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!

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adi Da/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JN466 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I appreciate the genuine and good-faith effort that has gone into writing an even-handed article on Adi Da and his movement. In many ways, this effort has been successful. Even so, there are still NPOV and OR issues that preclude this article from reaching GA status. These do not appear to be about any obvious suppression of praise or controversy, more about the fact that not enough reliable third-party sources, especially scholarly sources, have been used to shape the article. For example, the lede states

"Adi Da taught that unhappiness is caused by the illusion of ego, or separate self, which he described as an activity called "self-contraction."[3] He said that all efforts or techniques to become happy from this already assumed separation were futile, and that only devotional meditation [4][5] on him as avatar and satguru could truly liberate one from this activity of separation.[6]"

This is sourced to four different primary sources, raising concerns of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Compare this to a scholarly third-party source like Lewis's article on Adi Da in Melton and Baumann's Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, which says,

Adi Da points out that seeking means constant activity and that activity prevents the conscious realization of perfect happiness. He further asserts that he has realized this Most Perfect Happiness -- God, Truth or Reality -- and has the power to transmit that Divine Self-Realization to others. The Way of the Heart, then, consists of a devotional relationship with Adi Da, whom his devotees assert is the source of Divine Self-Realization.

This shows that the summary given in the article lead is quite appropriate, but the point is that this is not verifiable for the reader, who merely sees a couple of sentences synthesised from four different primary sources, making the passage an instance of original research.

The overall assessment of the article is as follows:

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are problems with synthesis from primary sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (main aspects): b (focused):

   Given that the available scholarly literature has not been processed, this is not verifiable without additional source research.

4. It is neutral.

   Fair representation without bias:

   WP:DUE weight, which is a key consideration in WP:NPOV, must be established by reliable third-party sources, not primary sources.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I would like to encourage editors to revise the article using such scholarly sources as are listed here for example, and by drastically reducing the use of primary sources (books by the subject or movement websites); ideally, given that we have plenty of third-party sources to call on, such sources (the websites in particular) should only be cited where they are cited by a secondary source. Once this process is complete, please resubmit the article.
• I am failing the article at this time because I think that these revisions will take more work than can be accomplished within a GA review.
• I have access to a number of the scholarly sources concerned (e.g. Rawlinson, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Forsthoefel/Humes, Melton, Partridge), and would be happy to help interested editors out with their source research etc. (just drop me an e-mail).
• Thank you for your work on this article. There are many promising aspects about this article; I am confident it can make GA at some point in the future. --JN466 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues: WP:PRIMARY, WP:BK, WP:RS.

The following are all primary sources:

• Jones, Franklin. (1972). The Knee Of Listening, CSA Press. ISBN 978-0-87707-093-1* Samraj, Adi Da. (1998). Aham Da Asmi, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-049-1
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2000). The Seven Stages Of Life, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-105-6
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2004). The Knee Of Listening, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-167-6
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2005a). My 'Bright' Word, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-205-2
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2005b). Eleutherios, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-187-0
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2005c). Da Love-Ananda Gita, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 978-1-57097-166-2
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2007). The Spectra Suites, New York: Welcome Books. ISBN 978-1-59962-031-2
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2009). The Boundless Self-Confession, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 978-1-57097-260-7

Dawn Horse Press, is the Adi Da publishing house, may not be WP:BK

Overall, there is a general lack of referral to reliable, independent secondary sources, on matters relating directly to the subjects life, views, teachings etc.

A number of academic NRS texts feature relevant material on the subject, none are referenced here.

There are multiple footnotes that are not WP:RS so should be removed. Measles (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Measles a few questions on your comments:

1)independent secondary sources, on matters relating directly to the subjects life, views, teachings etc. While clearly The Dawn Horse Press is the publisher of Adi Da's books, they are a direct and reliable source of the views and teachings of Adi Da. The are the official publishers of his teaching etc.

2) Relative to general lack of referral to reliable, independent secondary sources, on matters relating directly to the subjects life could you be more specific quoting areas of the article where this is necessary or required or possibly disputed.

3) Relative to academic NRS sources I am not familiar with that term ... what does it mean? Could you give some examples? Are you saying there are NRS sources you know about that are not used ? If so again could you give examples?

Thanks for your clarification Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP guidelines link above:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

It's pretty easy to see that the vast majority of this entry is from primary sources, MAINLY interpreted by WP editors with a sympathetic POV. Those primary sources are largely Adi Da's own books published by his own publishing company - not a reliable independent publisher as noted in the policy. Dawn Horse has a record of radically editing subsequent editions of these books, and clearly are propagandistic by design and intent in their creation. I have maintained all along that this overwhelming reliance on Adi Da's own statements does not make for a satisfactory entry. The lack of secondary or tertiary interpretive sources remains deeply suspect. I think Measles is rightly again questioning this.--Tao2911 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks understand... I will start finding secondary sources. Tao have a wonderful holiday season Wish you the best for the coming year! Jason Riverdale (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

More reliable third-party sources, not primary sources.

I have began to respond to JN466 request to used more reliable third-party sources,not primary sources. This required some word changes in places to do this, but I have not changed any section in a major way. In some cases I have simplified and shortened certain sections like the Adidam description of diet/sexuality disciplines. There is still more to do so...

I have used third-party sources as much as a could to to describe the practice of Adidam.

Two direct quotes of Adi Da have been added to describe key elements of his teaching. These were from sources outside of the direct Dawn Horse Press books. The only other direct quotes are in the "Unique Realization" sections which Tao put in and felt were important to balance the article.

I will continue to work more on getting other third-party sources to replace The Dawn Horse Press references and try to tighten up and simplify existing sections ... if possible.

Finally while I know there has been sometimes somewhat highly emotional and cantankerous debates with various editors this year...I do want to wish all of those who are helping to edit this article a wonderful,full,enjoyable and happy holiday season ... and a New Year filled with peace, tolerance and understanding. Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me say that the multiple citations to obscure hometown newspapers that almost no one has heard of or has access to (in order to verify the citations) are very strange and a bit troubling.

• Footnote #3: The Lake County Record Bee, December 2008
  • No article title? No author? No page number? No publisher information? What kind of citation is this? Was the entire issue of the newspaper devoted to Adi Da?
• Footnote #52: McKinleyville Press 2008, page 9
  • See above.
• Footnote #8, 61: Articles in The Mill Valley Record
  • These at least have URLs and titles, but still.

Can anyone tell me what is going on here? — goethean ॐ 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethean I will try to add further detail on the citation I put up soon. Relative to The Mill Valley Record I did not put that in nor the content. Since the newspaper is no longer published all we have is what is included from the news article on a site that is heavily negative on Adi Da. What is the policy on that? Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is the underlying, general reason why portions of this article are cited to tiny unknown difficult-to-verify newspapers. — goethean ॐ 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Will work on Lake County Record Bee citation and McKinleyville Press.Thanks for pointing it out. What do we do about Mill Valley Record which cannot be verified except a heavy bias website? Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, presumably it could be verified by getting ahold of a copy of the newspaper. It's just not likely that editors will do so. It is valuable information, so we can't remove it. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the paper is not available as it has been out of business for quite a few years and libraries now only carry back issues online. Therefore it is not verifiable. Mill Valley, from what I can tell is a small little town nestled in the Marin County of California therefore "a tiny unknown difficult-to-verify newspapers".I will drop this issue for now,but it is very suspect that the ONLY copy is on a very bias website.

I have removed the McKinleyville Press till a better source is found.

Thanks for the detail clean up work you do on the articles on wiki fixing links html's etc. I do notice these things and appreciate your work.Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work everyone. Currently, only 18/73 sources are primary sources, the rest being third-party. This is a huge step forward, and I am glad so much energy has come forth in locating third-party sources, and conforming this article more to wikipedia standards.

I made grammatical edits, and trimmed the "Works" section, since it was longer than it needed to be. At this point, I really feel the article moving in the right direction, coming into line with wiki policy, hopefully a Good Article soon enough.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

controversies section

I just looked in to see if anything was left of the controversies section, since it seems there is an attempt to potentially get rid of sources that reported some of the info there on Adi Da. A new tactic for an old desire? While surprisingly still there, the thing skews totally positive, like this example:

"In all there were two lawsuits.The first was brought by a former member of Adidam in the midst of a difficult divorce.[69] In November 1985, a Marin County judge ruled that she had no legal basis for filing the lawsuit and the Marin County Superior Court dismissed the case.[70]

In 2005, the Washington Post reported that the other lawsuit was "settled with payments and confidentiality agreements", says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases.'[8] According to Adidam's attorney, both of the lawsuits were eventually dropped, and the accusations all stemmed from a bitter divorce between a member and former member.[71]"

WEASEL WORDS GALORE. While I generally find this effort pointless, I feel occasionally obligated to point out the most glaring grotesqueries. As for sources, the near total lack of any independent, third party coverage of the man or his "movement" tells an important story in its own right, and as I have maintained for a year, indicates that this page should be about two paragraphs. He has demonstrably had virtually no cultural impact whatsoever, as the lack of interest by independent publishers, scholars, so few followers, and lack of obituaries in any paper but the Fiji Times points out. The ongoing attempts by Daists to turn this page into an enticing intro/overview of the guys' shtick I still find bothersome. I see someone else spoke somewhat passionately to this point above. Followers continue to not be able to see a very large forest for this one peculiar tree. It did claim to be the whole forest, after all, and if you believe that, well... Tao2911 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"18/73 sources are primary sources, the rest being third-party." Really? I find this hard to believe - last I looked, there was a lot of "Jones/Da, ibid" in sources. I'll look again...but tell me, who has written a reputable, independent analysis of Da or his teachingsTao2911 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"As for sources, the near total lack of any independent, third party coverage of the man or his "movement"

Tao,if you will look at the "Notes" section you will see that in fact now a majority of the citations are now from legitimate Third Party sources... not Adi Da's publishers, not his devotees,not secondary Adi Da internet sites of supporters. etc..This is what was one of the major ( and primary) critiques addressed and asked for by a formal wikipedia editor who reviewed the article for GA status. Also in compliance with this policy was removal of certain citations such as McKinlyville Press etc. at the request of non formal wikipedia editors as well.

Also... nothing was removed from the "Controversy " section or changed in any major way.--Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would still maintain that if you look at this article, the majority of the content relies too heavily on those Da sources (still more than 18 - I count at least 24); they may be fewer in now number, but account for a disproportionate amount of the content. Just read it: "according to Da's autobio" accounts for most of the bio section. And many you are counting as "independent" (Gabriel Cousens, Feuerstein before renouncing Da) are/were devotees and part of the Daist community at the time they wrote. So there is a decision here to simply fudge the rules - what if you were to write an article purely from INDEPENDENT 3rd party sources, as demanded by WP guidelines; what would you have? Not 20% 3rd party. Not 50%. 100% independently sourced info and analysis. I personally would like to see that page. I imagine it would suddenly come much better in line with his actual stature and standing historically and culturally.Tao2911(talk) 19:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that all sources be independent. — goethean ॐ 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Because Adi Da's books are self-published, they are not considered reliable sources. But if Feuerstein was pubilshed by someone other than Dawn Horse Press, it might be considered reliable. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, take it back alright. Maybe you just don't want to get it. The point is that the info should all be independent. If its from the primary source, it should be in quotes - not summarized or analyzed. The sources themselves then also need to be analyzed and measured. So its important if the source author is a follower, and later changed this position. Its disingenuous to use that source to lend credence to certain positions (which is happening in places) and then not reveal the nature of that source. Its simply not fair and balanced, and that is the point behind all the WP rules. So you can futz around and pretend everything simply mentioning Da is a good source, or you can analyze the source and give it context.Tao2911 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility is a Wikipedia policy. If you are incapable of abiding by it, you can leave. — goethean ॐ 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Continues to be iffy. For instance "Lake County News, California. December 16, 2008." cited as ref 42 for the number of Da books. I found and inserted that number myself (causing an absurd row here in talk) from a Da website, to replace the previous inflated number from another Da website. This LCN article cites the Adi Da spokeman for all its info, as its sole source. Including clearly for that 60 number. You can tell he just used the websites and spokesman for most info abt Da's accomplishments. Just because its a source doesn't make it a good one. I've written for newspapers - I know how this goes. The article is lazy .

There are a bunch of these instances; many places where I can plainly see that the text did not change, but the attribution did, from a Da source to a new source. With no change in the text? This is just not going to cut it. These sources then become suspect, and the article remains so. The motive is transparent - keep the article satisfying to the devotees, and try to cover tracks with two or three sources that mention Da in previous decades. It's all just terrifically subpar. And so, when people come to read the page, they hopefully will look at the sources and see this. I know I do on other pages. If the sources are iffy, I don't trust the page.Tao2911 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole books section needs to be scrapped (again) - it is all non-ref'd analysis, with Da as only descriptor. The only known facts - he wrote many books, and he created a press to publish them. Period. Funny, the LCN article is used here again as the only 3rd party source. How can you stand by these edits, guys? Isn't it embarrassing in any way?Tao2911 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This apparently bears daily re-pasting: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Working throughout the article, many awkward passages, and some outright distortions. In controversies, it said "in all there were two lawsuits." the following passage itself cites at least four. I just adjusted phrase to remove contradiction. This was yet another attempt to diminish the negative, and discount the negative. Tao2911 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, I am not going to get into a general arguments with you anymore You have a strong opinions, bias etc. fine. Certain word changes and grammar made by you ... fine and useful.

1)the following passage itself cites at least four (lawsuits) What passage are you referring to Tao?

Relative to the lawsuits. From what I can tell there are only formally two of them. Not news show claims, or individual complaints not filed as formal lawsuits in the media. Formally two that occurred. Do you have a 2nd party source that says there were more than two formal lawsuits? If so no problem with your changes. Find them and we have no dispute. If don't then I will undo that change.

2)"and described having extraordinary spiritual experiences in his company. He returned to India in 1969,and on this visit Swami Muktananda formally acknowledged Adi Da's obtainment of the highest yogic state"Historical Dictionary of New Age Movements,The Rowman Litterfield Group. (2004). ISBN 0810848732

This is a legitimate second party source quote. An academic one to boot. It is properly cited and therefore it should not be removed.

"Adi Da sums up the practice of Adidam as, “Your turning to Me and My Transmission of My Own Spiritual Presence, My “Bright” Spiritual Transmission in Response to you, these two together, that is Adidam."

Again a legitimate secondary party quote and citation.Should therefore not be removed.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 2005, the Washington Post reported that another lawsuit was "settled with payments and confidentiality agreements", says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases." So, uh, how is that TWO cases then? Three, plus the other one, equals four, by my math. Does Da math mean that is 2? Tao2911 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the "highest yogic state." I have seen the letter authorizing Jones to teach Siddha Yoga - it is on some website or another. It doesn't say anything of the kind, re highest yogic whatever. In fact, it was because of Da's dispute with Muk. abt their respective states that they split. Muk. said he wasn't fully enlightened, to a lot of people, often. There are sources for this - but I don't care to find them. Instead, just remove this clearly slanted passage. It's not needed. It's not just about it being sourced - you also need to consider the context. Adding this info when it wasn't present before, after lengthy debates about this point, is clearly meant to add legitimacy to Da. And it isn't accurate. Period. If the source actually says this (questionable) then I would question the source's legitimacy here. Tao2911 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: "and described having extraordinary spiritual experiences in his company. He returned to India in 1969,and on this visit Swami Muktananda formally acknowledged Adi Da's obtainment of the highest yogic state" some of this passage existed before the latest attribution. So, show me the quote from this source. It can't be a quote here. Its a SUMMARY, and a passage that already existed in this page, before the latest attribution. Not cool. Exactly what I'm talking about.Tao2911 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, the quoted lawyer Ford Green DID NOT handle any of the lawsuits against Adidam. If you look at the source and look at his bio he does only lawsuits brought against new emerging religions. That is his thing and the quote in the paper is saying he does these KIND of lawsuits and has done other such cases ie. 3 other type of case(but not representing those suing Adidam)Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Then rewrite the passage to say that - because that is extrapolating a lot from the way it was phrased, and you'd have to be psychic to interpret it that way. Likewise, saying there were "only" two lawsuits, as the passage said before, and then undercutting those cases by saying they were simply part of "messy divorces" is the definition of weasle-y. I mean, come on, you have got to see this...Tao2911 (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow - I just reread that article re: Ford Green. The passage reads: "The lawsuits and threatened suits that dogged the group in the mid-1980s were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases." This clearly states that he handled three cases relating to Adidam, and even implies there were more handled by others. It is a willful misread to think anything else. I will change the page to reflect this - you can't possibly think that the article means anything than what it says. HE HANDLED THREE SUCH CASES, INVOLVING PAYMENTS AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS WITH ADIDAM ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS THREATENING TO SUE ADIDAM. Plain as day.Tao2911 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the "legal dispute" section to reflect accessible information. The article has now gone from a clear attempt to diminish Adidam's legal trouble by saying there were "only" two lawsuits, both stemming from "messy divorces" that were tossed out of court, to what the sources actually say (at least three cases that resulted in out of court settlements, and one that went to court.) I used the entire quote from the Post, to sidestep any dispute about interpretation. The quote is there, let folks read it how they may - tho its pretty darn clear.

