic you are responding to. We are clever enough to figure out what you are talking about. You are taking a chance your remarks will go unread. Okay I have two main points of discussion I will try not to get too wordy.

1. I have conducted a mini survey of religious authors to see how their books are presented on the wiki. Ten religious figures who are also authors were chosen at random. Here are the results:

• St Thomas Aquinas: a bibliograpy with no analysis
• St Augustine: a paragraph titled "Works" with praise but no criticism; bibliograpy at the end
• 14th Dalai Lama: a bibliography, no analysis
• Chogyam Trungpa: A bib without analysis; a lengthy "Criticism" section, but it is not book related
• Pema Chodron: A bib, no analysis
• Swami Prabhupada: 4 paragraphs on the books, all positive; plus a bib
• Ken Wilbur: A bib sans analysis; a lengthy criticism section
• Thich Nhat Hanh: No bib; nothing at all about his books
• Mordecai Kaplan: A bib; no analysis or book section
• Zaid Shakir: a bib with no analysis

Result: one with no bib; seven with bibs but no analysis or criticism of the works; two with bibs and book sections with praise only. So there is big credibility for the notion of dropping the "books" section altogether. Ok on to my second point.

2. Dev the other day tried to rearrange the order of the material and when you look at the articles about Ken Wilbur and Chongyam Trungpa you can see what he was trying to accomplish. They are structured differently from the Adi Da article, as are most biographies on the wiki. The way the Chongyam Trungpa article is presented is quite reprensetative of biographies on this wiki: Sections on early years then career. Then the other stuff: awards, critical reception, health issues etc are presented at the bottom. There is no need to be presenting the material in chronological order. So if the "Books" section is eliminated or pared down, we could restructure all the critical reception, both positive and negative, into its own section.

My vote: pare down the "Books" section to a bare bones "prolific writer etc" and put responses and criticisms in a separate section. More work but a better article maybe? --Diannaa ^TALK 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

oh dear. I see much here to disagree with.

1) books: Adi Da's work is defined by being self-published I think, and by his propensity to reedit. To not mention these would be a grave oversight. This was not an independent decision. The section covers what the primary sources cover, because of the unusual nature of Adi Da's literary activities and output.

2) Bio: also because of the unusual nature of Adi Da's career, and past disputes between editors on the page, controversies were simply included in the biography - to reduce repeated mention, and make things more clear. I can see this. The page makes a lot more sense to me now than previous versions. Since Adi Da's life and 'career' are one and the same, I see no reason to separate things in the way you propose. Every bio is slightly different, reflecting different sources and the nature of that figure. I disagree with this idea of a template or precedent that fits all figures. We could discuss the ways in which all your examples vary.

the 'controversial' events as described in biography are not commented on there. They are events - events stemming from changes in Da's teaching and life. Moves, polygamy etc. Lawsuits, and events of the community that led to lawsuits in some cases. There is no commentary or opinion there about these events. Critics of various sorts have separate reception section. So you are making something of a false distinction, as Dev did as well. Facts in a time-line, versus opinion about them.

3) Tertiary sources are few: this is another reason we don't have all the separate well-sourced section you allude to with Trungpa for instance. Da's propensity to edit the facts of his life has led to great confusion and many debates here, adn that process had helped find a form that editors could agree with.

So, the sections now seem to reflect the sources themselves. Sections on teaching, works, life, and reception, etc. I see no problem with this. I have been watching this page for a long time, and only recently decided to become involved, because I feel the page is finally at a sound destination. The changes you propose, less familiar with the history or the figure, seem somewhat ill advised. Respectfully.Chaschap (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary for you to refute my points as you have already stated your position and cast your vote. --Diannaa ^TALK 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the critical opinions re: use of language, leaving just the sourced facts. Since you did not seem, by your response, to have understood my points, I clarified them. Also, you are making new arguments, that deserve attention. Please be responsive to other editors.Chaschap (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your points; I do not agree with your points. You assume that one I understand your points, I will change my mind. That is not necessarily so. Chaschap, since you are new to Wikipedia perhaps you do not know that it is not appropriate for you to edit the section under discussion while we still have not settled the matter on the talk page. Perhaps you should undo your recent edit? Tao and the others are probably at work and thus have been unable to respond to this thread --Diannaa ^TALK 18:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Dianna on this. Thank you for doing the research. Look at those articles, it' that simple. There is no reason the Adi Da article should be eccentrically formatted, just because he was "controversial". Dianna, what does this suggest about the "legal disputes" section in the middle of the Bio?

Again, other editors speak up regarding your position.--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with Chas removing the critical lines if that resolves POV question. I think he's backing up my own position that the info in the books section is emphasized in sources, and distinguishes Da's efforts from others. I'm not hearing an argument countering this - only a desire to remove the info due possibly to bias. Of course Dev wants to get rid of it. He always wants to get rid of or minimize any mentions that he feels diminishes the stature of his guru. This is not a dig. It's simply the pattern - he has made some significant contributions. But he has also fought the inclusion of every single controversial mention fact or event, and he's not been alone in this. The nature of Da's literary output is distinguished by certain characteristics that are emphasized by multiple sources, pro, con, and neutral. All cited. All written NPOV. How do you defend removing this?Tao2911 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, no personal attacks. I have not fought over the Controversies section or Legal disputes one iota. I have no personal agenda in this section whatsoever, even though I did in the past. This is reflected in my not editing it at all, even now. So you can let that go and actually address this objectively. Look at the articles Dianna posted, none of them have a Books section and a Bibliography, and on that basis there is no reason for this Books section to exist. If it absolutely must exist, meaning more editors agree that it should be here, then it should be reduced to summary lines about how he wrote prolifically. At the least, some of the critical stuff should go due to bias. You could go ahead and do that if you want, but I want to wait for other editors to weigh in on this, and that will make the decision.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is probably not necessary or desirable for us to refute each other's point of view in the process of stating our own point of view. Perhaps everyone should state their point of view without necessarily implying that the other persons are wrong. This is not a Zero sum game. It is up to Chaschap to revert his edit as there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. The fact that Tao favors his edit is neither here nor there. Dev, your question about the legal disputes should probably be discussed separately, in my humble opinion. Tao, the fact that Adi Da was eccentric will shine through no matter how the material is ordered. It's "Crazy wisdom", not "New insights into the world of insurance sales." Sorry if these remarks still sound a little bossy, I have edited to a degree of politeness that I hope will not offend.