As for the case in Marin, the interpretation that the case was 'tossed out' because it had no grounds is an interpretation of a ruling that cannot be be checked from the ref (added at some point). I DON"T TRUST THIS INTERPRETATION. Show the ruling in the ref's, or leave it alone. I would like to see that case record - I don't know who added the ref, and has first person awareness of it, because its not accessible in a google search. NO SOURCE says there were only two lawsuits. There is no way to know the exact number without "original research" which is verboten. Saying there were only two is clearly an interpretation, also not allowed. Weasel-y in the extreme.Tao2911 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New Changes

Please clarify "sexuality" in Adidam practice. Just saying the word doesn't mean anything. "Yoga" is similarly vague - it can mean saying a mantra or stretching your hamstring. Please be more precise, WITH A CITATION. I removed it before for this reason, asked for clarification, didn't get it, and there's not reason given in talk. Please follow through. Also, please quote the citation from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" page 100 that is being cited for this passage, and others. I don't have this text, its not available online, and its being used willy-nilly as THE new authoritative source for all things Da.Tao2911 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC

Tao, please discuss changes before you make them to see if we can come to some sort of agreement. Some of you re-writes are good. Civility and cooperation might be useful. .

Relative to Adi Da studying yoga with Rudi... that is not accurate. He did not go there to do hatha yoga classes. He did enter into a more traditional guru devotee relationship with Rudi and Muktanada. For example he went to seminary because Rudi told him. During the time he was a acknowledge devotees of these teachers he was in a disciple/teacher relationship.This is not just going in for a 1/2 hour hatha yoga! There are citations of non-Adidam books about this.

"Yoga" is not "Hatha yoga". He studied yoga with Rudi. Rudi was a yoga teacher. Devotional indian "hinduism" is called bhakti yoga. Surely you must know this. "Siddha yoga" is used without comment in the same passage.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Clarify sexuality and yoga." I did give citations, again non-Adidam books, way back after you changed it several times.

They were not just his books. You took a legitimate citation out that was not Adi Da that discussed these disciplines.

Again, I'm feeling like I keep saying things that simply don't get addressed. Re: your citation I said this, right above: "Also, please quote the citation from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" page 100 that is being cited for this passage, and others. I don't have this text, its not available online, and its being used willy-nilly as THE new authoritative source for all things Da."Tao2911 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That is why you should slow down and have a discussion. But if you want to know what kind of yoga discipline and sexuality discipline it is also in his books. Suffice to say that hatha yoga and a sexual practice are part of his recommend practice. Are you saying that he gave no such disciplines.

I'm not saying anything except don't assume any common understanding. CITE IT. it didn't say "hatha yoga" in the passage before, just "yoga" - I started to add "hatha", but I don't have the citation, and there have been arguments about likening Da too much with Indian stuff. Find the citation, and quote it. You can't be the authority, nor can I. SOURCES. Discipline of "Sexuality"? What about it? Celibacy? Tantra? Polygamy? S & M? What? I again explained my edits - you reverted without addressing my points. I'm going plenty slow, and I am explaining every edit. If you can't cite it, don't say it.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Bright" Condition of his birth;; Not such a big deal. It just helps the reader tie in the earlier statement about his realization. it reads weird, and is completely redundant.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 7 stages graph I put it back . Let's discuss . This was ok'd by official wikipedia editor.

official editor did not say "great diagram!" He made a review of the entire piece, and clearly he overlooked plenty - plus 6000 edits have happened since. I've long questioned that diagram. Not for content, but because the text is there twice. And the image is fuzzy! Find a better version, and then remove the text from the body. But why? And I explained why I removed it in edit tag. So refute my problems if you care to.

Again, I suggest slowing down , have civil discussion and get consensus. Thanks!````

Slow what down? I made a few edits. Nothing too radical, and I think brings the article much more in line with WP guidelines in every case. Not unwilling to see further edits. Just let them make sense, and improve the article.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Tao. Your re-write of the Lead is great. I am not sure why there is controversy relative to yoga and sexuality mention in the "Adidam" section, I thought it was all from a previous citation, which was third-party. So what was wrong with it?

I have posted a new Teachings section, this one doesn't include anything from Adi Da's books. I would prefer the chart be smaller, but if it is smaller there is a slight blurriness, and an editor who reviewed this article before said it should be larger. I did not like how the text simply re-stated the chart, I think there should either be one or the other. But you'll see that I actually found it better to give a short summary of the seven stages of life. There should be some context for it, since it is mentioned later in the article.

Please review these changes, and see what you think.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you f-ing kidding me? You tell em to slow down and you go and do this? You demand courtesy, but then you do things like this, which I find incredibly aggressive. You have completely extemporized an esoteric, overly detailed, credulous overview of your own insider view of his teaching, completely without believable citations, and tossed what was a perfectly succinct version that made sense to A LAY AUDIENCE. I am reverting it to the other version, and suggesting you suggest changes here and we discuss first.Tao2911 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I thought it was Jason that made the edits. Sorry JR. Devanagari just can't help this kind of thing. Still, it's totally not workable dude. You have to find citations for EVERYTHING. You can't just make this stuff up and add as it suits you. You are way too close to this stuff. I wish you could just not do this. Say no to the Adi Da WP page. I may be the skeptic, but at least I am an outsider, with the eyes of the general public. Trust me - this stuff you added is way out of bounds. Tertiary source CITATIONS PLEASE, quoted here for verification. It not only didn't have sufficient citations, it was like a boa swallowing an elephant. That one section of the article suddenly dwarfed the whole. You have to consider the whole - as it reads for a lay audience. Historically, we just keep running in to this with the edits you wish to make. Tao2911 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, Tao. I think it's fine the way it is then. It looks better. But the first teachings section, the 3 fundamental statements, did you feel something was wrong with that? It is straight from "Gurus In America". I thought it would be better as a third-party source, and a shorter summary statement, although a bit more philosophical.

Did it seem too esoteric for a lay audience?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer: yes! Huge chunks of text, too much detail, esoteric in the extreme, and just a couple of ref's tossed in here and there. I assume that a lot that info was your synthesis. In any case, it was extraneous. While I'm not saying that the section is perfect, I'm not sure you are the candidate to adjust it - like I said, I think you are too close to it. I think the section as it is is fine.Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I find the section to be fine the way it is right now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao,relative to Kubler Ross endorsement... It was given in 1983 in the first edition of"Easy Death" So it fits into that time period you put into the intro to the article. If you click the link to the book on amazon, click where you can see pages of books and go to the back cover,and enlarge it you will see her original endorsement. As I said it fits into the time period you are indicating so I am going to put it back in.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (surprise!) I think his early phase is really 1970-75, no later. After "garbage..." period, he started to quickly lose a lot of ground among mainstream authorities. Of course, the endorsements kept coming. But I would work K-R into the reception section. 12 years in is not "early".Tao2911 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, your right and your suggestion is a good one Surprise!Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to sentence in intro, "he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community (see "reception")." The isolation & eccentric behavior" I see citations for , but not citations for "cultic community"Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments below too, but if you follow up on refs in reception, and Rick Ross website link at bottom, its inarguable this accusation is prevalent. Would you argue not?

Tao,I have appreciated some of the work you have done on the article this last week.

There are a few areas that should be addressed:

I did make a few edits with the reasons for them , but some how they did not stay so I will state them below

"Gabriel Cousins a devotee" Huhhh where did that come from? I don't think this is true.UNDID

I saw a couple mentions about him being so, but now I can't find, so I'll leave it. Tho certainly his endorsement implies devotion to Da as "the Divine." Read it...he gushes, and not about Da's "intellectual contributions."

"Adi Da later asserted that he alone fully embodied a liberated state beyond this dualism, and as such was the sole source of this realization for humanity.[8]" Please find another citation as the one you used does not contain that statement.I am not saying it is not well written. It just needs a citation.

"perceived as his increased isolation and eccentric behavior.(see "reception").Sloppy, please insert appropriate citations in the right place in this section.

" criticized .... for cult like community" Sounds like your language. Please provide specific secondary citation with that language.(UNDID)

The passage says very clearly "while he continued to garner praise for his literature, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community." How is this person generally regarded in the culture as a whole? Even his followers are distressed by the prevalence of negative views about them and Adi Da - especially the "cult" label. You may not like it - but its true (the accusations). My language? Are you kidding? He's on every cult watch website on the internet - rightly or wrongly. This needs to be reflected in an objective overview of the person. I think this one line covers a lot of ground, and should be left alone. All of his critics are lumped together, and their subjectivity is defined.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the major ones is the number of books Adi Da has actually written. I went through the following book distributors today, Books a Million, Borders,Amazon and so far I have counted about 60 distinctly different books(not re-prints)online, not DH Press site. I know there are a few published in 80's and 90's not on that list as well.I think your statement of "dozens of books" is very inaccurate. Rather than get into a numbers game it is clear that he was a prolific writer. Whatever you feel or think of what he wrote is not the point. So I would like to suggest we settle this. I can send you the list via email if you want to check for accuracy or post them here, or list them in reference.60 + books is a significant body of literature. Bottom line he was prolific in his writing and it covered not just his religious philosophy from what I can tell. I am not purposing we simply re-instate the teaching section the way it was . But it needs some rounding out from it's current version. I will try to do that in the next period of time and post it here for discussionJason Riverdale (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Many of his books are out of print, so we don't know how many there have been. I say keep "dozens" - I think that is fine. A defined number is not only impossible to know for sure, but is subject to constant change, and further edit arguments. I am firmly against a defined number.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How Many Books???Well it is definetly more than "dozens" and all the books with these distributors has ISBN's. The operating word here is "published". The numbers are minimally 50 but probably more. I think we need to resolve this as it is your justification for suggesting his writings were minimal and therefor three lines on this is all that is necesaary. Aagain , I am not suggesting reverting the section to it's former lenght. But if the number of books is sifnificantly more than you suggest then this section should be rounded out.I am going to submit it to formal Wikipedia editors for arbitration and will abide with whatever decision they come to. It will, as you suggest" avoid further edit arguments." I will leave language as it stands until we resolve this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, if you go look at Ford Greene's page on wikipedia you will see that the "three such cases" cited in the newspaper article refer to cases against Unification Church, Anada Church and Scientology .... NOT Adidam. The newspaper was citing him as a lawyer specializing in these kind of lawsuits. His website does also not mention anything about him handling Adidam lawsuits. I point this out because ... of your statement "This clearly states that he handled three cases relating to Adidam, and even implies there were more handled by others. It is a willful misread to think anything else." No change yet on that section but brings the number of lawsuits under question.Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that. So I quote the article. I don't define what the article means. It means what it means. There is no further clarification in the context of the article - you are merely assuming your version - hearsay. The passage is not willfully mis-contextualized here. You may be right. Your explanation is here. The passage should simply be left as a quote.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"I don't define what the article means." Actually you did, and that is why I am clarifying factual information. I did not suggest the line be changed. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're just leaving the line - and I would still say that, just reading it, it is hard to see it in any other way than "my" interp - which could be a misleading sentence construction, or could mean he handled three confidential cases relating to Adidam and therefor doesn't advertise them on his site, etc. In any case, we're both just left to presume, and luckily, we don't have to, and can't, "research" to know definitively here. Why I just made it a quote. And it's a big improvement from the weasel-y biased version here previous. Tao2911 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao,relative to Kubler Ross endorsement... It was given in 1983 in the first edition of"Easy Death" So it fits into that time period you put into the intro to the article. If you click the link to the book on amazon, click where you can see pages of books and go to the back cover,and enlarge it you will see her original endorsement. As I said it fits into the time period you are indicating so I am going to put it back in.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (surprise!) I think his early phase is really 1970-75, no later. After "garbage..." period, he started to quickly lose a lot of ground among mainstream authorities. Of course, the endorsements kept coming. But I would work K-R into the reception section. 12 years in is not "early".Tao2911 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, your right and your suggestion is a good one Surprise! Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Adidam as Cult

This is ridiculous to even have to prove, that people call Adidam a "cult", but here is a hilarious article I just found on Vice, one of my favorite magazines (in print and online), totally respectable and legit. Even if their reporter is not exactly Woodward, or Bernstein. He was told to join three cults - he chose Adidam first, followed by the Moonies and Aleph. I'll add it as a ref.Tao2911 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao,as you have said many times CITE it. That is all that is being asked. It is not unreasonable.You demand it of others.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said already, twice, Feurstein and Wilber themselves have said it, and they are ref'd, and I indicated going to 'reception' to see that. Again, I wish you'd respond more thoroughly my comments, questions, and responses, so I don't have to say or ask the same thing three times. Also, Rick Ross is there at the bottom - again. I should work that in more I guess - he has Adidam on "high cult watch" or something. But I already added the ref anyway.Tao2911 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, all I was asking for was a real citation.... what you ask all the time...not an unreasonable request... required by wiki policy, as you point out abundantly.. no reason to go ballistic....... you do need to calm down and learn to simply have a dialog....you did it... thank you ...issue closed!Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly ballistic to ask for some acknowledgment that I had already addressed your point, I felt to satisfaction - and how bout you just watch your own state, and don't presume to know mine on this end. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers to you! Good night enough wiki for today Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolving Number of Books Published

One of the major ones is the number of books Adi Da has actually written. I went through the following book distributors today, Books a Million, Borders,Amazon and so far I have counted about 60 distinctly different books(not re-prints)online, not DH Press site. I know there are a few published in 80's and 90's not on that list as well.I think your statement of "dozens of books" is very inaccurate. Rather than get into a numbers game it is clear that he was a prolific writer. Whatever you feel or think of what he wrote is not the point. So I would like to suggest we settle this. I can send you the list via email if you want to check for accuracy or post them here, or list them in reference.60 + books is a significant body of literature. Bottom line he was prolific in his writing and it covered not just his religious philosophy from what I can tell. I am not purposing we simply re-instate the teaching section the way it was . But it needs some rounding out from it's current version. I will try to do that in the next period of time and post it here for discussion Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Many of his books are out of print, so we don't know how many there have been. I say keep "dozens" - I think that is fine. A defined number is not only impossible to know for sure, but is subject to constant change, and further edit arguments. I am firmly against a defined number.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How Many Books???Well it is definitely more than "dozens" and all the books with these distributors has ISBN's. The operating word here is "published". The numbers are minimally 50 but probably more. I think we need to resolve this as it is your justification for suggesting his writings were minimal and therefor three lines on this is all that is necessary. Again , I am not suggesting reverting the section to it's former length. But if the number of books is significantly more than you suggest then this section should be rounded out.I am going to submit it to formal Wikipedia editors for arbitration and will abide with whatever decision they come to. It will, as you suggest" avoid further edit arguments." I will leave language as it stands until we resolve this. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is your motivation for wanting to say more than "dozens"? Dozens means a potentially infinite number - its not "a few." You cannot define the number - dozens implies that it is, well, at least 36 right? You want a number because you think it will make him sound more impressive, clearly. Do what you feel necessary in terms of arbitration. But if we were discussing some of his critics, who are self-published so that you discount them, you wouldn't care how many books they printed - you say they are not "authoritative."

Whatever the number, it should be clear that they were self-published. The reasons for him being able to publish so many titles do not have to do with the marketplace, or being subject to peer, editor, and publisher review - which clearly if he'd had to undergo, the number would be SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER. There is no arguing this point. Saying 60 books is therefore somewhat misleading. Which, I think, is partly your intent - as you say, you find this a "significant body of literature." Hardly, by any objective standard. Which he was not subject to, again.

And again, you DON"T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER. YOU ARE GUESSING, based on available information, and YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! You can't do that. Not to mention how many of these books are re-edits, compendiums, repackaged and re-titled, etc. Fer goodness sake, just go with dozens.Tao2911 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing - I just looked a the quote. I already sidestepped the entire issue by saying that he wrote prolifically, and that currently, there are dozens of books "in print." I don't even know if that is true, but it seems a fair acknowledgment that his publisher at least has a warehouse full of his books available. So it matters not in this case if they were in the past, present, or future. Until there is an independent, non-Da, scholarly assessment we can use as source, leave it to what we can acknowledge as factual.Tao2911 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to wrap up

I've tried today to just smooth out some of the scars from a year of edits - I feel generally this is good stripped down version that adequately covers the basics for an audience who is just looking for an overview. I feel it a balanced mix showing why he is known in the culture at large, as far as he's known. I think there's been a good attempt to strip this thing down to citable material. I have added some info that I know some will not like, but I've added it without agenda, but to reflect how the man has been seen - and for every "negative" view, I've tried to add its obverse, and improve accuracy in all cases. Importantly I think, I added a section to the bio about how he came to prominence. I'd like to add a couple more ref's there. I've smoothed some awkward grammar, and condensed short sections that were redundant, having been left from much longer sections long since gutted. I hope other editors can read the whole thing through, see it as a whole, and hopefully see the balance that I now better see, certainly from many previous versions. It's come a long way, after some versions that had many frustrated. I think it reads like an encyclopedias entry, or close.Tao2911 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

books books books

Didn't mean to negate your change to "many" just now, but I had to reinsert changes to bio and caught that too. I have no trouble with "many." You need to mention the publishing house, because it is unique to him. It is an accomplishment, and should be stated. And it quite clearly distinguishes his efforts from others, as I discuss. I am not alone in thinking this significant, and necessary of mention. I don't think it objectively diminishing; its worded completely neutrally. Your refusing to allow it clearly stems from your thinking it implies diminishing him. And, why is that a bad thing for you?Tao2911 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about this paragraph:

As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow his organization to defend him. He emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to his suffering a nervous breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.

The source given for this paragraph is: "Lake County News, December 7, 2008". Is that verifiable? How can I discern that the information from this paragraph is from that source, and how much of it is your own wording? I have been guilty of doing this kind of thing in the past, and you have called me out on it. So I am just bringing it up, questioning this source.

Here is part of that article, including the passage I added (which is a virtual quote, with just a couple changes for readability): "Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in with little regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development….In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to this suffering a major breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.” —Lake County News, December 7, 2008 "Tao2911 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And is this a necessary statement: "Subsequent editions of "The Knee of Listening" underwent extensive revisions, additions, and subtractions." Is that something you would find in another wiki article relative to a description of a book? I don't find it really necessary to include that it went through extensive revisions, etc.

I think it is significant, only in that later editions did not have the Watts endorsement, the subtitle changed (as evident in an amazon.com search), and its true - there are radical differences in different editions. So what he arguably became most famous for, that book, changed. I found this interesting, when I found it out. I assume others would find this useful info. I understand your questioning it, because its a questionable action, however factual. I think this entry should attempt to BRIEFLY combine as much info from disparate sources as possible. This would help explain why different editions have seemingly different authors, titles, endorsements, and content.Tao2911 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes in the teaching section about "yogis, saints, and sages", because the information before was inaccurate, which I discovered later on. I did not do anything major, so I don't think you will find it objectionable.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of your changes are ok - I may tweak it a little. We have to avoid overly specialized Da-speak when not in direct quotes. I'm sensitive to it, because I speak mostly English, not Da.

I appreciate your perspectives. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I understand that Da tried to dance around the issue of him realizing enlightenment at a certain point, and then having to register this with the fact that he was naturally already the Avatar from birth etc. But this language ("Adi Da stated that he was enlightened from birth, enjoying an uninterrupted condition of "joy" and "radiance" that he called "The Bright", which is also his description of the seventh stage of life.") is just confusing. Its kind of gobbledygook, or so it reads when you're not steeped in Da, which sadly I have to report that I now somewhat am. He may soon arrive and demand I wear him as a skin (see Vice article ref to get that joke. Sigh.) Also, you don't have a ref. for this statement. The existing ref is for the quote that follows, or so I assume since it predated your new interp. If not, show quote here. I may return some of the previous language. Your argument that it is inaccurate is noted, I will keep it in mind, and see if I can find something between us. We have to work around the fact that this intrinsically doesn't make rational sense - as much as his language seemed to want to make it so at times. We have to make it comprehensible TO A NON-SPECIALIZED AUDIENCE here.Tao2911 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, thanks very much for posting the news article.

I don't mind if you have to tweak the language a bit, I can't help being steeped in Da, so I don't mind the two of us working together as a balancing act. You are right, I did not put a reference, but I should have, for The Knee of Listening. I can see why you find it convoluted, I had a difficult time with the wording, but what I was basically trying to communicate is that Adi Da claims that he didn't "achieve" seventh stage realization, but was already realized at birth (since he is the Avatar), and so he said he brought seventh stage realization with him. So that should be represented accurately is all.

The inaccuracy with "yogis, saints, and sages" can get a bit esoteric, and I am trying to avoid that level of esotericism. A "yogi" according to Adi Da, is someone like Muktananda, involved in ascending yoga, whereas a "saint" isn't working to go "up", but is already established at a point above, such as the ajna or above, Nityananda is a good example of this. So it doesn't correspond with 4th stage and then 5th stage, necessarily, because both yogis and saints technically fall into the fifth stage of life, that's where it gets tricky. So my attempt is to eliminate that by saying "higher stages of life", without getting into the esoterica I just described, by giving examples of such people.

I see what you did to change some of my wording, I am going to edit it a bit further, now having made this distinction for you. See what you think. Also, I like your re-wording of the previously convoluted sentence. So that looks fine. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is too fine a distinction. What was helpful before was the correspondence to the 7 levels - without that, I see no need for any of this info at all. And for that matter, the seven levels - this helps show why it mattered, how it functioned. It has to be tied to the levels - and was, sourced. I added this info originally, took it right out off an adi da source web page. I think you are seeing some fine qualifivation that I don't see mattering with simply relating the yogi stage, etc to the 7 model.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It does correspond to the 7 stages, it is just incorrect to say anything about 4th stage realizers being yogis. That is the inaccuracy I was fixing, by making it broader with "higher stages of life". I think it looks good now. I did not get into the esoterics of what I described to you above. That cannot go in this article.

I generally get you - I think it is ok. I would just like for it to be clear that "yogi" say is clearly 4th level or whichever each corresponds to. That seemed really clear in other things I've read - including transcriptions of talks where he gets quite picky about who gets classified where, on what level.Tao2911 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the Biography's tone is neutral and factual, bringing up positive and negative points, but just as I would expect in an ecyclopedia article. However, I do feel there is a change of tone right here:

As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow his organization to defend him. He emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to his suffering a nervous breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.”

I know this is sourced and thus verifiable, but I am just questioning whether or not it's NPOV. It seems to carry quite a bit of interpretation in it, from the point of view of whoever wrote this article. For example, it assumes that Adi Da ran away to Fiji after the lawsuits. You could say something about how some people viewed his move to Fiji along those lines, but the way it is stated in here is a bit presumptuous.

I am not saying the content is objectionable, it is mostly the tone. It is not neutral. It is the writer's interpretation and viewpoint coming across, rather than the kind of tone I see elsewhere in the article, where various viewpoints are just presented, but rather objectively.

Can you see what I am saying? What are your thoughts?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually totally with you on this - it had bugged me too, but I was going to leave it as mostly a quote to see how much blow back it caused first. I think I was able to bring it into line, while keeping the info integral. I think this is an important issue to bring in, because it is widely discussed in that community, and also is one of the only facts we have for his bio past '76 or so. I really wish we had a way to cover something later - how he said he'd in the early 90's or such how he'd said his whole message and entered into more seclusion, talking less or not at all for long periods. Then how and when he started to come out of that. Also, a lot of allegations from former students about significant substance abuse even into his later years, but no agreed tertiary source for that - plus, I wouldn't want it to slant too far. But I've tried to allude to both his attempts at a more respectable face later, and the fact that he never completely shed controversy or allegations.Tao2911 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree. We can discuss some of the other things you bring up here later on. First thing, I would suggest you try a re-working of that paragraph and we reach a consensus on it.

A point I want to bring up now is regarding the books. I saw you made this addition:

"Subsequent editions have undergone extensive changes. Originally two-hundred seventy-one pages, the latest edition is six-hundred five pages, including new prefaces, appreciations and appendices, with descriptions of early phases in Adi Da's life and spiritual search significantly rewritten. A chapter on his time with Scientology, for instance, is no longer included."

This is a bit slanted in my opinion. There is one paragraph on his books, and it has an underlying negative slant happening with it the whole time. Your writing here just implies that he changed his message, his teaching, and wanted to cover up his time in Scientology. Whatever may be the case, it's not about arguing that he did that or didn't do that. I just don't feel it has place in this article. It isn't necessary. If you want to include something about how the later edition of The Knee of Listening is significantly expanded, that's fine. But that's all that really needs to be said. People can read the two and compare, and reach their own conclusions. We don't need to be making conclusions for people in this article, which was one of my problems with the paragraph I wrote about earlier. It draws conclusions for the reader, already.

So I think this section needs a lot of work. At least a mention of some key titles, such as The Aletheon, which he said was his ultimate work, and The Dawn Horse Testament. Can get away with just mentioning that he wrote on other topics, and that be it. But to have a Books section, and just talk about The Knee of Listening and how much it has changed, and how Scientology is no longer in it, etc., doesn't feel entirely appropriate for this article.

Your thoughts?--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that stuff, I'm not opposed. But it shouldn't be original research, interp, or analysis. I had an independent source for those figures - I didn't count them. I think the info fits with the article as a whole. But I agree that if you can find a tertiary source who comments on his books, something could be added for balance.Tao2911 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to The Lake County News, Dec 2008. Do you have a copy of what you are quoting there? It seems odd that you could get that kind of information there as it was probably more of an announcement of his passing.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The LCN article is quoted above. The source for the passage is reliable, tertiary, and not a partisan site. However, this event is widely discussed on partisan sites both pro and con. Views of both are acknowledged as written in the bio. It should be mentioned. While I understand how you partisans have issues with "nervous breakdown", I see this as a clinical condition, and a colloquial expression to describe his symptoms in a comprehensible way to a non-specialized audience. Plus, that is indeed how many described his condition, including the source. It says how Da explained it. If you read the first edition of "Knee" (available online), his breakdown in the seminary also could neatly be described as a "nervous" (relating to the nervous system) "breakdown" (extreme stress leading to loss of normal functioning etc.)Tao2911 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I made edits to the Biography. It was a bit slanted in some parts. Instead of removing content, I simply balanced it, or changed a word to what sounded more neutral and objective. Take a look.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted these changes, as they were extensive (two dozen?) and in places clearly slanted, removing factual, cited information, and in cases insensitive to paragraph structure and readability (other places are ok, and I went back to them). I suggest that changes be made more individually so that they can be considered as such. Like this: "Others say that it is not surprising that such accusations have been leveled at Adi Da and Adidam. Adidam has remarkably never denied that sexual experimentation was used in the community and that to some it was seen as abusive, particularly during the "Garbage and the Goddess" period." "Remarkably"? "Not surprising?" Seriously? Plus, this is already covered in the lawyer quote, which is clearly a quote, and is cited.

I am pleased with the new form of the bio, as it is chronological, and takes from many tertiary sources, plenty of citations. All the dates now match, and most significant events up to 1985 are addressed. I think that is arguably how it should be, since beyond that independent sources are almost non-existent. He was in Fiji (mostly) amongst his followers, so happenings read like pure hearsay, and exist only on now discredited websites, or in Da's own books. I think what we have in the bio is verifiable and cross-referencing, and reads much like the info I would have hoped to find when I came here two years ago looking for a neutral, non-hyperbolic factual overview.

I really like the way the teaching section reads now, and the legal section is much smoother and sensible (previously it jumped back and forth like a tennis match, and contained some inaccuracies against the citations.) If the book section could have maybe ONE LINE mentioning what his other books covered (as it once did - diet, excercise, analysis of other religions) independently sourced, fine. But I emphatically do not think it should get back into the details of content in hagiographic accounts or his self-assessments - or any kind of original research, analysis, synopsis, or interpretation. I personally find the info about his first and clearly most famous work, "Knee", really interesting, and helpful. I understand the slant concern, but to me, its is so brief and such a dry fact, it does not read of bias. It seems more indispensable knowing that there are these differences in editions of his most famous work - this would be included in an entry on Joyce, or Dickens, if we are using that yardstick.

I feel that the Teachings Section, Controversies, and Lead are really good at this point. The Biography is really close, I want to look at it again before I pronounce that it is complete.

Regarding Books, I still find there is a negative slant. I would like to include some more information, but until I find a third-party source, I will be unable to do so. So it will just have to stand as is. The fact is there aren't enough third-party sources on Adidam, and the ones that are, tend to be rather negative and critical. The result of which is a wikipedia article that reads rather critically, with hardly any positive content, at least in comparison to the criticisms. Until there are such sources available for citation in this article, it will simply have to be as is, so with the current state of things, this is really the best a wikipedia article on Adi Da will be.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite my involvement here, I still maintain my outsider standing, as someone who is interested in spirituality, books about it, and art, but who has never read a whole Da book or joined an anti-cult group against him. I have been friends with students of his, both current and former, and sincerely believe that Da/Jones believed that he was who he said he was (my opinion about that claim having no bearing.) I think this version of the WP entry reads cool and bone dry, or as close as it can get with such a polarizing figure. I think any objections to it would stem largely from the self-serving explanations for everything that Da and Adidam disseminate (and they do - can't argue that, or even blame them. Thats PR, baby), but that the facts themselves here CANNOT be in dispute. Likewise for those who would like to say he was "evil" or willfully destructive. I don't know if he was. Let him be evaluated by these sourced facts - or better, let this entry merely lead to other sources that argue either way if reader curiosity demands.Tao2911 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You can get very heated, but I appreciate you when you can maintain a balanced disposition and we can work together on this article. It is inevitably difficult given our differences in point of view, and the fact that this article has to be neutral. I appreciate your coming forth and taking an outsider stand, it is not easy to do on such a "polarizing figure", as you say, and that goes for both of us. I am glad that we are able to work together without demeaning one another. The article has definitely benefitted from it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

disputed line

I want to head off argument about this line: "In 1973, he traveled to India to meet again with Muktananda. Over a confrontation regarding the actual nature of enlightenment and how to achieve it, they would end their relationship, going on to actively disparage each others' relative level of spiritual accomplishment to their own followers." This is described in the source at length - yes, I know Jones later said that he respected Muktananda and they communicated jovially on the etheric plane or whatever - however, there are many documented cases, discussed in the source and elsewhere, where Jones said he was fully enlightened and Muktananda was not, and vice versa. And much worse, as Dev probably knows (Muk calling Da a black magician, similar aspersions cast the other way, etc.) So lets leave it at this. It also talks about it as it happened chronologically, not getting into what Da said about it later. In which case, if we got into that we know every single line could have a book length explanation for all the ways that it was a divine manifestation. No offense.Tao2911 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to settle on this one, then.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise Dev added descrip of "Free John." The sources merely say "based on a nickname for "friend" combined with the meaning of "Franklin Jones"." The later Da description ("as "one through whom God is gracious"") is not only peculiar, incomplete, and out of keeping with the page's tone, it is not in the source. You don't get to add stuff just because it fits with your awareness from being a follower. The source(s!) merely say bubba=friend, free=franklin, jones=john. All the spiraling interp from there is left to those who go to Da book/web sources.Tao2911 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also fine, when I read it, it seemed it was going to give some translation of "Franklin Jones" but then it didn't, so I gave one. But, what you have pointed out, is correct.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the latest of the passage that is bugging some: "As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church. Adi Da did not personally respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, but withdrew into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond to the charges. He emerged from seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a sort of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.”[57]"

Dev's version: "As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da did not personally respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond to the charges. Many have viewed his move to Fiji as a form of withdrawing into seclusion during a time of controversy. He left Fiji for the first time in 1986, after suffering a near-death collapse, which Adi Da described as a uniquely significant event, calling it his "Divine Re-Emergence".[58]" Again, I think slightly slanting source toward a viewpoint, and adding info clearly not in the source.Tao2911 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This passage still bothers me, because it assumes too much, and is written with a negative slant. "but withdrew into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy"...what about how he was already in Fiji looking for an Island in 1983, and how he first set foot on Naitauba in 1984? Before the controversies?

It just assumes that he ran away. If you want to say something about he ran away from lawsuits, then there is a way to do it such that it isn't inherently incorporated into the sentence, such that anyone who reads it, immediately feels that he did that, as if it is a fact. It is an opinion, and there is another side to it. I am not suggesting removing the content, it is all in the way it is phrased. Just because this guy, and perhaps many others, view his move to Fiji as a withdrawing and running away from lawsuits, does not mean it is oaky to just state it as if it is a plain fact in this article. You can state in a way that is still objective, and presenting a viewpoint, without ruling out the other. It simply is not neutral language right now.

you misread. to me it clearly reads that he already was in fiji, and withdrew until the storm passed. you don't like the way it sounds - but its the cited material. So it stays.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the last sentence has a real negative slant, with words like "as a sort of", it is already demeaning and has this derogatory tone to it. I know you may not see it that way, being more on that angle of things. Just as I accept your criticisms, I would appreciate it if you could see what I am saying too. I am not even suggesting that I re-write this, I would prefer that you did, but I just want to encourage a paraphrasing of this with really neutral language, not this negative slant.

All you have to do is look at the original article to see that the author is totally negative. It needs some cleaning up to meet wiki standards.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been attempting to be very sensitive to all sides. I continue to feel that you and Dev are not going to be happy until it sounds like every quandary the guy faced was a heroic, sensible, sacred manifestation of his divinity. And knowing this, I think you are doing a great job at keeping yourselves in check, for the most part. i will look at the passage some more and see if I can do anything with it to help. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Balancing Controversial Issues around Adi Da

I just had a chance today to look at what has been going on in this article the last couple of days. Some good changes and some very bias section as well.In a few places I have added into the text that this is claimed by such and such a newspaper. I have not disputed the source of the citation. It is simply stating and clarifying for the reader that this is being reported in a newspaper and may or may not be true. In several cases one of the editors has half quoted an persons statement (this occured also last week). This is selective editing and does not complete the intention of the person making the statement.