Voting results so far: Tao and Chaschap favor leaving the book section in a form similar to what it is now; Dev and myself favor removing it down to a "controversies" section. --Diannaa ^TALK 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dev and DiannaJason Riverdale (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear this up: the legal disputes section is NOT a controversy section. The lawsuits in many cases stemmed from behavior that started 10 years earlier, and is placed in relation to that info in a time line. The lawsuits and media attention are not in themselves 'controversies.' They are facts, and reported here as such, no commentary or opinion. It's a watershed moment in the church history, and is followed by, and the alleged cause of, 'Divine Emergence.' See the whole picture. Its like a puzzle, all the pieces interlocking. Pull out the middle piece and the whole thing falls apart, and that section itself doesn't make sense any more. it would take radical rewrites to fix the page, and I think to its detriment.

Again, the books section reflects important info. Your argument that there is no precedent for that info has more to do with the unprecedented nature of Da's writing and publishing habits than some WP rule (of which there isn't one in this regard - every page varies from every other. You see I suppose what you want to see). I am not arguing against that bibliography anymore. you got that, as problematic as it may be. The book section is all the more necessary now. Chas already removed the lines, pro/con. The rest are facts. I know you don't like them. But they are well sourced and NPOV.Tao2911 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Adi Da's control over his publishing, without any editorial oversight, is unprecedented. Recalling and burning Garbage? This has to be mentioned, and better in this section that in the bio. Its not an allegation. Its a sourced fact. The changing of Knee so radically, along with other books? Sources discuss this at length. How can the page ignore it? Why the desire to keep readers in the dark about this? Also, there is now mention that Dev wanted about the definitive corpus of Da books being organized, albeit not with the detail he'd like. There is a link to the adidam page. This seems clear, thorough, and fair. And really interesting!Chaschap (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is talking about deleting any of the sourced material, Tao-and-chas. We were just considering rearranging it a bit. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dev and Dianna on suggestions for book sectionJason Riverdale (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with moving 'controversies' to a 'controversy' section. Except there aren't any, and there isn't one. There used to be a 'Controversy' section here, but veteran editors pointed out guideline that that language is not preferred, instead substituting 'reception.'

as for books, where is the opinion? I see only sourced description and summary.Tao2911 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao you are misrepresenting the question that Dav posed. He is not suggesting that the book section be left as-is. He is suggesting moving all of it except a bare-bones "Adi Da was a prolific writer, with over 60 books to his credit, and founded a publishing house to print them" type of statement. Now we have three editors who want to make the change, and Tao-and-Chas who want the status quo. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, reread - I don't know how to make this more clear. Where will you put the info you are hoping to move?Tao2911 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have lifted a short blurb about the books from a previous version of the article and placed it in the "Works" section. I have moved the paragraphs with criticism and analysis to just above the bibliography. I think this is a good solution as the discerning reader will then know to take the following bibliography with a grain of salt. Comments?? I think this is a good solution if I do say so myself. But I am not prepared to mark this discussion resolved until everyone posts their feedback. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC) OOPS! I made a bad cut, and repaired it without logging in. More coffee, please --Diannaa ^TALK 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, I greatly appreciate your work. I think the Books section looks as it should now. But I don't agree with the moving of it before the Bibliography. Why do people have to take the Biblio with a grain of salt? I list every single edition of the books next to each entry. Isn't it self-evident there were numerous editions, that even underwent title changes, along with Adi Da's own name changes? I don't see this kind of analysis and explanation happening in other article. It reads much better than before, but I still question it's necessity in this article, especially when hardly anyone has analyzed his ouevre, definitely no scholars aside from Kripal (if you can even call Kripal's writing about it an analysis at all).--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is NOT a big precedent for this kind of criticism of a spiritual teachers writing on Wikipedia. Certainly most other controversial groups that have articles on Wikipedia do not include "critiques " of the organizations books. Fine there are different versions of a books, and the style of Da's writing has unusual grammar and punctuation (although some scholars like Kripal actually appreciate it)... fine. Literature and poetry has a history of new types of writing styles, approaches that in their time perhaps was not look upon favorably in the authors life.But there is not a big precedent on Wikipedia to this kind of critique in this area. So I still feel the section is not appropriate.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to move Jason's comment here, he posted it in the wrong section below. It keeps showing me unsigned next to it...just letting everyone know.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry to be out of touch for so long; a busy day. The reason I moved the paragraph rather than dropping it was because Tao2911 was adamant that the material be kept. I notice he did not edit today. I am in favor of dropping the paragraph altogether, too. Let's leave it until tomorrow and if no one raises objections to its removal we will get rid of it. Thank you for the constructive feedback on my proposition. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, why wait? I think three is enough for consensus?! --Diannaa ^TALK 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the opposing argument has been made clearly enough, and the consensus among 3 editors is that it still should be removed. Straightforward enough to me. Thanks for your help with this article, Dianna.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel like The Littlest Hobo. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