Since sex and religion or spiritual teachers seems to be the primary salacious issue here, a more balance discussion to this issue must be included. There are citations where this matter of Adi Da's attitudes and work with sex and religion is talked about. So... it will be a few weeks before I can research this and post it. "The Garbage & The Goddess" section for example is very bias and if certain editors want to make this more of a "encyclopedia" it is going to require both sides.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. (You reveal your own bias in your concerns. I don't think sex and religion are necessarily salacious. The way Jones dealt with them at that time may have been - quite intentionally on his part. it was part of the teaching, so he said; shock and awe.) Both sides are clearly represented, explained. I found your changes to the passage clumsy, biased, and completely out of keeping with WP bio precedent, and the page as it currently reads. You can't start packing a bunch of leads and arguments for or against things - he said she said. it's covered already. The "negative" categorization from Feurstein (an authoritative source) is in quotes. The adidam lawyer is also given a one line explanation, in quotes. The nitty gritty is discussed in the other section. Boom. Moving on. Don't belabor it. Keep it short and bare citable facts.Tao2911 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yogis, Saints, and Sages

Tao, it seems you did not understand what I explained earlier. The reason I had to make edits to this section to begin with is because of an inaccuracy, which is that there is no term reserved by Adi Da for those who realize the 4th stage of life. The term "yogi" AND "saint" refer to Realizers in the context of the fifth stage of life. So it is not accurate to say that fourth stage Realizers are "yogis", and it is likewise not accurate to say that Muktananda was a fourth stage yogi. In fact, "fourth stage yogi" is a contradiction in and of itself.

There has been confusion relative to this, so I am just clarifying it. I have added an according citation, where Muktananda is described as a fifth stage yogi, and Nitayananda is described as a fifth stage saint, and what the differences between the two are, and the reason for such a distinction within a single stage of life in Adi Da's teaching. If you are curious to understand the differences, I will be happy to type it out for you. Otherwise, if we can come to an agreement, we'll leave it at that.

Of course, the other option is not to include anything on this matter at all, but I tend to find it useful.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this some more. However, I had a source months ago that described the passage more or less as it was - with 4th, 5th 6ht stage realizers as blah blah and blah respectively.. Jason was the one who recently cited it. I don't actually think you are correct. So please quote your source here, and let's leave it until we come to agreement. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that source is incorrect. First I will quote from an earlier pre-publication of The Basket of Tolerance, please read carefully:

“Yogis are those who are truly practicing in the stages of Spiritual ascent in the context of the fifth stage of life, and true Saints are those who are already established in the highest (ascended) meditative realization, also in the context of the fifth stage of life, and Sages are those who have gone beyond the psycho-physical context of the first five stages of life, and who have realized the sixth stage awakening.”

So you see here, that both yogis and saints exist in the context of the fifth stage of life. Basically, fifth stage yogis are trying to get somewhere via ascending yoga, while fifth stage saints are already established in highest ascent. Adi Da has used the metaphor of the Earth, Sun, and Moon saying that yogis are on the Earth trying to get to the Moon, saints are already on the Moon, and sages are the Sun.

Here I will quote from Adi Da's "Lineage Essay", titled "I (Alone) Am The Adidam Revelation" (from the 2004 edition of The Knee of Listening) where he has extensive discussion of Swami Muktananda and Bhagavan Nityananda and their different characteristics. These are from the pages 502-504, which I had cited in my clarification of the paragraph.

"Bhagavan Nityananda was a True fifth stage Saint (Who was exclusively Occupied in concentration 'above the neck', even to the exclusion of the possibilities 'below the neck')." (pg. 503)

"In order to rightly understand their characteristics, ideas, and behaviors, fifth stage Yogis--such as Baba Muktananda--should be compared to fifth stage Saints, who are the Highest (or Most Acended) type of fifth stage Siddha, and who, having ascended to the degree of formless Realization (or conditionally Ascended Nirvikalpa Samadhi), have gone beyond all attachment to modes of form (or of mind)." (pg. 502)

Here is a lengthier discussion, contrasting yogis, saints, and sages and their corresponding stage of life:

"By comparison to Great fifth stage Yogis (Such as Baba Muktananda) and Great fifth stage Saints (Such as Bhagavan Nityananda), there are also Great sixth stage Sages--or Transcendentally Realized Entities of the Fullest sixth-stage type and degree--such as Ramana Maharshi." (pg. 509)

On the next page, comes the quote that you see in the article of "distinct from even all yogis, saints, and sages...".

I don't know how much better I can explain and prove to you that the term "yogi" and "saint" apply to realizers in the fifth stage of life, and that the characteristic of their realization is different, while still in the context of ascending yoga, hence the same stage of life. There is no such acknowledgement given to Realizers of the 4th stage of life, and hence, no term, even though it may seem that the three terms correspond to the 3 higher stages of life, they in fact do not.

I previously was not aware of this, and only recently became aware of this distinction. It is esoteric, I know, which is why we should just leave this paragraph in its simplicity. I think I've provided enough proof here that Muktananda is a fifth stage yogi, and Nityananda a fifth stage saint. Perhaps a less misleading way to phrase this line, "He acknowledged those who realized one of the higher stages of life, progressively, as either "yogis, saints, or sages" is "He acknowledged those who realized either the fifth or sixth stage of life as being yogis, saints, or sages".--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm loathe to allow a "pre-published" source, that is first person to boot. But fine, make that adjustment. Didn't he say the Dalai Lama is 4th stage? I just want it clear how he categorized people in accordance with his system.Tao2911 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tao. I won't be including the quote from the pre-publication, that was for educational purposes. I'll only be citing from The Knee of Listening. Also, I don't think he's ever said anything about the Dalai Lama. People in the 4th stage of life are mostly Christian, such as St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. Francis, all examples of 4th stage.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from aboutadidam.org: "Stage Four: Spiritualization: Even while still maturing in the first three stages of life, many people devote themselves to religious practices, submitting to an ordered life of discipline and devotion. This is the beginning of establishing the disposition of the fourth stage of life, but it is only the beginning. The real leap involved in transitioning to the fourth stage of life is one that very few ever make. It is the transition we associate with saints: nothing less the breakthrough to a Spiritually-illumined life of Divine contemplation and selfless service." My whole point is that you need stage illustrators. You jsut wrote above that 4th stage isn't saint or yogi. Now you say saint is 4th stage, but only lowly christians. Please, just let me know that you know you are contradicting yourself. Who is the authority? You or Adidam?Tao2911 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall Tone

I will reiterate that right now (I made a couple more changes to remove potentially offending word choices) I think the whole page is very balanced. The "Garbage" passage is one short passage, descriptive without lengthy justification for either "side". This is really important info, but it is clearly the flashpoint for much controversy regarding Adi Da, and a pivotal moment in how he was to become regarded in the culture more widely. This period is used by Adidam to excuse behavior that later would cause much bad press, compartmentalizing it there (true or false.) It is the time that many independent analysts look to as particularly significant. Pivotal, and a must. It makes other issues clearer, in the legal disputes and in the chronology of his life. It's presented in the barest possible way, with the facts that most people would find significant.

It is given no more weight than any other significant event or period in Jones' life; if you look on balance, there are many more positive/neutral events than potentially controversial ones listed. And in all cases, editorial opinion about them is neutral.

Even the book section is balanced. It says that he wrote a popular book that was well received. It then says that this, his by far most read text, has been issued in many editions, and undergone many changes. I see no problem with this section, while I understand how to those more involved with his books and organization might be frustrated to not have his entire corpus discussed. I don't think that this is the place for that. Look at other pages on similar figures - Muktananda for instance. He has been arguably much more influential (his students are a who's who - Siddha Yoga alone has many times as many students as Adidam) and his page is a quarter the length of Da's.

The controversy section is all tertiary sourced, with both sides given almost precisely equal word count.Tao2911 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Tao. I still am not a fan of the Divine Emergence paragraph...but everything else is looking good. I added in a quotation of Cousens' endorsement, because I noticed you were including quotes from people in that section. I fixed yogis saints and sages. And I will probably add a few commas in the Biography, but that's it. Good work.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to the youtube Channel 2 citation of 1986... I suspect that this is a copyright violation of unauthorized use and may not be allowed by wikipedia. I will check into this. Nevertheless the except is a news show which presents one side and therefore justification for simply saying "According to Channel 2 News" Nothing in wikipedia policy that prohibits this. Another point is that most, if not all of the information in this citation, is already covered in other areas ...in detail (via other citations). Why do YOU feel the need to add this additional repetitive citation... Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The youtube links should be removed but the citations to the news program are still valid without a youtube link. — goethean ॐ 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

what section are you alluding to? As for adding "according to..." if it was in the bio, it didn't fit with the whole. You can't start sourcing every comment like that - plus, "channel two news" didn't make allegations. They reported allegations, defenses. So the precedent, in this page and in others, is to just synopsize or quote the info and SOURCE IT. Also, what info is redundant, where?Tao2911 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to youtube link I did get confirmation from formal wikipedia editor that the actual link to the copyright video is not allowed. "YouTube videos that infringe copyright should never be linked in refs: WP:LINKVIO, WP:ELNEVER. Generally TV programs are not preferred sources." Jayen" I think Goethean suggestion is a good compromise. So I have left the citation in and removed the link.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Added simple line on lawsuits with appropriate citations. In keeping with request from another editor kept brief.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wood quote fine with contextualization.Tao2911 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute

Hi there. Sorry to spoil the fun, but I am disputing the neutrality of this article. I just removed a few of the poorly sourced contentious material. It's clearly outside of Wikipedia's aims to bring in prejudicial, self-published sources into the article. It really brings down the quality and the neutrality of the article. This is something that has been worked out before here many times. Please read the archives. There are still quite a few self published sources still being used. IMHO there are still a lot of poorly sourced, non-neutral statements being made in the article David Starr 1 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Starr - a number of editors have been hard at work here, working to reach a relatively stable page. Please discuss the changes you wish to make here - many of your points are simply mistaken, as discussion here would show if they're reviewed. Please bring up your individual points here for discussion - then changes can be agreed on as a group.

For instance, Gurdjieff journal is not "self-published." And the reason for it's use as source is because it is a well-researched, balanced, teritary source for synopsis of much info from Adi Da's own autobio, as well as other independent sources. Nor was Lowe's essay self-published- it was published, as citation shows, by a university press (and not even Lowe's own). And Lowe's mentions are contextualized to show his position, not as undisputed facts. Art mention in bio was necessary I believe to show activity in bio beyond 1985, though that could be workable - move it then, don't just delete.

And there is not a dispute about neutrality among the editors here, who clearly have opposing positions in many cases. We are managing to find consensus - the reappearance of this potentially vandalous activity on your part is really unwelcome. Many editors are working to find the best tertiary sources we can, successfully in 90% of cases, only using others (both pro and con) when alternates are not available - per WP guidelines. In those cases, the tone is striving for neutrality, and mainly using quotations with potentially controversial statements. The tone of the page is cool and factual throughout, accurately reflecting the information available in the culture at large.

Your activity was, again, potentially vandalism, and disrespectful of those of us working hard on this page in past weeks. Comments like "Sorry to spoil the fun" reveal the lack of willingness to work with others that you have exhibited in the past, and I am disappointed to see you return to this kind of activity. Just work with us, and don't assume you know it all. As past comments and activity on your part have shown, you clearly have at times demonstrated bias, and were wont to use many Adidam sources. I see your actions now reflecting this same bias.Tao2911 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not show good faith and respond to my request by bringing up your specific issues here in talk so that other editors who have been lately more active can respond? You are not responding to the specific points I brought up. Yes, it looks like vandalism when you swoop in and utterly dismiss the efforts of those who've spent many hours working quite diligently and in concert to craft what is hopefully an entry to suitable to all on a contentious subject. You are not being respectful to them, in word or deed. You do not get to slap dispute-labels on the article (thereby discrediting it) when you do not bring up the specific points that you wish to dispute. That is not in keeping with WP guidelines. I stand by my accusations of bias - it is not name calling. Until you demonstrate good faith by engaging in constructive dialogue here, we will have little reason to think otherwise.Tao2911 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This section has been largely rearranged by Starr, and I believe some of my comments have been removed, but I want to address these points concisely here, tho I have elsewhere below.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This is untrue.David Starr 1 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to the following inclusions: -

Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He also took part in hallucinogenic drug trials which included mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were being conducted at the local Veterans Administration hospital (where novelist Ken Kesey also participated in tests). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating," but described struggling in efforts to quit.

Original source is actually Da autobio Knee 1972, summarized in GJ. I quote some passages from Knee below. He took psychedelics regularly and habitually (by his own description) until 1967, including daily pot smoking while studying with Rudi (tho trying to quit), and culminating in a terrifying mescaline trip that year that was his last. I cited the chapters now on page, but so does GJ. Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The source here is "The Gurdjieff Journal," Gurdjieff & The New Age Part IX, Franklin Jones & Rudi Part I, by William Patrick Patterson, which is published by William Patrick Patterson. The line "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward" is not verifiable and I believe it to be inaccurate. Saying he described struggling in efforts to quit, suffers from undue weight, and is proposed for inclusion I believe to cast doubt onto Adi Da's character. As simply a source of information about the subject it is irrelevant.

Jones/Da called these years significant. I don't find drug use in the spiritual counterculture of the 1960's in any way shocking. They are given the same weight here in his bio as he originally gave them himself, which was considerable, but compartmentalized - he said they were very important experiences to him. Your judgments are subjective. The source is balanced, and cited. It's Jones himself.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged. A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."

This is discussed at length below. In particular tho, there is mention made in more than one place about "controversial" behavior and teaching methods that occurred in the 1970's. This contextualizes them, and provides response by Da org. Every independent report on Da mentions this period by name, and describes these events.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, using Free John as a casual somewhat disrespectful tone is a way of injecting bias. The article is about Adi Da. The amount of detail here, saying switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe by including it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added Bubba per your request, though "Free John" simply replaced "Jones" because his name changed by that time, and bio follows the name changes in every case through chronology, per WP bio precedents. Issue is not covered in controversies section fully - that section mainly deatils legal disputes and 1985 press. Even there "period in the 1970's" is referenced but not described. It fits in bio, and ties into "teaching" section with crazy wisdom sub-section.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why "Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones" and "The Gurdieff Journal" are Self-Published

Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones is published by the Mt San Antonio Philosophy Group of which David Lane is a founder. He uses this group to self publish his own books as well as the books of others. By definition if you use a group started by you to publish your own books, then those books are self -published.

The Gurdieff Journal appears to be published by the Gurdieff Legacy organization which as a competing spiritual organization would be pretty iffy as far as being a reliable source for what is happening in other competing organizations. This is not a publication being published by an independent third party and therefore would be considered self published. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The publisher has the imprimatur of the university. Who are you to judge its validity? It is not a guy publishing out of his home office, or only publishing his own materials. Also, the University is allowing its name to be used, lending the press credibility. Also, the information being sourced is quoted, and the author can be researched by readers. This simply doesn't meet the standard of "self-publishing" meant by the guidlines, and you are ruling it out simply ebcause you do not like the content due to your bias.

"Competing organization?" What independent proof do you have of this contention? Gurdjieff "Work" has no central church or organization. You seem to be concocting a rule or standard that seems self serving. What are the points you are contending? And why would another religious or philosophical journal have no right to publish material describing or analysing material relating to another? Adi Da had a relationship to Gurdjieff, read him, studied his methods. Not to mention the info being used here on Da is not biased or even especially critical, but largely descriptive.

The journal covers many topics. it is clearly reputable, and years in print, and meets the standard of a professional publication. Other sources are not being ruled out on these grounds - you are being arbitrary due to clear bias. Much the info being sourced from it can be cross referenced in the other sources listed. No other editor, many quite Da-ist, are having this problem. Tao2911 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the book and it is not published by the college, but it is published by the Mt San Antonio Philosophy Group. It even lists David Lane's personal email as a contact with the publishers info. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When this source was first applied I questioned it as to whether it was a self-published book. It is not i UNverse, but there is some gray area. How would we resolve this? Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Gurdieff Journal is being self-published by this guy, William Patrick Patterson, who according to WP is a spiritual teacher. Check out his Wiki page here:[[1]], which also has a section titled "Gurdieff Journal" Currently his self published views on Adi Da are being used heavily in this article. I count 9 citations. Incidentally, WP allows self published materials that are by the subject of the article, "as long as the article is not based primarily on such sources". See WP:SELFPUB WP largely does not allow un-verified self-published sources to be used in it's articles. see WP:SELFPUBLISH

I used the article because he summarizes info from early editions of Knee of Listening, that I actually confirmed by reading the first edition as well. I used it as source because it is not first person, and confirms first person material. And though it is used, no editorial opinion is used. The info is presented with NPOV. It is not biased in tone or usage - so PLEASE, again, what is your problem in the page, and how then is the source problematice. Your accusations here are just heresay re: Patterson. The journal looks to be professional and respectable. Its editorial stance is not up for debate here. "What is Enlightenment?" magazine for instance would not be in question, though it is the "mouthpiece" for Andrew Cohen. He is controversial, but I wouldn't discount his mag for that, or because he too is a "competing spiritual teacher."Tao2911 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Struggle for neutrality

This is of course the ongoing issue here. Due to the very helpful reminder some months back of some key WP guielines per sources (hopefully tertiary, and secondary when absolutely necessary) a lot of clarity was brought o bear on this page and a lot of original research, interpretation, and first person sourcing has been removed. Adi Da is a difficult figure because he was so controversial, a relatively little independent analysis of his work or life has been written at this time. What has been written reflects the very controversy that he was prone to engender. The entry therefore is going to reflect this to some degree. But without bringing up specific concerns, one cannot simply approach this page and say it is biased. Where is it biased? In all instances of these accusations, editors of late have worked together to find a solution, with sometimes vigorous dispute. But solutions have been reached - mainly by stripping things down to clearly citable facts, with no interp or analysis or weasel words. Editors coming into that process should respect this precedent, and engage with those active currently, bringing up their concerns, and allowing for debate to produce further consensus. I know that I have worked hard to cross reference everything on this page, finding and correcting errant dates or conflicting chronologies. I have appreciated those familiar with his teaching first hand helping remove paradoxical interpretations, and working together to find colloquial versions of ideas that more befit the tone of the whole page. This page is looking great, really, and I don't think its cool for someone to sweep in and slap a bunch of dispute labels on things without making specific allegations and allowing discourse. This is certainly against WP precedent, and the sense of cooperation that has prevailed of late.Tao2911 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed a number of url's to sites such as adidaarchives which are not nuetral nor third party. Left citations relative to the newspapers the quotes are cited from.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 1985, visible tensions emerged when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he allegedly refused to communicate with them.[60]" I have added back in "According to The Lake County News" There is a big differeance between " In 1985, visible tensions emerged " which is stated this is fact and happened vs a newspaper reported this information. IF somthing is reported fine. If it is stated as a fact in the article then it needs to state that it is a reported information by a source. So won't go crazy with this in the article unless it is misleading.23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Riverdale (talk • contribs)

The tags I have added are clearly not drive-by's. I have said that I am challenging your sources as self-published and un-reliable. I am also challenging the use of certain material as violating NPOV. The tags are necessary since you are reverting my edits that are intended on correcting this issue.David Starr 1 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You mention two sources, but not specifically what they are leading to that is questionable. Just because material has a POV doesn't exclude it from use. How is it used? Also, sources should be tertiary if possible, but can not be if info is only available elsewhere - like some of those links to adidarchives, which linked I think simply to Wilber letters or something. I didn't make those links, btw. Take things on case by case - don't rule them out simply because they don't fit some rigid agenda you are executing. As has been discussed here at length, there has been a real attempt to minimize questionable sources, but there are not a plethora of tertiary sources on Adi Da - little to no independent scholarship or analysis - so in some cases there are links to other sources; in all cases these things have been carefully phrased to acknowledge POV. This possibility is granted in the guidelines. Take it CASE BY CASE, not to just support your own biased views and desire for the page.Tao2911 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing someone else's discussion from talk page

Sorry to be off topic here, but Tao2911 just removed my discussion from this talk page and replaced it with his own. See here:[[2]] Removing someones valid comments from a talk page is way beyond acceptable behavioral guidelines, especially when the goal is to censor that persons POV. We should be discussing the merits of the article. Tao2911 has so far reverted all of my edits and removed my comments from the discussion page. He is clearly attempting to prevent me from participating here. My points are valid and based on WP rules and guidelines. I am replacing tags and asking Tao2911 to replace my comments that he has removed. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not do this (removing your comments in talk) - I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, I am simply asking for you to enter this process with respect, and bring up your specific issues here to be discussed. I am not trying to block you - such accusations are not helpful. So address my points please, and take it down a notch.

I removed your flags because you made accusations of bias tone with no specifics. I REVERTED some of your changes to the page because they were out of line. I have discussed my reasons carefully and reasonably here. If I accidentally REVERTED something in talk, it was purely by accident.Tao2911 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, hope you are well. I think perhaps you may have accidentally done it via the practice of adding a response in the middle of another persons entry. What do you think about all of us agreeing not to respond in the middle of someones statement, but instead only responding at the end of someones statement on the talk page? It makes it much easier for others to follow.David Starr 1 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally I think this is a good idea - I'm trying to create new sections in most instances to launch new points, so we don't get these convoluted passages. it does get confusing.Tao2911 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, a precipitous drop in tone!

It has been impressive lately, the way the main current editors here have discussed their differences, and made great strides moving the article towards a GA. But you were out of order Tao, removing another editors entry, no matter how provocative it was, and you should reinstate it. It's sad to see the precipitous drop in tone that has occurred since your confrontational return, David. The article, as you found it, was the current consensus between the regular editors here. You should respect that, and not make changes to the article until you have discussed them here and achieved consensus. I have reverted the article to the last consensual version before you started changing it. Please do not edit war by making further changes to the article without consensus. If consensus cannot be reached on whether certain sources are acceptable, the issues can be referred to the reliable sources noticeboard --Epipelagic (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling all Editors

Dear Editors, we need to be working together instead of playing adolescent games with one another. David Starr, your contributions have been much appreciated in the past, and your knowledge of wiki policy extends beyond my own, and that is something important you bring to this article. I am glad to see you back here, but I would advise you to change your approach. Simply making edits in the article, even while explained in the history, does not work so well here.

Tao used to do this a lot. I also used to do this a lot. And it only ended up setting one another off. If you notice, Tao and I have been working together now, diligently, for really the first time I can remember. And it has been great. It is possible to do this, even when points of view are completely clashing. I would suggest that if you have suggested edits based on wiki policies, and content in this article you find is not NPOV, then please post it here for all of us to see and consider, and then propose an edit. This is a much better way than just going into the article and making changes. I feel it would serve the editorial process of this article much more, and make it into a cohesive rather than a divisive effort, thus yielding real results.

So please, I would like to ask Tao and David to put behind all past history and confrontation, and I would like to ask David Starr, if he is going to be a part of editing this article, to please post things in Discussion before making edits, so all can be discussed here. You may be completely right about what you are saying, but if it isn't clear to all the editors here why you are doing this change, and on what basis, giving us time to read the policies, and see the text in question, then inevitably people will react and jump on it, especially when we have been working together on this article for a while.

The article has been reverted back to where it was before David Starr made any edits, as Epipelagic just stated. Let's work from here, David.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mt. San Antonio College Philosophy Group -- Is it a real publisher?

When I do a search for this publisher I do not get any other books published except David Lane. What comes up is also a link to David Lane's website. Something odd is also happening when I search it on amazon.com in that no books com up with that name.Try other publishers and their books come up/ The ones that come up have Philosophy Group striked out. This needs to be resloved. Any suggestions?Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw another attribution for this as MSA College Press, and planned to go back and correct all the ref attributions when I had the chance. I will look for this source. However, this really doesn't matter - the university has given its name. it is not self-publishing. And the info used for this source is cited and contextualized. I know you don't like those essays - why else is it a problem?Tao2911 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is if you can find another book that is actually published in the exact name by that publisher... fine. It is coming up in a search as directly linked to Lane website and odd things show up in amazon. Perfectly ok question.

"I know you don't like those essays" we are all bias here right... you too! If it is a legit publisher fine ... if not as you always say .... it should not be cited. Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 1985, visible tensions emerged when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he allegedly refused to communicate with them." Tao what is the problem about putting a simple "According to The Lake County News " here. I am not asking for the actual citation to be removed. Just so the line makes it perfectly clear that this is a reported newspaper item. I know it annoys you but it is not an unreasonable request eh.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't include that because it is out of keeping with the article - every single line would then read as "this said" and "that said" and "he said" and "she said" - this is what citations are for. Adding that mention there would be peculiar, and would in itself reveal an editorial bias! In addition, this is why I used the word ALLEGEDLY. The potential for an opposing account is built into the phrasing of the sentence. However, we only have this one source - and it is completely within the guidelines of WP.Tao2911 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree...as I said earlier (and this discussion somehow has also disappeared I am not suggesting that it go in every place. But this statement is misleading without this insertion. So I am going to include it here. This is perfectly within wiki standards.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

its not enough to disagree - describe to me how it is misleading - especially refuting my points above, ie that inclucing this kind of "bracketing" of source info is out of keeping with the entire rest of page, and that the sentence itself says "allegedly", with citation? Tao2911 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, the line states "In 1985, visible tensions emerged when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances," Maybe and maybe not. The way this statement is worded makes it seem like this absolutely happened. While I have appreciated much of what you have done and worked hard on Tao, you are very resistive to any change of wording, treating this like your own personal english composition. . Relax a bit here. This is not major editing but making the statement have balance as to a mere reporting from a newspaper rather than making it seem that this is absolutely true. Citation is there I am not asking for it to be removed. I am not asking for this to be done in all citations. You don't have to control every comma and period here. Make some constructive change if you like to address the issue I am bringing up.Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1985, visible tensions did emerge. Period. Ok, so that is not in dispute. The article reports that devotees requested an audience, and as the rest of the line points out, were "allegedly" refused. Read the whole sentence. Its alleged. The audience request and refusal is being reported in a newspaper article. The possibility of this information being inaccurate or biased is indicated by the "allegedly." I'm not controlling every comma - I'm telling you why you are mistaken, and how your change is problematic and unnecessary. I know you don't like this line. We have been over a few times now. I made changes to reach consensus. We moved on. I want to stop coming back over and over to every line that partisans find offensive, despite citations, and carefully neutral sentence structure.Tao2911 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok how about this controversial "self-published" title, from a (different) university library catalog listing found in one quick google search?

"The socratic universe : interviews with California philosophers"

Other Authors Mount San Antonio College. Philosophy Group.

Imprint:Walnut, Calif. : Mount San Antonio College Philosophy Group, c1995.

Physical Descriptionxv, 96 p. ; 22 cm.

Bibliography Note:Includes bibliographical references (p. 95-96)

ISBN1565430506 (pbk.)

As far as I'm concerned this is the end of this discussion - point is made. This is a reputable college press. If the college lets their name be used, and provides funding (how this works, guys), it is not self-publishing. Both authors in the book in question (Lane and Lowe) are published PhD religions professors at different universities. They're views are contextualized as having POV. Source is not in doubt. Done.Tao2911 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, another listing: "Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones. Co-authored by Scott Lowe and David Lane. Walnut, CA: Mt. San Antonio College Philosophy Group, 1996. (Reviewed in Nova Religio, v. 1, n. 1, October 1997, p. 153.)" As ref'd already on page, the book was even reviewed by another university journal, Nova Religio, by USC religions prof. This point is now thoroughly made.Tao2911 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying this!Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... today I called the Mount San Antonio College to find out about their press, Mount San Antonio College. Philosophy Group. I talked to several departments including Social Sciences. The person there a Miss Gracias, said that NO such press exist at the college there. When I asked her how come there are two books with that name she said "Perhaps a professor published his own book" but there was definitely no official publisher there by that nameJason Riverdale (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

again this remains hearsay. I work in academia - you can't legally use the name of the school without some kind of backing. You can get into huge trouble - including losing your job. No one is arguing this is a huge important publisher. The only question is whether it qualifies as "not self-published". It has the school's name, it's published other scholarly texts that are in other school libraries. The only essay cited in WP entry is by Scott Lowe, and he is not affiliated in any way with this school. he teaches in Wisconsin I believe - that right there is not self-published (the essay was requested by the editor, as is explained). Beyond that, his citations are in one case a quote, and in another neutral and cited. His is a PhD in Asian Religions. He is one of the only first hand accounts of time with Da in the 70's that is independently published, ref'd by other sources used on page, and trying to exclude him reeks of unbridled bias.Tao2911 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, it seems to me that it is okay to use the Lane book. — goethean ॐ 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the press has hits on Books In Print which to me says that it is a real publisher. [3] — goethean ॐ 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the lead section

My apologies to all of you for the roughness of my approach. Thank you for the constructive criticism. I appreciate your call for consensus and will also abide by that guideline. Again my apologies. I hope you won't mind if I bring up a few problems that I am having with the lead section.

"His early books gained praise from respected authorities in religion and philosophy, including Alan Watts and Ralph Metzner.[6] In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community.[7][8][9]" Source #6 is an amazon.com page showing a picture of the Knee of Listening. Where is a source connecting Ralph Metzner with Adi Da?

Increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community are exceptional claims. :WP:REDFLAG says " Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." The sources for these claims are a broken link for viceland.com, a self- published booklet titled "DA: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones" by the Mt. San Antonio College Philosophy Group, and a non linked reference to Ken Wilber online. I do not feel like these references are high-quality sources at all. I also feel that using these statements in the lead are not in keeping with WP:Undue and WP:NPOV, as one persons statements, (Ken Wilber) should not define Adi Da in the lead section, and also I believe these statements are being included in the lead to further an agenda. What say ye? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

many have argued these points, leveled these criticisms. These accusations are prevalent - and discussed throughout the rest of the article. Come on, now. Having one line overview of the criticisms of Da is only reasonable. What isn't is to pretend that these accusations are NOT in 1000 sources online, elsewhere, many of them authoritative - including the multiple ref's cited. Every news story confirms this - this is almost always how is contextualized. I will perhaps link the wilber (its quoted in reception)- we all know what he said. Feuerstein (you are not questioning him as source, nor can you), Lane and Lowe (critical essays now established as legit publisher), Wilber (good enough for Da/Adidam until he grew critical), the Vice article (major monthly pub), former devotees, cult watch groups (rick ross, linked at bottom of page, not by me), every news article alluding to such accusations (quoted throughout page), on and on. Come on - you don't like the accusations. Fine. But we must acknowledge that they exist, and are indeed persistent. Your good faith would better demonstrated if you followed up and tried to help cite or fix things that you have questions about, rather than just remove them (say, like the Metzner ref - it is somewhere surely.) And the other thing - I cited the sources of the criticisms. You are telling me that you don't want citations for the line mentioning that there are critics, because they aren't NPOV? That is simply absurd; it makes no sense. Of course they aren't NPOV. The line is about them being critical!!! Not only that, but when citations weren't sufficient, JR requested that I add more, including the Vice article link. I don't know abt it not working - it worked before.Tao2911 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised above. I simply have not looked into the article at the level of sources, and policies. I don't have the time, so I am glad you do.

My suggestion is that we all come up with a Lead, in accordance with wiki policy, together. Perhaps you can begin drafting this with quality sources, and everyone here including Tao can offer criticism, content, suggestions, etc. I think that will be the only way to make it work, otherwise we will just have endless back and forth, each one unconsciously (or subconsciously) trying to push their own agenda, emotion, and point of view relative to this article. We must help balance each other, and make compromises for the sake of neutrality. The bickering and highly reactive approach simply has to stop, it is not fruitful, it has filled countless pages of Discussion thus far, and gotten the article back to square one each time.

So with that basis already established, let's consider what will work as a Lead, then.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem - Starr has a pattern of misusing policies and removing sources that he simply finds disagreeable, in order to remove critical perspectives on this page. I have carefully found sources both pro and con, and for every negative or potentially critical view I have in the same passage presented the reverse, in every case. Starr calling into question the whole page, sewing these seeds of doubt regarding the viability of the page even among admittedly partisan editors who have up to now been constructively active, is an unfortunate development. As is the attempt to demonize me. But whatever. lets stick to the points, folks.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, I am hoping that you will address the specific issues that I have brought up above. I think that they are reasonable issues and should be argued on their merits. Simply casting doubt on me personally isn't really going to work. Even if we find that the sources are qualified, there is still the issue of balance in the lead which currently is weighted pretty negatively with both the inclusion of the controversies summary and the issues I have raised above. In addition to the issues I have raised above, Who are the "some" who "perceived his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community"? This is a weasel word. See WP:WEASEL David Starr 1 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My final word on this here will just be to point out again how the passage is framed by the statement "criticized for what some perceived as..." I think that line quite deftly encapsulates a common characterization, maybe best summed up in the Wilber and Feurstein comments (discussed at length later in the page), but also by news articles and others. It says what some perceive and state, and then it references those persons comments/sources. It is in no way make an editorial comment on Da, or those persons. Remember, the lead is an overview. Each point in lead is fleshed out in later sections - but each is nonetheless carefully cited in lead as well.Tao2911 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

I am removing the POV flag on this article until specific allegations re: bias are listed here in talk and can be discussed. The flag colors the article in a negative light - it was added by Starr without making specific allegations - but simply his questioning two sources that are demonstrably not self-published.

So I request that specific instances of BIAS are shown here - not simply (cited) contextualized mentions of incidents or accusations in the article that offend the POV of certain persons (which in all cases are phrased to be "alleged" etc). Again, there has been hard work put in on this page - it has been carefully crafted to neutrally voice all POV, and briefly but thoroughly present an overview of Adi Da, neutrally. The flag is an unfair and unreasonable negation of these efforts, which have on the whole been very effective.Tao2911 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Tao is saying here. Let questionable phrases be posted here for discussion, so we can all see it. If someone feels it is violating a specific wiki policy, then let's all look at it, and see if we agree with that interpretation.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the two sources (Gurd. Journal and MSAPG) in question have been shown to be within WP standards for independent tertiary sources, which is the primary stipulation - not how much one likes the material or the quality of the writing or how often they publish or the color of the cover etc. Please let us discuss specific instances of alleged bias in the article, and move past this source discussion. Starr's tactic is try to remove cherry picked information by discounting the source. I want to know what specific lines are problematic, and deal with those. I challenge anyone to find an instance of bias here that is not balanced by an opposing view, or where it is not phrased as to indicate that assertions are specific to source or individual; and in all cases these are reported in tertiary sources and not based on original research or interpretation. Tao2911 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, specific lines, we have to get really clear on anything that is questionable, if someone thinks there is something biased, non-NPOV, etc. The "make 30 edits" approach simply does not work, and cannot work.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Gurdieff Journal is definitely self published and it's being used as a source for contentious claims. But mainly it seems that there is an idea here that if you have a source for something, then it's fair game for inclusion. But thats not how it works. Verifiability is only one consideration. Neutrality, including undue weight, is another. So when talking about someone who started a new religion, why are we listing the brand of cough syrup he once drank in the early 60's? Why are we mentioning that he had a hard time giving it up? And why are we using self-published sources to even bring it into the article in the first place?