More like the littlest text thief/editing bully/Adi Da apologist. Chas and I were both against these edits - consensus is not 'lets see if the editors who disagree with us take a day off so we can do what we want!' I will be proposing the re-inclusion of some of this sourced and cited NPOV info that you removed without consensus or addressing my concerns.Tao2911 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam

I just noticed this clever biased insertion into the Adidam section:

Though earlier manifestations were a clear if experimental variant on Advaita Vedanta, recognizing the naturally enlightened state of all humans,[136][137] over time Adidam increasingly became a messianic version of the Hindu tradition of bhakti yoga, promising salvation only to the select few who completely submit to Adi Da as satguru.

This is ridiculously biased material, and Tao editing at his will in this article. "Freewheeling" edits all over the place, with no discussion, or mention of them in Talk. Basically, no input necessary from any other editors of this article, just Tao as senior authority. I will not allow this to continue.

The problems with this passage are numerous. The use of the word "messianic" is heavily biased, and should not be used in this article. The point it is trying to make is already made in this article here:

Distinguishing his teaching from other religious traditions, Adi Da asserted that he was an avatar embodying a uniquely liberated state beyond all dualism, and as such was the sole source of this realization for humanity

And is all over the Teachings section. I know this is the number one favorite point of those who are negative on Adi Da, that he said he was the only one, and all must worship him, etc. Fine. I have never argued about that being true, nor have I argued about its inclusion in this article. It is stated plainly in more than one place that this is what he says about himself, and this is what his devotees practice. Yes, they believe Adi Da is God, yes they worship him, etc.

The Adidam section as it was before was completely fine and agreeable. Also, the emphasis on the guru in Adidam was made since Adi Da's first talks, if you look in The Method of the Siddhas, he talks about "satsang" and how the relationship to the guru is the only way. So I will be reverting this edit on the basis of there being no discussion, no input from any other editor except the one who made this edit, use of biased language such as "messianic", and an altogether biased edit. This section was simple and straighforward before. Everyone knows what Adi Da said in this article, it does not require constant mention in every section. It is stated clearly, everyone will read it and understand. You don't have to worry.

It is becoming impossible to keep up with the constant edits to this article. Sections that are found to be agreeable should not be constantly edited without discussion with the rest of the editors among whom there is current consensus. For example, the sections I and it seems everyone else find to be currently agreeable are "Lead, Biography, Teachings, Legal Disputes, Art, Bibliography, and Reception" and now that I reverted Adidam back to its original state, it is also fine. These are sections of the article that everyone has agreed upon, and there are no disputes happening with it. Please if you want to make edits discuss them first among other editors, who hold consensus on these sections.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If things in a particular section of the article have been agreed on,stable for some time,those sections should not be changed in any significant way unless consensus is reached in discussion.Too much sweat and blood by all editors to rehash consensus agreed sections.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

these things are all cited directly. I believe you, JR, introduced the use of New Religions encyclopedia to this article. This language is quoted from it, and directly attributable to it. Messianic is a precise, descriptive definition. Mirriam Webster: "of or relating to a messiah." "Messiah: a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause." So what is so biased about this? Source uses it - def is here. Simple.Tao2911 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is in tertiary sources, etc., the material itself is biased and an unnecessary addition to this section. It reiterates a point (rather negatively) that is already made in this article in a few places. It is clear enough. No need in this section. Furthermore, it is biased, and I disagree with it on that basis. Just because a source is tertiary and mentions something does mean it is a valid automatic insertion into the article. So I just disagree with this insertion and find it to be biased. I was very happy with the way the section looked before, and I thought everyone else was too. Can we just keep things simple and avoid these back and forths on agreed sections? It is getting tiresome. The problems with this article are in Divine Emergence and Books. That's it!--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reasoning with you. I hand you the actual definition of messianic on a platter, completely inoffensive and sourced from a encyclopedia on the man, and you still are in hysterics. The passage barely changed - except to make it more informed from an expert source. I thought the passage leaned too credulous. I simply adjusted 2 passages according to two sources that are neutral and un-invested in any desire to make the object of your devotion seem more noble. With citations and footnotes, so you can check the source. Sigh.Tao2911 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think I changed those passages. Chas did - bringing the passage even more in line with the source. YOU don't have the source - and you removed the footnote with the quote. It was not one word - it was an entire passage or two that were straight from New Religions, with less interpretation than I had made when I wrote that.Tao2911 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I got on your case, Tao. I really don't mean to be difficult. But this section was doing just fine, and I saw no reason for those edits, which came across very biased. The New Religions source is highly negative in its language, it's fine to use it, but it must be paraphrased and neutralized. We aren't supposed to be posting exact quotations on this page, as part of wiki policy.

I would like to see this section as it was before edits were made. If other editors are in favor of this edit, and it weighs that way, then fine we'll do it. I will have no problem with it then. I just don't like the sneaky approach. Chas just showed up on this page, he needs to take into account other people's work on it, and post things in Discussion before plunging forth. A lot of work went into that section, and then it just got edited, when I thought it was perfectly fine. That's the real issue. Other editors here can weigh in on this now, and that will determine it. Please state if the section should remain as before, or if this new edit is good. Consensus rules.