In addition to the passage in the lead that I feel is biased, I object to the following inclusions: -

Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He also took part in hallucinogenic drug trials which included mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were being conducted at the local Veterans Administration hospital (where novelist Ken Kesey also participated in tests). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating," but described struggling in efforts to quit.

The source here is "The Gurdjieff Journal," Gurdjieff & The New Age Part IX, Franklin Jones & Rudi Part I, by William Patrick Patterson, which is published by William Patrick Patterson. The line "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward" is not verifiable and I believe it to be inaccurate. Saying he described struggling in efforts to quit, suffers from undue weight, and is proposed for inclusion I believe to cast doubt onto Adi Da's character. As simply a source of information about the subject it is irrelevant.

In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged. A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."

Here, using Free John as a casual somewhat disrespectful tone is a way of injecting bias. The article is about Adi Da. The amount of detail here, saying switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe by including it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Free John was how he was called at that time. The bio now follows his shifts in title/name, per other WP bio precedents. The mention of sexuality, as discussed before you reappeared, is the first time this has ever been authoritatively addressed in this page. it is clearly the most controversial time in his oeuvre, described as such by his own spokespersons, who often have excused later accusations of abuse as stemming from this period. the citation is authoritative, and specific. You have a clear pattern fo trying to remove negative mentions, so that things become vague and nebulous. here. it is made specific, from a tertiary source. It is balanced with a Da source to explain that "experimentation" occurred. It is needed in the bio to explain timeline of events. It is further explained in legal accusations, but not in specifics. When I came to this page 18 months ago, I was aware that there were allegations - i wondered when, where, why. Subsequently, exploring these sources as cited throughout this page, I have come to realize there was a clear chronology. The "crazy wisdom" section helps in this regard as well. The whole page is of a piece. If someone were to read the whole thing, they would I believe get a balanced view of the figure, as he has been reported in various tertiary sources - news, legal proceedings, articles, analysis, and self-assessment by himself and followers - in a timeline. So - the Garbage period is crucial. What Feuerstein is quoted as describing about it is not hearsay - it is supported by many follower's accounts, both lapsed and current. Articles support this. It is not excessive. it is brief and a quoted tertiary source. I will strenuously defend its inclusion on these grounds.Tao2911 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE : Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. An entire book was written about the Garbage and the Goddess period which had various significant importances to the religion of that Adi Da created. So why the focus on the sexual aspect? And why in such great detail? The only reason I can come up with is to inject bias. The sexual issue was not the subject of the Garbage and the Goddess period. Undue weight means that you are focusing or highlighting some aspect of an event that has very little actual significance to the subject of the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"an entire book" was NOT written about the G&G period. A now out of print book (removed from later Adidam bibliographies of his books) was created from some of the (heavily edited, according Saniel Bonder/Feurstein) lectures Jones gave at that time called "G&G." This period is arguably the MOST important in terms of the amount of controversy created - which is how Da is framed from word one on the WP page, which accurately reflects his stature in the culture. He is controversial. No dispute. The sexual aspects are a major reason for this controversy. Therefore their inclusion in sensible. They actually deserve greater coverage - and get it, in the legal section, and Crazy Wisdom section. Adidam says there that ALL the behavior alleged in the lawsuits stems from this period, and therefore the statute of limitations had run out. This is one of their defenses. The bio tells what this period was - as do all Adidam chronologies. One line describing why this period is so incendiary is warranted. Adidam spokepeople/lawyers/members from that time do not dispute that those behaviors occurred, only saying that they stopped. Also, mentions of polygamy are commonly mentioned in interviews and news reports, as well as Lowe's first hand account. They are framed as such in page. this is all significant because Jones/Adi Da was a spiritual leader, teacher, and self-proclaimed holy person - a "god man." To not mention that these behaviors may have occurred, as reported in major media and countless reports, is to not accurately reflect his stature in the culture, or give a sufficient overview of the man. For good or ill, the allegations (and admissions) exist - it becomes important because of Da's self-declared role. A general audience will want to know that a religious figure engaged in such activities, or simply that such allegations so widely exist (be it Jimmy Swaggart, a dalai lama (the 5th), a Zen master, or a pope. Funny, there are examples of controversial sexual behavior for each...) This is how he is known. This is a reasonable summation looking at the existing coverage and tertiary info on the guy.Tao2911 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Magioladitis

for ref./formatting cleanup - I was hoping someone would do all that.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted passages in question/Drug quotes from Knee 1972

I just wanted to clarify changes I just made to the 'divine emergence' section. I could see how sentences left room for some misinterp that was bugging Dev and JR, so I shifted some things. In particular, I wanted to head off misunderstanding about the substitution of 'near-death' for less concise "death and rebirth" of the original source article. I have actually heard this point discussed by scientists, in that while it may seem to the subject that they've seemingly died and been reborn, since they've not terminally "died" (clearly), the experience is always termed 'near-death.' There is a nifty page about this that I linked to, which is very much on topic I think. Hope this helps.Tao2911 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, added more info about VA drug tests, with links. While the CIA mention may seem potentially controversial, while quickly checking on the exact name and location of the hospital I noticed that everything I came across mentioned these as MKULTRA tests, including the Kesey page that is linked. I added ref from the MK page to cover that base. I think mentioning Kesey in the same breath heads off potential accusations of slant, whathaveyou, ie no implication Jones was anything more than just another "test subject."Tao2911 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From page 155 of The Knee of Listening:

"Such remarkable states of uncommon awareness combined with my rising sense of anxiety, fear, and reluctance in relation to drugs--such that, finally, in the early summer of 1965, I determined to somehow stop their use.

I decided that I would deliberately take a drug for the last time. I would not simply stop using drugs before a last, bravely intentional try. I did not want fear to be my motive for stopping my experiment with drugs. Thus, I bought two large capsules of mescalin, and Nina and I went to spend the Fourth of July weekend at the summer home of a friend on the south shore of Long Island.

I was quite anxious, and I delayed the taking of the drug for several hours. nina decided she did not want to take the drug, and so I gave it to a young man who was also present, the friend of my friend. My friend, Larry, took several capsules of peyote. I shuffled through all my cautions. Then I downed my last capsule of drugs with abandon. It was to be the most terrifying experience of my life."

I do appreciate your effort and clarification of the drug trials, and also the Divine Emergence paragraph. I agree that mentioning Ken Kesey levels it out. Adi Da never found drugs to be "self-validating" nor did he struggle to quit. In fact, it was Rudi who told him to stop, and he did immediately. However, you have an apparent source (Gurjieff Journal) with this information, and it is verifiable in the sense that anyone can go and see that it is written there, so regardless of it's untruth, it just may have to stay in the article.

But the whole thing is painted like a positive for Adi Da, which it really was not altogether, if you read his experiences of them. The passage I quoted above being the most revealing of his final viewpoint on drug use.--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a passage in the 1st ed of Knee where he is studying with Rudi, and wishes to finally stop using (pot and psychedelics) and has some difficulty. I will find the passage and quote here. Also, he talks about the cough syrup episode, etc and he actually uses the phrase "self-validating" in Knee (hence quotes). This is also I believed quoted in another source - clearly from 1st ed of Knee. The passage in Knee is quite similar to how it is phrased in the page - that he found drug use helpful for a time, "self-validating" and helping to remind him of childhood experiences of awareness and bliss (I think many people would say something quite similar.) But later he became attached to their use, and struggled when in NYC to completely stop. Sources back this up. Will find quote soon.Tao2911 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, well that is fine then. Not a huge deal, but I wouldn't mind seeing some balance relative to the fact that it wasn't all good 'ole fun.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is also I believed quoted in another source - clearly from 1st ed of Knee. The passage in Knee is quite similar to how it is phrased in the page - that he found drug use helpful for a time, "self-validating" and helping to remind him of childhood experiences of awareness and bliss (I think many people would say something quite similar.)" Tao this in fact is the accurate description of why he found it "self validating" Let me know if you find the source. I have a friend who has a used bookstore and I think he has a copy of that edition of The Knee of Listening... thanks for cooperation here. Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as to this inclusion. I have detailed my objections in the section above. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the passage, chapter 4 1st ed of Knee: "In the midst of my year at Stanford I had occasion to use marijuana again. And I took a formula cough medicine called "Romilar" that had very remarkable effects if taken in large doses...I found that the dose of "Romilar" had no effect whatsoever in terms of a "high" if I spent my time at a party or in conversation with others. But if, after an hour or so, I went out alone and walked in a natural environment, particularly among trees, a profound state would come over me... in the state produced by "Romilar" I became deeply relaxed, mentally and physically...I thought this state must be the same condition described as Nirvana in the Buddhist texts. That state seemed to me true, even though artificially induced. It was very similar to the natural condition I called the "bright," and it duplicated quite exactly, although more calmly, the structure of my experience during my college awakening. It was on the basis of such self-validating experiences that I openly desired to experience the effects of the "new" drugs, LSD, mescalin and psilocibin. And so, just prior to Nina's return, and for several weeks thereafter, I voluntarily submitted to drug trials at the V.A. hospital..." Also, I adjusted the passage to say that he ultimately found the use of such substances "limited". Does that cover your concerns Dev?Tao2911 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I found this passage rather droll: "There was Ken Kesey, a novelist who had written at the Stanford workshop and who has since gained notoriety as an exponent of drug culture. He was rather incommunicative, but we smoked marijuana together and listened to random tape recordings while we watched the silent images on his television set. I gave him two of our cats."Tao2911 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Struggles to quit": This is all after Rudi has encouraged Jones to quit drugs - "By the spring of 1965 I had begun to use marijuana frequently. I found it relaxing and particularly necessary under the pressure of work and effort that Rudi required. But the drug began to have a peculiarly negative effect. When I would smoke it... I would realize a profound anxiety and fear.

I took other drugs with my old friends. We took Romilar again, but now its effects seemed minor. We found the city atmosphere aggravating, in contrast to the natural and beautiful setting of California. We began to turn on and spend our time yearning to return to the ocean and the forests.

I took a drug called DMT which had a remarkable and miraculous effect. I became visibly aware of the nature of space and matter. Time disappeared, and space and matter revealed themselves as a single, complicated mass or fluid...Such remarkable states of awareness combined with my rising sense of anxiety, fear and reluctance in relation to drugs, so that finally, in the early summer of 1965, I determined somehow to stop their use." he has some bad trips and finally does - "My efforts, internal and external, were profoundly magnified by this freedom from the need to indulge myself in drug experiences or any other kind of stimulation." This is all in Chapter 8.

I have the first edition of The Knee of Listening, published by the CSA Press. None of this material is in there. Are you perhaps quoting from some other source? I believe that this material must be coming from the un-published manuscript of the Knee of Listening. Is that true? As an un-published manuscript, it definitely would not be allowed under WP:verifiability. In the first edition of The Knee of Listening that I have, Chapter 4 has only 16 paragraphs and is only 7 pages long. None of this material is in there. I don't even know if you can excerpt legally from an un-published work. I believe that Fair Use only applies to copyrighted, published materials. Furthermore, there would be no way to verify that the copy that you have is correct. There would be no way to verify such text.David Starr 1 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all right here: http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/KneeofListening/book/tableofcontents.html I have a print version too, that despite some typos on web, is the same.Tao2911 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Picture

Dev- can you find an authorized pic of Da from 1990's? I added that one that has been removed, but I didn't have time to get all the copyright issue worked out. Maybe if you could do that? I think having a "classic"one similar to the one I inserted - you know, shirtless, slightly round, meditating? That is even how he is depicted in devotional sculptures etc. Just to cover a period from baby to "elderly pensive." You know, real "god-man era" stuff, with glasses and all.Tao2911 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The copyright holder at the Dawn Horse Press has to send a special write-up granting permission to Wiki Commons for use of any photographs. So it is not easy, and rather complex. I have worked this in the past, so I can try to get a picture. I feel doubtful that a picture such as the one you put up (popular amongst negative websites) would be easy to obtain permission for. But I will see what I can do.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also a subject in drug trials for mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were part of a CIA project called MK-ULTRA,

I think Tao if you are going to make major additions such as this without discussion and without sources for such a claim while I am supposed to go through seven or eight back and forths just to make one small change then there is something wrong here. What's your specific proof that the Menlo Park drug trials were part of MK-ULTRA? Or do you just assume that all the government drug trials were part of MK-ULTRA? And I thought we weren't making such additions without discussion? Are we interested in being accurate at all? Or is it just about spreading rumor? David Starr 1 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making assertions or adding new info, I'm clarifying the data that is already present. The tests at Menlo Park hospital were run by the CIA; the project was called MKULTRA. I went simply to find out at which hospital the tests took place, going from "ner Stanford" to "local" to "menlo park." There were then numbers of sources that revealed this extra detail. Link to kesey. There it is, and elsewhere. It is cited, and not in dispute.Tao2911 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, if you don't have a source that specifically says Adi Da's drug tests were run by the CIA, then it's original research, you know that. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All psychedelic drug trials at Menlo Park were run by the CIA, as the ref's cite. Jones himself described being involved in the same tests as Kesey, and Kesey spoke at length about the tests CIA origins. but no matter. Check the citations, and the internal links. they tell the story. It's not original research.Tao2911 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this fact ie CIA relevant to this article? Except... perhaps the editor who inserted it to impose extreme bias in the article. It is totally irreverent to this article and should be removed. Way off here Tao. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter Tao if your source says that, it's still original research. The source has to bring in Adi Da specifically. We aren't here to put such things together ourselves. Wikipedia does not publish original research. I'm not finding mention of the Menlo Park VA in there either. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources say that Jones participated in the same hospital and tests as Kesey. That hospital is Menlo Park VA - accuracy is helpful. Menlo Park tests were conducted by CIA. Why is this a fact a problem? I don't get it. I think it's interesting, and posits Jones into his milieu. I didn't research any of this - drug tests, kesey, VA, CIA, all cited, internal links, that cross reference. A + B = C is not original research. It's simple fact.Tao2911 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From Gurjieff Journal article: "He, like Ken Kesey (who gave his own account in his One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and many others, volunteered as a subject for drug experiments at the nearby Veterans Administration Hospital. During a six- week period he was given LSD, mescalin and psilocybin." That hospital was in Menlo Park. Those tests were run by the CIA. That project was called MKULTRA.Tao2911 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But frankly, I'm not that attached to this info. The link to kesey provides the info - so I'll remove it.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing 3rd party cited material WITHOUT any discussion

This section is identical to section below, with some added comments below. Must have been cut/pasted by Starr in his attempts to clean-up(?) talk. So I'm removing here - see "overall view/bright..." heading.Tao2911 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal references

Here are the references for that GJ article, and why I used it for the bio:

"Notes

1. Quiet, long-suffering, fathered mother. Jones, 1992 edition of The Knee of Listening (Los Angeles: Dawn Horse Press, 1992 edition), p. 34.

2. Drug experiments. Franklin Jones, Knee of Listening, 1972 edition, pp. 17-18.

3. A mass of gigantic thumbs. Jones, pp. 20-21.

4. A largely unconscious or preconscious logic or structure. Jones, p. 16.

5. Universally adored child of the gods. Jones, p. 26.

6. Libertine, drinker. Jones, 1992 edition of The Knee of Listening, p. 140

7. Are you an adept at this yoga? Jones, pp. 99–100.

8. A man of great passions and appetites. Jones, 1992 edition of The Knee of Listening, p. 158.

9. Rudi’s tendency. Jones, p. 52."

This is just the first of three sections of the article. He simply uses Knee in different editions to compile a thorough bio. Later, he uses Rudi's own books as well. So, tertiary source doing some useful research for the page.Tao2911 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This GJ article also quotes the LCN article at length that has been the cause of some dispute. I've highlighted the qualifications for all assertions that reflect the article's neutrality and journalistic orientation:

"Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in with little regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development…In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to this suffering a major breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.” —Lake County News, December 7, 2008"

We have further worked together here to make info even more neutral. I do not see anything in this article I have not seen asserted in other sources, some of which do not meet the standards of WP source material. However, this source does, and the other article on Da from LCN is not in dispute. This source is not used as a primary one for most of the page. However, it is one of the only newspapers articles we have on Da, and it should be used, especially as it is the only tertiary source we have on the significant "lawsuits "Divine Emergence"" period.Tao2911 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall View/"Bright Since Birth" mention

I wanted to point out that the very first line in this page has always said (from the first creation of this page) that Adi Da is "controversial." That's never been in debate. A following quote, quite astutely characterizes him as seemingly sometimes "outrageous." he certainly was at times. His own followers embrace this, and call him "radical," in every way.

Why then is he controversial? Certain persons have continued to try to remove any mention of anything but some lawsuits (and at times, even those.) The lawsuits were not the beginning or end of his controversial reputation. Removing all assertions that help explain this lead simply isn't in keeping with an encyclopedic entry. I think we now have a number of specific tertiary sourced events, in a timeline, that helps explain this reputation, without bias and without some seeming duck and cover dance that I found very frustrating when I originally came to this page looking for a single source overview. Without getting into unsubstantiated claims of abuse or wild behavior (of which there are many right to his last days) we now have enough info to at least allude to why he gained this appellation or reputation.