So for now I have reverted the section back to how it stood when there was consensus. If there is a new consensus that this new edit should be in there, then it will go back in. Until then, I think it's fair to keep it as it was before, until this new edit is agreed upon.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of the text as it now stands. --Diannaa ^TALK 13:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation of Adi Da's participation in Venice Biennale

There has been much debate as to whether Adi Da was in the Venice Bienalle or was a collateral artist etc. etc. I have reinserted “Venice Biennale” in the article, with a direct link to the catalog for that year and the page in which Adi Da is listed several times. Collateral exhibition debates aside. This states plainly that he was in the Venice Biennale. Sufficient citation for stating this in the article as well.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here about it, JR. I agree with this change, and recommend you go ahead and put it in the article. Maybe post the citation here for other editors to see. This seems straightforward enough.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have improved the refs and replaced some material that was deleted. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to improve the caption to the illustrated work, Orpheus and Eurydice. Does anyone know the medium used, and the year it was created? --Diannaa ^TALK 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will add this to the caption. Also, I feel like this section could contain more about his art. I have a magazine article about his art, that could be used to add some more information.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa, Thanks for cleaning up and simplifying the the art citations.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeez Louise the photos are gone

Four of our photos have disappeared overnight as they apparently did not have proper licenses. Dev as you were uploader of some of the extant photos could you please review your collection at home and see if you have any suitable replacements? Other editors, do you have any photos you personally took? On the Commons there are a few which do not appear in the article: --Diannaa ^TALK 14:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev had the contact at The Dawn Horse Press. I suppose I could call their 800 number and talk to someone there about permissions. What is the email for wikepedia permissions for photos? It looks like it is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that correct?Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. I am relieved someone knows what to do. Thanks Jason you're the bomb. --Diannaa ^TALK 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The guys at the Press said they were going to email the permissions. I spoke with them again, they said they forgot, so I asked them to do it today, and they said the email will be sent giving permissions for those photos. Should I re-upload?--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like between Dev calling and me calling today The Dawn Horse Press got those permissions in!:)Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done lads :) Tomorrow I will try to get some more references formatted in the afternoon. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting citation for Saniel Bonder quote

I noticed today that the Saniel Bonder quote in "Reception - Otheres" still has no citation. I think Goethean pointed this out several weeks ago. It is in the Wikipedia "Adi Da quotes" but carries no citations. So it would be good for whomever put it there to correct this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am removing Bonder quote. The request for citation has been there for several weeks. If citation is found it can be added back in.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolving issue: Divine Emergence

This is I think the last area Dev wanted to work on before we remove the POV tag. Let's begin discussion on how this section should be improved. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, I have crafted a draft of this section, incorporating edits from 3rd party sources. I just did this today, so your bringing this up is very timely. I will post that draft, and then we can discuss?

Also, the last area before POV tag is gone, will be Biography. There are some things to address, which we can do after Divine Emergence. Dianna, if you could shed light on the placement of "Legal Disputes" in the middle of Bio, that would be great. I don't see this kind of formatting in any other article, and I am still finding it a bit weird in its current place. It doesn't make sense to me. And this is not a biased move on my part, I am not proposing a single edit to this section, but am questioning its placement in the article, and am wondering if there is a corresponding wiki policy, or something about article layouts that would be informative, rather than mere opinions.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's good; i look forward to seeing it. As you may have realised, I have little knowledge of the actual subject matter, though I do have other skillz. I only came to notice the article whilst reading the WP:ANI in the middle of February. Another area that needs work is the footnotes themselves. As you may have noticed, many of them include lengthy quotes from the sources, some of which duplicate the material presented in the article and are thus redundant. I will trim them as I format them. But only doing a handful every day so people have a chance to review so nothing valuable gets cut. Also a top-to-bottom copy edit is my specialty, looking at matters of grammar, punctuation, and style. Re: the biography, I agree we do not necessarily present the material in chronological order. --Diannaa ^TALK 13:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These footnotes were put there to keep biased editors from continuing their pattern of instantly removing any fact that they found distasteful; it worked to do so, after months of seeing lines instantly disappear if devotees didn't like them. Do not remove them - or the cycle starts all over again.Tao2911 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that you do not have knowledge of the subject matter, which is actually better in my opinion. I have too much knowledge, and a positive bias, which I admit openly, and am liable for. Other editors have the opposite bias given their knowledge of the subject. I find you to be a very neutralizing force as a result, since you have nothing emotionally invested in this article. So I really appreciate your feedback and judgment.

Regarding Biography, is your opinion that we currently do not present it chronologically, or that we do not have to? Unclear from your comment. I am proposing moving Legal Disputes out of the Biography, into Reception or something like that. I agree about footnotes, and the pace at which you are editing. I am going to post my draft of the Divine Emergence section below.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the section "Legal disputes and media attention" to the bottom of the article

I have finally located WP:Layout guidelines, and WP:Manual of Style (biographies), neither of which dictate a chronological order for the sections in a biography. However, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure indicates that the material should not be moved if the only reason for doing so is to minimise the impact of the material. To wit: "A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other". This implies chronological order may be the way to go. Editors, please review the links and any other guidelines you may find on this issue and post your comments if you are interested in commenting. --Diannaa ^TALK 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, read the links and am still confused. Maybe you can just give a clear stance, based on this info, should Legal disputes remain in the Bio or as a separate section? It still seems very odd to me in the middle of the Biography, really interrupts the flow of the Bio...--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am burnt out on this. I do not want to continue to argue these points. I do just want to finally say, again, about this section: it was once a separate section. It was very confusing - essentially David Starr had minimized and made vague every fact about the lawsuits and allegations, and overplayed the details of the suit brought by the church - which apparently went nowhere. The only citation is an inaccessible, unverifiable article. In any case...

I did a lot of research on that section, and found out the actual timeline, read all the stories, watched the today show reports etc. So I made the section not only more accurate, but I moved and removed other info that didn't fit in the timeline, once the section was moved. It was moved because the timeline was mentioning, alluding to, that at a certain point all these lawsuits happened, and it really influenced everything - but then there was a separate section saying it all over, but with more detail. Starr had a conniption about this, so I moved it and altered it to fit timeline, to avoid saying it all twice. I also shortened lead mention, twice. The lawsuits are alleged to have lead to Divine Emergence, and been caused by behaviro going on earlier. So its part of the biography time line. Etc.

It is not a "legal disputes" section now. It is a chapter in a bio. I will change the heading to keep it from being confusion for you. However, those are the events that were signiciant at that point - as refelcted in source coverage. It got the most press (hence "media attention.") I don't understand how to make this more clear. I've said this all about 32 times, and yet you never seem to acknowledge this. You may disagree, in which case it would great for you to say so. Instead, you just keep saying how you don't get it.

I don't like some of the recent changes, but I can't fight Adi Da devotees for the rest of the year. It's still a vast improvement over previous versions. I will keep an eye on it, and i hope that devotees can keep from rolling back more factual info that they simply find distasteful. Tao2911 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. I just reclassified periods - they are less even, but I always thought the Garbage mention should be clearly related to lawsuits/media. So now it is. No text change - just headings.Tao2911 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tao2911 for your proposal. I have reverted your edits for the time being, as the matter is still under discussion on the talk page. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi D- let the others see the changes. There is not change to text, only headings, and this will not be clear unless seen. This resolves the issue in a way that should address all concerned, and that I will not have to protest.Tao2911 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tao2911 for your proposal. I have reverted your edits for the time being, as the matter is still under discussion on the talk page. Please do not turn this discussion into an [WP:Edit war]]. People are clever enough to visualise your edits without you actually having to do them. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I created the categories myself, and essentially wrote the entire bio - I thought the sections made sense. They seem to have not done completely. So I am changing them again myself. Please do not undo a third time.Tao2911 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The matter under discussion is to move the section; Tao2911 has changed the headers of two sections. The matter for discussion is still open. Should the section be moved? Comments by other editors are welcome. Dev, in response to your comment, I too find the guidelines ambiguous and unhelpful. That is why I did not yet give an opinion. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, now as you can see, it is not a separate section. All those mentions of lawsuits and media attention are attached to dates (1984-86), and those dates relate to other dates (before, in crazy wisdom 1973-83 - and after, with Divine Emergence, 1986), in the time line. I made this more clear. It's a false distinction. There is no separate section - only facts that bias POV editors wish to compartmentalize and thus minimize by moving to bottom of page.Tao2911 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of my bias, it's a matter of a flowing Biography. I understand the chronology argument. I appreciate your research Tao, and yours as well Dianna. I would still prefer to see this at the bottom, as it is in most articles, but I can also see Tao's point of view. However, I still don't think it works, when I read the Bio it just sounds weird having all this legal language all of a sudden. But I'm willing to accept whatever the consensus is. So it would be good for other editors to weigh in on this. I would like to point out Chogyam Trungpa and Osho as examples for this. In Trungpa's article there is a special "controversies" section. In Osho's article, all controversies are addressed with subsections within "Reception". This is a good model, in my opinion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, we need to look at precedents in wikipedia articles which cover NRM's. Chogyam Trungpa and Osho are two examples where the controversy is not part of the bio so I feel Dev has a strong argument for this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No. How do you propose to completely rewrite the bio? We already did this. The legal stuff just a couple lines, amidst a bunch of other material. Its not compartmentalized.Tao2911 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is resolved. There is no problem. The page is cohesive, and better organized than many of the examples being brought up as alternatives. The only motives for making these changes are purely for biased altering of material to minimize that which supporters find distasteful.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Divine Emergence Draft

This is my draft of the Divine Emergence section, only the first paragraph. The 2000 event is not covered in 3rd party sources, and I will post a proposal of edits for that afterwards. I have put footnotes here, that may or may not be necessarily included in the article, just for people's information relative to the sources for this draft. It is the same source that was used for the content as it now stands. Editors should offer suggestions for edits, or cast a vote in support of this change.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"In January 1986, exhausted by his many years of unconventional teaching (see Crazy Wisdom) during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples psyches, Adi Da suffered from a sudden collapse. He described it as a “literal death experience". This was one of many experiences of this kind that occured since his days in college. However, Adi Da invested special significance with this particular incident, greatly elaborating on it, and calling it his “Divine Emergence”.

He explained that most enlightened beings “incarnate only partially” into the body. Adi Da said that in this event he descended fully into the body, becoming “utterly human”, yet without foregoing his enlightenment, a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga. As he sees it, his body became a “perfect vehicle” for his spiritual transmission, so that it was sufficient for disciples to simply meditate upon him to “participate in his enlightened state.”

Following his “Divine Emergence”, Adi Da shifted his focus from teaching to “blessing”, becoming increasingly silent in relationship to his devotees. He said he worked in silence to help diminish the world's negative forces.