These mentions are balanced with accomplishments, relationships, individuals, moves, development, positive as well as negative analysis, and self-assessment. I hope we can resolve remaining disagreement on specific lines in question, and then let this page rest. The longer it can remain stable, the more trustworthy is becomes. I think it is showing vast improvement, and resolves many of the disputes of the past.Tao2911 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, you removed cited material and ereased discussion you did not like. Your not getting it ...to quote you " Please discuss the changes you wish to make here - Please bring up your individual points here for discussion - then changes can be agreed on as a group." When someone does this to areas you have written you react. This does not have to do with your idears or sense of what should or should not be in the article. It has to do with vandalism and edit waring .... period. Please reinsert what you vandalised and let's have a dialog. For the most part, at least Dev and I have been willing to discuss and consider things that perhaps we did not agreed with, with you. We have done this without making any changes until some agreement was reached. Certainly you can do the same. You made changes without ANY dicusssion nor indication why nor allowing to a consensus to be reached. What is that about and how do you expect dialog etc as you so proudly boast yourself of being fair and balanced when you do not do this yourself. Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding erasing stuff in Talk. As I said above, if I accidentally erased something here, it may have been while trying to revert a bunch of edits Starr made to the main page. I have not ever intentionally edited talk. Who cares about the chat record? I clearly have no problem with just arguing the points, and I have honored your suggestions in many demonstrated cases by making changes to suit you both, and have commended you both on your participation. I'd love to have all of Starr's biases on the table and have no interest in getting rid of anything he, or you, has to say.

I noticed that Starr made a bunch of edits in comments - I thought he was just trying to restore something lost, but check there if you are missing something too. Again, this assertion is simply ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

And again - that 'bright since birth' business was moved weeks ago. it was one of the first changes when the bio underwent overhaul. I am not in any way opposed to that info being in the 'teaching' section. I think it is there in some way, but feel free to make a clearer mention of it if you see it necessary. but not in the bio. It doesn't fit.

I made changes that greatly improved the page. I explained each as it went along, and as Talk will attest, many of these points were discussed, changes were made to suit all parties, and consensus was reached. Starr reappeared, slapped a bunch of POV labels on things, tried to remove sourced info, and yes, now we are in a period where we had better run changes by everyone here in talk first to reach consensus. For a time, this did not prove itself absolutely necessary in all cases.Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's do this. I will work on adding some things back in that were taken out and post it in discussion. The we can come to agreement on it. It will probably be next week since I have work coming up. I do understand and agree that just sticking a quote in the bio about "The Bright does not work. Give me a chance to work on it and will submit it in the discussion section.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added simply that he claimed to have existed in the bright since birth in the teaching section. It makes good sense there and fits perfectly in the line already there about what the bright is. Could use a specific citation. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurjieff Journal

I would like to paste David Starr's comments from above here. I strongly agree with his comments, and would like to see them addressed. The source in question, Gurdjieff Journal, must be determined to be a reliable source or an invalid source, before anything more happens. It is clearly a biased article, I've read the stuff on the Journal, it is undeniably negative. That already ruins it's credibility for use in this article, to support NPOV content.

There is bias in this article, and Tao you have to be willing to face your own bias. I have eaten a lot at this point, admitted my own biases, accepted your edits of highly critical and questionable content, accepting lack of sources for balancing content, and simply gone with it and tried my best to work in cooperation with you to keep this article neutral. So far, so good. But Starr is raising a real issue here and everyone needs to look at it and according edits should be made. I would like for wikipedia admin to step up and shed some light on this Gurdjieff source.

"I strongly disagree. Gurdieff Journal is definitely self published and it's being used as a source for contentious claims. But mainly it seems that there is an idea here that if you have a source for something, then it's fair game for inclusion. But thats not how it works. Verifiability is only one consideration. Neutrality, including undue weight, is another. So when talking about someone who started a new religion, why are we listing the brand of cough syrup he once drank in the early 60's? Why are we mentioning that he had a hard time giving it up? And why are we using self-published sources to even bring it into the article in the first place?

In addition to the passage in the lead that I feel is biased, I object to the following inclusions: - Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He also took part in hallucinogenic drug trials which included mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were being conducted at the local Veterans Administration hospital (where novelist Ken Kesey also participated in tests). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating," but described struggling in efforts to quit.[8][9]

The source here is "The Gurdjieff Journal," Gurdjieff & The New Age Part IX, Franklin Jones & Rudi Part I, by William Patrick Patterson, which is published by William Patrick Patterson. The line "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward" is not verifiable and I believe it to be inaccurate. Saying he described struggling in efforts to quit, suffers from undue weight, and is proposed for inclusion I believe to cast doubt onto Adi Da's character. As simply a source of information about the subject it is irrelevant. In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged.[10] A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."[11] Here, using Free John as a casual somewhat disrespectful tone is a way of injecting bias. The article is about Adi Da. The amount of detail here, saying switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe by including it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader."--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already made my points about this clear. I won't go over them again in detail. GJ meets all criteria of a professional publication. The Feuerstein quote is offensive to you because you are a devotee. I think it clarifies the allegations of abuse etc, controversy etc. It is quoted, cited, and given an explanatory line from Adidam. The source for the drug stuff is not GJ - it is Knee 1972, as quoted above at length above(did you read it)? GJ is a tertiary source summarizing the material. That is the only reason it is added. Take it out there -just cite knee 1972. In fact, I will do so. The passage still stands. Drugs were significant part of his early journey, as he attests, and gives it lengthy passages in most early chapters in Knee 1972. it suits the chronology. i don't see why you see it as so negative. i took psychedelics. Didn't you? Didn't everyone interested in spirituality in 1965? Would you remove Ram Dass LSD experiences? Come on...

I don';t know what more of Starr's complaint you want to address - you can't just keep repasting that. he says like 6 differrent things, and I've said my peace about all of them, a few times now. So be specific, and we'll deal with one by one. Again.Tao2911 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Tao It's not enough to just say "GJ meets all criteria of a professional publication". You are being challenged on this point and I believe that you need to show or prove in some way that GJ is not self-published by William Patrick Patterson. But even if it is a reliable source, these inclusions may still violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. But the point is if these inclusions are noteworthy, there should be a source that is reliable for them and a way of including them with neutral tone. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire - I think it is up to you to show that it is "self published." It has other authors. It is a print pub, with back issues for purchase, a website, is cited elsewhere online, in other pubs. To all appearances it is totally legit. This is no xeroxed 'zine.' Who are you to judge? What kind of authority are you? I maintain that you are simply finding excuses to discount others' work due to your bias. AND I WILL ASK YET AGAIN. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE TEXT? WHAT ARE YOUR DISPUTES? AGAIN - AGAIN - THE SOURCE IS ONLY USEFUL IN THAT IT COMPILES INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT EDITIONS OF "KNEE" WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. WHEN WILL YOU ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS? YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER.Tao2911 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding

Garbage and Goddess mention should stay - it's short, cited, balanced, and reasonable. It IS NOT covered in Controversy section - that is about lawsuits, and doesn't reflect how his teaching methods/lifestyle involved activities that would result in lawsuits etc. It reflects his "crazy wisdom" period, in a timeline. Partisans don't like it because it sounds racy. However, you can't talk about Da in the 1970's without talking about that period. Every other source does, specifically - Wilber, Feuerstein, news articles, etc. How do you explain going to those sources all mentioning this period and then not having in a bio overview? you don't just get to have the bits you find acceptable with "your" Adi Da. I have worked really hard to (as I've said) balance every "controversial" line with something to counterweight it. Not to mention the statement is TRUE. Those facts are CITED, IN QUOTES, BY AN ACCEPTED TERTIARY SOURCE that no one disputes. YOU CAN"T REMOVE THEM with vandalizing the page. The page doesn't make a value judgment about the behavior. Are you arguing these things didn't occur? The source says different. You can't do research.

Oh yeah, re MSACPG, calling the college is original research, btw. Who knows that you talked to the right person etc. Hearsay on your part. We solved this already - when I gave examples of other books and you said "ok, thanks for resolving that"? There are other books, with ISBNs, in other library collections from them, and reviews from other scholars in other journals of the book in question. Enough. The authors both have PhDs in religion, are respected published scholars, and they wrote critically of Adi Da - so what? Why are you trying so damn hard to find reasons to censor them? This is not the place for a book burning.

This pattern of behavior is wildly censorious. Every single fact or instance that sheds Da in a light certain editors subjectively find offensive (what's wrong with sex, or drugs, btw? Da himself said we had to get over our hang ups) is now under attack, by just undermining sources? Low. But typical. It's been going on since the page was first made. I will stand by these facts, by simply sticking to WP guidelines. they are tertiary source cited, they are posed neutrally, they are balanced when needed with opposing views.Tao2911 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE : Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

An entire book was written about the Garbage and the Goddess period which had various significant importances to the religion that Adi Da created. So why the focus on the sexual aspect? And why in such great detail? The only reason I can come up with is to inject bias. The sexual issue was not the subject of the Garbage and the Goddess period. Undue weight means that you are focusing or highlighting some aspect of an event that has very little actual significance to the subject of the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The sexual thing is because that is what is described in the tertiary source, and the line follows the previous line that they experimented in communal living and "sometimes created controversy." (why am I bothering to explain - you don't ever seem to actually read my responses, or respond to them.) What kind of controversy? Well, they regularly drank, took drugs, had group sex and made pornos. That's significant behavior for a religious group. It is given one single line. How is this undue weight? This is the info a lay audience wants to know, needs to know, because it is alluded to in so many other sources. The source is not in question - Feuerstein is indisputable as source. Find another tertiary source who describes something about the teaching, and include it in the 'teachings' section. But I think the "crazy wisdom" passage in 'teaching' explains this fully. its why I added it - it includes him saying he "generally" no longer uses such methods. But he did use them. You have to be nuts not to think that deserves mention. As I said, anyone who has ever written about his has mentioned these excesses. Over and over Adidam has been forced to respond, and such instances are cited. They 'experimented." Ok, what's the problem? Oh, I know what the problem is. You don't want a truthful balanced overview - you want hagiography. Well, you can't have that. That's what Adidam.org is for.Tao2911 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Lake County News" not a reliable source?

Lake County News is not and has never been a published print newspaper. The published print newspaper in Lake County is the Lake County Record Bee which is also published online [4]. I was concerned when I read one of the entries from Lake County News (pasted here to the talk page) which seemed to source fringe websites that carry heavy disclaimers as to their factual validity, (which is the only place you would find "having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers.")

There is no print newspaper who would state this as fact in this kind of biased language. Lake County News is not listed with the Library of Congress the way that the Mill Valley Record is, just as an example. [5] Compare the "contact us" page from the Record Bee [6] to the contact us page at Lake County News [7]

I am concerned that "Lake County News" is not a reliable source as per WP standards. It appears to be a self-published online only newspaper with little or no editorial oversight. If these claims about Adi Da are the prevailing view, why then can they only be found in fringe, self-published, or otherwise unreliable sources? Also from WP:RS, While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

In the article the Lake County News is being used as a source for this inclusion:

In 1985, visible tensions emerged after a number of ex-devotees allegedly requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them.[41] As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church. Adi Da did not personally address any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond. He emerged from apparent seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a near-death experience that he found especially significant, calling it the “Divine Emergence.”[42]

I am challenging the non-neutral tone of this entry per WP:NPOV, its verifiability under WP:RS, and I feel it is factually incorrect. I would like to remove it. At this point I feel a responsibility to tag this article for factual accuracy and non-neutral POV. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...which is the only place you would find "having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers." No, that is not the only place; you find all of those same allegations in the lawsuits, lower down on the main page, in all those citations and links and news reports. Remember those? And in Feuersteins' book, Lane's first hand account from living with him, endless interviews in the SF Chronicle etc. Are you serious? You must just be messing with us. You can't believe the things you are saying here.Tao2911 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You conveniently cut the citation where they qualify all of this as "alleged." They don't write its true. Nifty, and again, convenient.

Not in the Library of Congress? Oh my god! Burn the page down. (btw, I think you've tried to rule out the Mill Valley paper before when it was used to report "negative" facts about Da - now you use it as standard? Again, convenient...) Pro-Daists have been perfectly happy to use that source to quote the interview with followers; or cite the sympathetic story about his death. The source seems sound. Judging by the writing, I would call it similar to any small local newspaper - as much as I can tell. I'm not positing myself as an authority. I'm just a regular, unaffiliated guy, with regular standards (seems it might make my opinion valid here).

The fact that it may not be in print (I have no way to verify this) means less and less every minute of every day. The standards are changing; print is no longer the, or soon even a, major criteria - and when there is so little tertiary info on Da, we have to take what we can get if it meets general standards. Again, WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO JUDGE THE EDITORIAL OVERSIGHT OF THE LAKE COUNTY NEWS? According to their "contact" page? Huh? If the source is good for some stories, and I believe it is, then it is acceptable. Plus, the info cited (from a source known for regularly writing neutrally, even favorably, about this figure and his community) is a helpful description of an important event that we have no other tertiary source for. Again, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE PASSAGE IN THE BIO? It is neutral, factual, and in keeping with descriptions of the "divine emergence" (pro and con) from other out-of-bounds websites.

This all just fits in the unbroken pattern of you discounting sources that report facts you don't like. You never question any source for anything positive - in fact, you used to work quite vigorously to include extensive quotes from adi da lit.Tao2911 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, you need to chill brother. Were all here to do the same thing which is make this a better article and I think these issues are real issues. I'm not bringing them up just to get at you. I respect the work that you have put into this article but we all have a responsibility to make it better. The entire quote from the Lake County News is as follows as you pasted it in the books books books section above;

"Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in with little regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development….In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to this suffering a major breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.” —Lake County News, December 7, 2008

The only place that where there have been "persistent accusations" has been in online chat-rooms where people posted all kinds of stuff. This writing is extremely biased and does not sound like anything a professional editor would ethically allow. This whole passage is rife with inaccuracies and biased wording. It reads like an attack piece from a dissident website. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Persistant Allegations" are documented in all the stories I cite above. Again, Feuerstein, Wilber, Newspaper/Tv interviews, Lowe essay, lawsuits, and yes, entire websites of people claiming he was abusive (which do not need to be sourced to support "persistent accusations", because the other sources cover it fully. They aren't needed.) Every assertion is qualified as such. This does not rule out the LCN source, or show any particular bias. It is called reporting! it says they are allegations, not established facts. THE END. Again, what are the points in dispute. I will keep asking until we get down to it - nothing is the WP page is given "undue weight." Everything is sourced. Negative are balanced with positives. What are your specific problems? let's deal with them - as I keep asking. There have been persistent accusations of abuse. this is partly why he is "controversial". You may not like it. But the proof of the existence of these allegations is overwhelming. Why do you wish to deny this fact? it makes any changes you wish to make seem extremely parisan and biased.Tao2911 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Persistant Allegations" are documented in all the stories I cite above. Again, Feuerstein, Wilber, Newspaper/Tv interviews, Lowe essay, lawsuits

Here, User:Tao2911 argued that Feuerstein and other devotee-written sources were biased and not to be used. But it appears that they are okay from which to source negative material about Adi Da. Are there different rules for sourcing positive material than there is for sourcing negative material? — goethean ॐ 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Feuerstein is not being cited here as pro or con. The citation in question is a knowledgeable tertiary source for an important bio fact, that needs cited mention - Feuerstein is unarguably one of the primary scholars of South Asian religious traditions, and American Yoga practice. He has never been in question as an authority. His opinions are not being cited - except where they are framed as such (in reception.) Again, you're trying to play gotcha - the point is that the "garbage" mention needs to be there. Adidam's explanation for what might be perceived as controversial behavior is there for balance. It's a brief two lines, one a quote. This is not undue weight, and, again, needs to be addressed in an overview of Adi Da. Sources have to be considered in context. You simply rule out a source, if it meets WP standards, because it expresses an opinion in some aspect, if that aspect is not in play. You don't rule out Cousens if his opinion is framed as such. Feuerstein case in point - he is (knowledgeably) reporting on certain activities in the garbage passage - activities that have been admitted by the church and that are confirmed in other sources (interviews, lawsuits, etc). His opinions about it are not belied by the quote. You don't rule out an author completely because he expresses an opinion on a subject in a different time, place (Wilber for instance, or Feuerstein). The passage is a quotation, and does not show any bias whatsoever. In other places throughout the page, Adidam sources are used to describe his teachings etc, and Da himself is quoted repeatedly. Knee 1972 is THE primary source for the bio section. In every case, info is now framed with a neutral voice (which hasn't always been the case, hence my expressed concerns before about the prevalence of pro-Da sources, and also with anti-). This is just common sense. Also, guidelines indicate always using the best source possible. With the poverty of sources on Da, we have to make do with what there is, which this current version does, contextualizing, quoting and qualifying everything that demands it, and finding balancing viewpoints in all cases.Tao2911 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you use Feuerstein to source negative material, Feuerstein can also be used to source positive material. — goethean ॐ 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you frame as such. However, you also have to consider that he changed his mind. Like the Wilber section shows in a very neutral fashion. Or like Cousens - I thought adding that quote was a good balance for others. But again, the garbage mention isn't an opinion. It's a description, a list, in quotes.Tao2911 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Later Bio Section?