I personally don't like the "(See Crazy Wisdom)". I would leave that out. That's my personal preference. If the reader has gotten this far, they have read that section for sure. "a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga" I dunno, I would cut that. It is possibly synthesis. If a third party source makes the comparison, leave it in. I like the last two sentences; that is new, and very informative. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was feeling funny about "see crazy wisdom". Let's take that out. As for Aurobindo, a third party source made that comparison, but I'm not too crazy about it either. So I agree with those edits. We'll see what others have to say.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole period is complex to write about...esoteric stuff. The difficulty with the earlier version is that it does not make it easy for those reading the article to understand. Quotes like "down to the bottoms of My feet" are not enough to clarify.This latest proposal is much more of a fuller paraphrasing of Feuerstein description, who has experience writing for the general public about yogic processes. So I am in favour or Dev's draft. I do agree with Dianna that "a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga" is not necessary.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely horrible devotee credulous pabulum. This is not accurate to sources. I will gut this if you try to make these changes.Tao2911 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

this section, as is, is straight from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America." When there were complaints about it being too unclear, I brought basically everything from that source into the section. This is the way that an independent encyclopedia with multiple authors and editors chose to present this info, heavily researched and cited in their book. This is our model source. Dev is a devotee - he believes this man to be god. So he believes that everything Da said is gospel. Again and again, he brings this insider awareness and esoterica to the page and can't see that what he proposes is ten times more confusing than what is already there. It makes nothing more clear to a general audience. And it transparently wishes to elevate and ennoble Adi Da, and make all his actions justified and religiously inspired. They may or may not have been. We don't have to decide - we present the info summarized in the voice of the page. Dianna in her infinite wisdom and complete lack of knowledge of the subject or history of the page is supporting the triumph of biased editors wishes to minimize or remove sourced info that they just don't like. It's annoying.Tao2911 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao I disagree. Feuerstein's (who is a critic of Adi Da)writing here is neutral and attempts describe this aspect of Da's life in understandable terms. Most of it is in plain English. What specifically in what Dev wrote do you have problems with. Let's work it throughJason Riverdale (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference. Holy Madness, the GF source, is a detailed book on esoteric spirituality. It presupposes some understanding of this topic, at the very least by reading preceding chapters and subsequent in his book, and I think the way he writes about it reflects this. He's a useful source in many respects, but I think New Religions presents the later events in a perfunctory manner for a lay person. We do not need to get into Aurobindo and Adidam theology to explain what the hell he thought he was talking about. This is not some objective reality we are talking about, about being in his body/not being in it, feet to head etc - these are highly eccentric individual interpretations that have no objective validation or explication elsewhere. He developed/made this stuff up. So I find this descriptions perfectly suitable - we have the source. New Religions uses GF, summarizing it suitably for a lay audience.Tao2911 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If readers want more info, they have the sources and references to find out more. The mentions those event in DE section receive no more or less attention than any other single event in bio. There is yet another push here to load up certain events that JR and Dev want to pad out with Da-ist apologetics. Each time, I have to fight to keep it to sourced cursory facts.Tao2911 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev's interp of source is ridiculous - why change 'burned out from months of partying' to 'exhausted from his years of unconventional teaching' - that is not the source. You are making that up, totally biased. The rest reads similarly. Also, years of silence in last years? Dianaa may like that, but that is not in any tertiary sources that I have - though I know its the Adidam line. I could argue the truth of it - but in any case, that is not what the source says. Again, if you want to get into this, this could fare badly. We could get into more salacious and abusive behavior in last years, more allegations of drug abuse, and the verbal tirades against his devotees he was prone to, some of which are quoted in New Religions. Really - you want to open this up? We have sources. I have not fought to put this stuff in. And there is more of it for every section if you want to go this route. I am not pleased about the removal of quite a bit of sourced info, and now this latest attempt to bend sources to POV.Tao2911 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the footnotes. It is a direct paraphrasing of your favorite, Georg Feurstein. If you want to include burned out by long months of partying then fine. Look at the sources, read the footnotes. This is a near verbatim paraphrasing of Feurstein, simple, straightforward, and factual. And neutral. You are never going to like it, because it doesn't agree with your own personal vendetta against Adi Da. Who cares. I certainly don't. I am upfront about my own bias liabilities, but I work together with other editors, and if there is a consensus against my own POV, then I accept it as the consensus. You are not even willing to work with people here, and only give angry replies to any proposed edits. If this continues, we will have to request further Admin involvement, perhaps Arbitation, Mediation, I don't know what. Perhaps Dianna can give some recommendations.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no real improvement in the version that Devanagari108 is presenting here. I think the section now is perfectly clear, NPOV, and a fair summary of sources. I think the changes proposed are in some cases transparently attempting to lean POV more positive; though a line or two added are possible, I don't see any as actually necessary.Chaschap (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I strenuously reject any of the changes that Dev proposes as biased, unsourced, and not factual. The section now is perfectly clear and a faithful summary of encyclopedic source.Tao2911 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Books

Tao is already editing again without discussion. He has re-added analysis of The Knee of Listening, for which there was already a consensus that such analysis was irrelevant, and that this section in its minimal overview was agreed upon and sufficient. This was agreed upon by editors, and Tao has already changed it, with no discussion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he will make edits every 20 minutes or so in an attempt to elicit an angry response. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate, and should not be tolerated. He is more than welcome to participate like the rest of us.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You gutted the section, removing dozens of cited mentions - I did not agree to this, and despite Dianna's sudden appearance as your cherished ally, I still am responsible for much of the content of this page, I know this material inside and out, and my editorial input is important. I replaced small mentions that you'd removed, that are neutral and in no way demonstrate any POV whatsoever. I'm fine to not get into "criticism" - however, Knee 72 is not Knee 2005, and that needs to be mentioned, however cursorily.Tao2911 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with this and the way it reads now the inclusion of info on the Knee does seem to not be POVJason Riverdale (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not need to be mentioned, regardless of your emotion for how important it is that Adi Da "changed" his teaching, and wrote an "auto-hagiography". That is your personal opinion, and you will easily find it corroborated in 3rd party sources, so you feel like you can freewheel this article. Not true. Editors reached consensus that this section should remain as is, your editing of it, and posting an aggressive reply here, does not justify this edit. Again, you do not own the article. It is about consensus. No need to have a personal attack on Dianna either, she is a valid source of input here as anyone else, especially because she has no emotional attachment to the content, but can come at it from a purely encyclopedic point of view. You cannot continue to violate consensus, and post aggressive replies in Discussion, Tao. It's gone on long enough now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The info replaced is NPOV. Look, JR agrees. Tho he removed the comment - I replaced it. Shouldn't censor talk, JR. Consensus, if it violates POV and Wp guidelines, removing cited and sourced info, is not consensus, or carte blanche to get the page you want. I have worked with all of you - the only active editor without a pro-Da bias. So muscle-ing through your edits with a majority of two is not consensus. It's bullying.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was paragraph about Fiji moved into Controversy Section ?

In 1983, he moved with a group of about 40 followers to the Fijian island of Naitauba, purchased by a wealthy devotee from actor Raymond Burr.[91] He called it his "hermitage". Travel to the island is restricted to devotees and invited guests.[92] It was Adi Da's primary residence until the end of his life. I think,although I may be mistaken that the above use to be in the bio,now it is in "Controversy" This is odd. Why? It should be at the end of the bio.Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It didn't move - its not a 'controversy' section. Its about the period from garbage through lawsuits. Does no one else actually read this page? He didn't move to Fiji at the end of his life. he moved there in 1983. Its in order chronologically, the same place its been for months. Seriously? can you not figure out how 1983 comes after 1974, and before 2000?Tao2911 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

JR, this is in order of Chronology. Since he moved to Fiji in 1983. The lawsuit discussion just happens right after it, chronologically. There is no "controversies" section. Just discussion of lawsuits in the Biography.

Tao your tone is becoming very inappropriate on this page. JR was asking a simple question. Assume good faith.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia options

• File a request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
• File a complaint for behavior: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Request administrator intervention: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Court of last resort: Wikipedia:Arbitration

Previous complaints against this user include: August/Sept 2009, February 2010, February 2010, and February 2010

My recommendation would be to file a complaint at WP:ANI. Reverting, insulting other users, WP:Own, editing to prove a wp:point are all valid concerns. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna. I posted a request here [2]--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK! I have added some more material to the notice board to support your case. --Diannaa ^TALK 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your addition. You are much better at this than I am!--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay Dianna! Help Dev make the page an Adidam pamphlet! Hooray! You're so good!Tao2911 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America

Here are some excerpts. These 5 volumes are comprised of comprehensive, fair, and thorough overviews of nearly every NRM in the west. Much of it is available online. Here are some of the things they have to say about Adidam, who seem to receive an especially frank appraisal:

"The religion of Adidam is doctrinally complex, confused, and confusing. Though it claims great originality, it appears to have been artfully assembled from bits an pieces of preexisting traditions. As such it is an accurate reflection of the thought of Franklin Jones, its founder, ultimate authority, guru, and god.

Like many NRMs, Adidam appears strange when viewed from the outside; however, again like many contemporary faiths, once its basic assumptions are accepted, it displays a measure of internal consistency. Simply described, Adidam is an exclusivist devotional religion based on the worship of Franklin Jones. In theory, practice, and theology it now differs little from traditional Indian guru bhakti, in its most sectarian forms. If one accepts that Jones is divine, - the avatar for the age, the “First Last and Only 7th stage adept Realizer,” omniscient and infallible – and that all of Jones’s actions serve to benefit his followers by leading them to eventual awakening, then the rest of the religion follows, more or less rationally. Of course, this stripped down version of Adidam is neither interesting nor attractive. Perhaps this is why the religion is rarely presented this way.

Perhaps the biggest current problem in Adidam lies in Jones’s attitudes toward his followers. Jones seems to have decided that his devotees are hopelessly inept…he projects every possible failing or weakness on them. They have failed to bring him world recognition and famous new devotees; they have even failed to become rich and successful. Therefor Jones feels financial constraints. In consequence, Jones has been lashing out with increasing ferocity… the devotees become paralyzed by devastatingly low self-esteem…

The future of Adidam is in question…in talk after talk, Jones berates his followers, blaming them for the failure of his world-saving mission…Jones frustration, anger, and megalomania are transparent: “So far, the organization shows zero signs. Devotees are frightened. You are afraid to stand up for the Truth, so you are giving me no alternative. I’m not here to be a joke. In your weak-minded approach, I end up being ignored. You must have concrete gifts to give Me…you have to vigorously counter the growing sentiment against gurus, which is fueled by the anti-cult movement…How can there be zero-growth with the Gifts I have Given, that you can’t succeed, unless you are hiding behind some false-belief, some lack of doing…because you are so weak-minded, after 30 years of resisting your responsibility, you are satisfied with maintaining a social and a phony scene that defeats everything real.”

...Jones followers appear exhausted and many have become impoverished due to the religion’s insatiable financial demands...

Observers have long-remarked on Adidam’s complete disinterest in charitable activities. While Jones constantly demands more money and gifts for his pleasure, he has made no efforts to engage in social service of any sort, unless one counts his four private zoos. While many new religions place more resources into institution building that charitable outreach, especially in their first years, Adidam is extreme in this regard.”

Understandably, a number of editors involved here seem invested in minimizing the negative - that's why they are active, being invested in the topic. However, it seems to me that if there are independent print sources that are presenting this information in an informed, balanced analysis, that attempts to remove this stuff are problematic. The page right now is ok. But I see admitted followers and admirers of Adi Da simply trying to get him to look better by minimizing or removing a lot of material, or summarizing it inaccurately. The direction is clear. It's a real neutrality issue. I'd like to see some more of this material here reflected in the entry. Like the single line summary of Adidam - "Simply described, Adidam is an exclusivist devotional religion based on the worship of Franklin Jones. In theory, practice, and theology it now differs little from traditional Indian guru bhakti, in its most sectarian forms." That's a good line for the lead in.Kookookoojoob (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

hear hear.Tao2911 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I support adding this ("Simply described...") to the lede. — goethean ॐ 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage Quote for footnote?

This is from pp. 106, 107

"Jones: The guru…makes the Goddess pull down her pants, and then you see her asshole. I shouldn’t be saying these things.

Devotee: perhaps you are out of line.

I think I am out of line. I shouldn’t say these things. “The Goddess is beautiful. Surrender and let her show you everything.” That sounds better right? “She has bracelets and necklaces and her vagina is adorned. Don’t let her turn to the Divine and show you her asshole. Let her face you with her breasts hanging out.”...What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me. I’ve talked to many people. I’ve talked to many teachers and none of them agree with me. They all tell me I’m undeveloped. So that must be so. All the books say…”surrender to the Goddess”. The Goddess used to say “Yield to me,” and I fucked her brains loose. I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have."

Peculiar when combined with polygamy and abuse allegations. Anyway, I think the mentions of him recalling and burning Garbage/Goddess should be replaced, and this added as a footnote possibly. It's put forward by a number of sources as part of the reason he burned the book. This should be added after mention of him having 9 wives, as the end of the Garbage period discussion (it fits there):

"In 1973, Adi Da began a teaching phase that came to be known as "Garbage and the Goddess". Some followers at Persimmon reported having profound metaphysical experiences in Adi Da's presence, attributing these phenomena to his spiritual power as guru.[77] Adi Da began to increasingly employ a method of teaching he called "crazy wisdom", which included directing his followers in "sexual theater", a form of psychodrama[78] that often involved public and group sex, the making of pornographic movies, and other intensified sexual practices.[79] Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged.[80]

This was part of a radical overturning of all conventional moral values and contracts[81] in order to help "shock" students into insights regarding neurotic patterns and attachments so that they could more completely "surrender" to the guru and the community.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88] Members said that experiments in everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality were all in attempts to grow spiritually.[25][89] He had nine or more "wives" during this time, including Playboy centerfold Julie Anderson.[90] The activities and ideas of this period were documented in a book titled "Garbage and the Goddess" which sold out its first printing. After a second, Adi Da had all available copies recalled and burned." We have three sources for this event, and we could add sourced footnote saying these kind of comments were why he did so.(talk) 19:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa lying about edits, aiding biased editors

Regarding the books section, when I was arguing for keeping the material that has since been censoriously removed, this exchange occured:

"Again, the books section reflects important info. Your argument that there is no precedent for that info has more to do with the unprecedented nature of Da's writing and publishing habits than some WP rule (of which there isn't one in this regard - every page varies from every other. You see I suppose what you want to see). I am not arguing against that bibliography anymore. you got that, as problematic as it may be. The book section is all the more necessary now. Chas already removed the lines, pro/con. The rest are facts. I know you don't like them. But they are well sourced and NPOV.Tao2911 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"I concur. Adi Da's control over his publishing, without any editorial oversight, is unprecedented. Recalling and burning Garbage? This has to be mentioned, and better in this section that in the bio. Its not an allegation. Its a sourced fact. The changing of Knee so radically, along with other books? Sources discuss this at length. How can the page ignore it? Why the desire to keep readers in the dark about this? Also, there is now mention that Dev wanted about the definitive corpus of Da books being organized, albeit not with the detail he'd like. There is a link to the adidam page. This seems clear, thorough, and fair. And really interesting!Chaschap (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"No one is talking about deleting any of the sourced material, Tao-and-chas. We were just considering rearranging it a bit. --Diannaa TALK 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"I agree with Dev and Dianna on suggestions for book sectionJason Riverdale (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'd have no problem with moving 'controversies' to a 'controversy' section. Except there aren't any, and there isn't one. There used to be a 'Controversy' section here, but veteran editors pointed out guideline that that language is not preferred, instead substituting 'reception.'

"as for books, where is the opinion? I see only sourced description and summary.Tao2911 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Tao you are misrepresenting the question that Dav posed. He is not suggesting that the book section be left as-is. He is suggesting moving all of it except a bare-bones "Adi Da was a prolific writer, with over 60 books to his credit, and founded a publishing house to print them" type of statement. Now we have three editors who want to make the change, and Tao-and-Chas who want the status quo. --Diannaa TALK 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Please, reread - I don't know how to make this more clear. Where will you put the info you are hoping to move? Tao2911 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The material in question was not "moved." It was removed, with Diannaa's blessing for Da-followers Tweedle Dev and Tweedle...Jason. I was told this info would not be removed. Also, Dianna then said "Tao hasn't been active today - let's make the edits." This is from an "aspiring administrator". I don't who I have report this to, but I'm working on it. I want this sourced, cited and footnoted material replaced ASAP.Tao2911 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)