I think some of the concerns about the bio could simply be addressed if a paragraph could be added to follow the "controversy" paragraph. There could be a mention there of his later activities - its why I added the art mention there. If someone could find tertiary info to describe what he was up to between 1986 and 2007, maybe it would flesh things out. I think its clear that his arguably most controversial behavior occurred between 1974 and the lawsuits in 1985. That's what is documented. What happened later? There's a zoo, right? So somebody else can work on this - just phrase it neutrally, using tertiary sources (if there are any.)Tao2911 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Vandalism?

David Starr has re-posted the POV alert tag on this page. I do not feel he ever fully addressed my questions. He is asserting that the page shows overwhelming bias in some way - according to him there are only two specific single line instances that he cites of bias on the page, both in the bio. This does not a biased page make.

I have clearly refuted both of these claims at length, with no response (despite repeated requests) from Starr.

1) The "garbage" passage is balanced with an explanation from a Da spokesperson. The source is quoted, phrase is neutral, and source (scholar Georg Feuerstein) is not in dispute by Starr. The mention is crucial because it explains the "controversial" aspect in first line of lead, and period is alluded to in Adidam apologies for "controversial" earlier behavior and in the numbers of lawsuits, news articles, and analysis by authorities linked to and discussed in Da page. Also, further explained by Da himself in "Crazy Wisdom" section in teaching.

2) Mention of 1986 breakdown/Divine Emergence. This is a significant event, as attested by Adi Da press. Source is not biased, all mentions of events are phrased neutrally within basic journalistic standards. Balanced with Adi Da self-assessment as personally significant event (about which an entire book was written by him.)

3)Accusation of "undue weight" to potentially controversial passages were shown to be unreasonable, as each line is short without subjective exposition, and balanced with Adidam apology. On balance throughout page, all potentially "controversial" material (in every case sourced, cited, and neutrally phrased, if not in direct quotes) is far outweighed by neutral info and Da "self-assessment."

Every potentially controversial mention is carefully contextualized and phrased to reflect source, and balanced with an alternate explanation. In every case.

Source disputes:

1) Gurdjieff Journal: no specific instances of bias are alleged by Starr from this source. Starr is simply questioning the source without saying why it is an issue. Did not address my point that source is only used because it independently summarizes bio info from Da, Rudi, and Siddha Yoga accounts. No bias from source is reflected in WP entry, nor has any been revealed or even specifically alleged. And Starr has failed to show how magazine is biased or "self-published" simply making assertion that it is a "competing religious organization" which is simply unproven (there is no Gurdjieff church or "organization") and a potentially specious argument in any case (Adi Da's own teacher used Gurdjieff methods/ideas, as did Adi Da, inspiring the series of articles in question).

2) Lake County News: articles from source have been used in other instances in WP entry Starr only questions it for single mention that he subjectively finds to his dislike (the Divine Emergence passage). He has not worked to find alternative source that would allow the material about a significant event to remain. Source has been found acceptable to all other editors in past months, as demonstrated by its repeated use. Source has fairly presented Adi Da/Adidam org. in a number of separate stories (being a news source for the area of the oldest Adidam community.) Starr cannot singly enter now and discount source, when not showing WP guideline that effectively discounts it (only his own subjective analysis of the quality of the "contact" page on their website.)

3) The Mt San Antonio College Philosophy Group press: source is used to provide balancing critical perspective, and contextualized as such. One of the essays in this source is perhaps the only non-self published account by a former follower (witness to much of the most controversial period that is alluded to in all other sources) extant. He is a PhD is Asian Religions, and is quoted in the WP entry as even allowing that Adi Da's methods are debatable, though he personally found them problematic (how much more balanced can you be?) The other essay (by another, quite critical, PhD scholar) is simply not referenced in WP entry.

Assertions that this is "self published" are refuted by association with the university where editor is tenured prof (college's legal would not approve use of name if not sanctioned.) Source is used by many other sources used for WP entry that are not in dispute. Publisher has been shown to have published other titles on philosophy and other subjects, that are held in other university libraries, and book on Adi Da has been reviewed by another university journal. Authors (both tenured PhD religions and philosophy profs) and publisher are not in dispute.

All other editors, including myself, have been involved in give an take on this page, making allowances and corrections for each other - even yesterday I made changes to accommodate other editors, including Starr. I do not feel that Starr is meeting this standard, and in particular completely failed to address my repeated specific requests. Because of this, I am removing the POV tag as vandalism and an attempt to discount page. I have requested third party review, and perhaps further dispute resolution. Tao2911 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request in progress:

I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on Adi Da and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. Comments and request for response and clarification: Let me begin by noting that: My opinion will pertain only to the issue between David Starr 1 and Tao2911 over whether or not the POV tag should remain or be removed, not to any other issue. I haven't made a careful analysis, but on first blush it appears to me that there has been vigorous discussion involving multiple editors on many if not all of the reliable sources issues. The Third Opinion project is only for disputes between two editors, not three or more, so an opinion on those issues would not be appropriate. Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags, an essay, says: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." I concur fully with that position which, though it is in an essay, is completely in line with Wikipedia's policy on deciding things only by consensus. The question is not, therefore, whether or not there is a POV problem with this article. The question is whether or not there is a good faith dispute over whether a POV problem exists in the article. If there is, then the tag should be placed, and remain, on the article until there is consensus that no POV problem exists. I would, therefore, request that David Starr 1 make a clear and concise statement of (1) whether or not he concurs with Tao2911 that the POV problems include Tao2911's first three points above, (2) identify any other POV problems which he sees, and (3) explain why he believes that these issues constitute POV problems. I am going to post a notice of this request on his talk page. I'll wait a reasonable time (probably a couple of days) and then respond further. (If David Starr 1 feels that he has already made all those points previously, I would ask him to at least provide diffs to those changes, but would at the same time ask him to instead have mercy on me and summarize them again here.) If any other editor (especially, but not only, one previously involved in the discussion on this page) wishes to state a position on the question of whether a good faith dispute exists over whether there is a POV problem with this page they are free and, indeed, encouraged to do so, but it must be recognized that if they do so then I will be unable to issue a Third Opinion on that issue, since multiple editors will then be involved. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response from David Starr

Thank you TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) for your request. My response is as follows per your request, (I have tried to be brief):

I do not concur with Tao2911's assessment of my views regarding NPOV and this article.

Here are the inclusions along with why I feel that they have either neutrality, factual accuracy, or verifiability issues.

1. "In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community."

With this inclusion we have one positive statement followed by 3 contentious statements. I believe this creates a negative bias towards the subject of the article when combined in the lead section with the already existing summary of the 1985 controversies section.

The "three" are a summation of critiques from different sources. Those sources are referenced. I contend that this is a fair summary of his later reputation, as reflected in the sources cited. And, it is framed as "what some perceive." Not as final word. Find another tertiary source and add what else he's praised for. Having read just about everything there is out there on Da not published by Da's press, I think this is a more than fair assessment.

So in the lead we have the subject being perceived by "some" as being increasingly isolated, having eccentric behavior, having a cult-like community, and having been alleged to have engaged in financial, sexual, and emotional abuses. I feel that his is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Also the use of "some" would be an instance addressed in WP:WEASEL.

how on earth is "some" now a weasel word? Some is then cited with three seperate references to explain. You don't like the allegations - however, numbers of people have made them. You simply can't argue otherwise. I will add more ref's for you. Five? 10? What will it take?Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:WEASEL: Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous or misleading. On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution. Weasel words can present an apparent force of authority seemingly supporting statements without allowing the reader to decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable, or they can call into question a statement. If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them.

For example, "Luton, UK is the nicest town in the world", is an example of a biased or uninformative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world."

Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:

• Who says that?
• When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
• How many people think it? How many is some?
• What kind of people think it? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is unverifiable.David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2. "Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He was also a paid test subject in drug trials of mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were conducted at a nearby Veterans Administration hospital (novelist Ken Kesey also participated in these tests, inspiring his novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating" but limited, and described struggling to end his reliance on substances to alter his awareness."

I believe that this statement is highly inaccurate and uses detail to give undue weight to this material. Some of the statements here I feel are misleading. I find no credible source, including Adi Da's own works that he took peyote in high school. And while he may have smoked marijuana, there is no source to say he often smoked marijuana. That he was a paid test subject is not in dispute. I find no credible source including Adi Da's own works that he continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. I find no credible source to support the statement "he described struggling to end his reliance on substances to alter his awareness."

As such I feel that this paragraph is inaccurate and uses detail and non-neutral wording to inject negative bias and undue weight.

I quoted the first edition of his own autobio above where he himself says he was a times a daily pot smoker. This book is the source for everything in this passage. He also explains participating for 7 weeks as a paid drug test subject, and often took psychedelics after. He himself attested to how important this was in developing awareness of altered states of consciousness. He did indeed remove these ref's in later editions of his book, making the early edition all the more important as source for his early life. You are clearly just not informed of the source - you have no grounds therefore to discount it. Please read passages quoted above, and in link I provided to online version from pro-Adi Da website, to elucidate. I hope this clears this up. Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The source that you have given is to an unauthorized, unpublished manuscript that is being posted at Beezone.com.[8] I am looking at the first edition of the Knee of Listening, which is what they are picturing at Beezone, but what they are publishing online as far as text is absolutely not this first edition. As such there is no way to verify this text and there is no fair-use provision for inclusion here for even brief excerpts. See [9] for a discussion of these legalities. WP says these materials should be removed immediately. Beezone is not a reliable source and they are breaking the law by publishing this work. So these are issues of verifiability and the use unpublished works as a violation of copyright. So this doesn't even begin to address issues of unfair weight, and neutrality by focusing on aspects of his use out of context, such as "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward", and "he described struggling to end his reliance on substances to alter his awareness". This level of detail creates injects bias. More neutral would be to simply say that Adi Da experimented with drug use in his early life. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

3. In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Bubba Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged.[33][34] A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."[17] Former followers said that he had as many as nine "wives", including Playboy centerfold Julie Anderson.[30][35] A member of the church addressed this in 1999 by saying that he then "had a circle of ladies around him that served him intimately," but a spokeman for the church stated that he spent later years living a life of solitude and contemplation.

The mainstream source in this paragraph is the SF Chronicle, which made the distinction that these activities were alleged. Here they are stated as fact. The amount of detail here, saying "switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies" is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non-neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the 1985 controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the 1985 controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe to include it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader.

that was a quote from Georg Feuerstein, preeminent American yoga scholar and former Adi Da devotee, who interviewed followers himself and reviewed all data. he wrote an entire book about the subject of crazy wisdom and devoted a chapter to Adi Da. I added more references for occurrences of these behaviors. they are not just allegations - the church itself on more than one occasion admitted to all of them - group sex, public sex, filmed sex - the sources are there. The vagueness of "controversial sexual practices" is simply not clear. Why NOT say what they are - especially in a section on crazy wisdom. You can not remove them because you find them offensive. they do not show bias - they are supported by a dozen separate newspaper articles from different papers. I will quote more of them here for the reviewers. Tao2911 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Feuerstein's book is published by this guy [10], and so if he is so preeminent, why does he have to use the Hohm Press [11] to publish his book? (Hohm press is just like the Dawn Horse Press, only it is what controversial guru Lee Lozowick uses to self-publish his own works as well as the works of others.) I have the book. And in it he appears to source directly from anti-Adi Da websites. He is also a disgruntled ex-devotee. So while he may be a reliable source as to his opinion of Adi Da, he would not be a reliable source for events that have occurred in Adi Da's life. And since his book is being published by another controversial guru who is critical of Adi Da, why should we believe that he is some neutral party simply reporting the facts?

As far as WP:NPOV is concerned I stand by my argument below. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE : "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

An entire book was written about the Garbage and the Goddess period which had various significant events important to the religion that Adi Da created. But this book was not about sex. So why the focus on the sexual aspect? And why in such great detail? The only reason I can come up with is to inject bias.

This is not quite true - the book wasn't written "about" the period. It was lectures from the period, as I say above, heavily edited but still deemed problematic, so it was not reprinted and is now removed from Adidam bibliography. it had some quite controversial statements about sex, including the sham of marriage and the lie of motherhood ("giving birth is no better than taking a crap." I can find the citation - it's quoted in a news article.) So Garbage was period, as the passage says, characterized by "crazy wisdom" approach, and involved all the activities that led to alter lawsuits. A short mention in bio (as I've said 20 times already) is necessary and warranted in time-line.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have this book and it is both, lectures and stories about the period. But these issues are already addressed in the article in the controversies section, so to keep repeating it again is to apply undue weight in the readers mind. It is also redundant. We are not keeping this information out of the article. It was already in the lead as well as the controversy section. I believe that is as much weight as it needs to be given. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

4. "There were persistent accusations of him abusing his power as a spiritual leader.[8][41] In 1985, visible tensions emerged after a number of ex-devotees allegedly requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them.[42] As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church. Adi Da did not personally address any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond. He emerged from apparent seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a near-death experience that he found especially significant, calling it the “Divine Emergence.” "

This paragraph suffers from non-neutral wording, undue weight, and redundancy (already covered in the controversies section) as a way of injecting negative bias into the article. I am not aware of any mainstream media coverage that characterized how Adi Da handled the lawsuit allegations. There is no credible source to say that the "Divine Emergence" was a result of the 1985 lawsuits. By saying that Adi Da basically made up a spiritual event as a way of "explaining" his "breakdown" is biased and sounds as though it is written with a sarcastic tone, also as a way of injecting negative bias.

I take this line by line below. I think your read is wildly subjective and peculiar.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. This information already existed in both the lead section and the controversy section, to add additional paragraphs on the same topic is to add undue weight and to inject bias in the mind of the reader. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

5. "University of Southern California religions professor Robert Ellwood wrote, “Accounts of life with [Adi Da] in his close-knit spiritual community [describe] extremes of asceticism and indulgence, of authoritarianism and antinomianism…Supporters of the alleged avatar rationalize such eccentricities as shock therapy for the sake of enlightenment.”

This statement which comes from the review of a book critical of Adi Da is itself a general criticism and opinion of Adi Da and belongs in the Reception section of the article. I believe that it is being applied to the Religion- Community section as a way of injecting negative bias there.

I disagree, though I think there could be more info in this section. the assessment is not just form that one book, but from other accounts as well. He is a scholarly authority describing an overview of how practitioners see there practice - and how practitioners see what they do. I do not see his assessment as wholly negative in this line - in it he balances the extremes that characterize the nature of the mans teaching as reflected in the teaching itself and his life. Your bias again is possibly impenetrable.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In summary:

I think that in general some editors believe that every account of Adi Da's accomplishments must be balanced by a negative or critical inference of one kind or another. I feel this is a misapplication of WP:NPOV. We are here to represent all significant points of view, yes, but in a neutral and properly weighted manner. And simply to give a neutral account of the subjects accomplishments does not mean that we must also include material critical of those very same accomplishments.

I also feel that by continually bringing in negative issues that were a result of the 1985 lawsuit controversy as though they are each a separate incidence is a violation of neutrality and of undue weight.

I also feel that most of this contentious material is being brought in by the use of questionable sources which is also a violation of verifiability and causes undue weight by making it appear as though these views are held by many sources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. David Starr 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Please see my comments below, and mention of 13 paragraphs, only three of which warrant balancing viewpoints because of the inevitable challenges that including controversial info seems to demand - and even that doesn't head off dispute, clearly. "Negative" issues are not simply related to the lawsuits in 1985. This is a serious misunderstanding, certainly of my reasons for including the info in bio. Reports of controversial behavior are THE cultural signature of the group from '74 until the time of the lawsuits. Which reflects the nature of his message and approach at that time. I am not saying that this didn't change - in fact I included accounts of how it did. But in a chronological overview of his life and career, you can't NOT mention "Garbage" (no pun intended) and the period it initiated. These positions (re: consistent sexual experimentation, polygamy, drug use, and potential abuse) are/were INDEED reported by many documented, tertiary sources. I went ahead and added a 1/2 dozen more sources that further support claims of "crazy wisdom" years, including the adidam/JDC position that it was all for enlightenment. And I respect that position. His followers made their choices. More or less. Rather than quote them to you, or even suggest you comb the internet (its a short search to find plenty) just go to Rick Ross for a compendium of good news stories, some of which (particularly Mill Valley) are well researched - and many include the admissions by JDC of all the activities that you still seem to question.

What some seem to want to do is pretend that a few disgruntled former followers made everything re: this stuff up. Nothing could be further from the reported truth, or the admissions by JDC/Adidam itself. There were lawsuits that didn't result in convictions. That does not cover everything else. Are you saying that it does?Tao2911 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao this is not a place for general discussion about the subject, but to discuss the specifics of the article. Otherwise I would debate you on all of the points you have raised here which are truly an expression of your negative bias against Adi Da. There are plenty of attack sites on the internet and fringe sources for just about anyone who is even slightly controversial. There are sites that claim that George Bush was a serial killer. That doesn't mean that it is true.

The sources that you are adding for your claims are all from the 1985 controversy, so once again I say that by adding more paragraphs on these facts in addition to what is already aptly covered in the lead as well the controversies section is redundant and a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration, here we come!Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Party Dispute

Thanks to Transporterman for your help.

I would just reiterate my desire (and your direction) that David Starr address my points specifically as I've outlined them. At this point I do not think we will find agreement, and imagine that further arbitration will be necessary. But I hope this won't be the case.

I ask that no changes be made to the main page now until this issue is resolved.Tao2911 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Transporterman. To give my own feedback, I do feel there is a clear POV dispute happening with this article amongst editors. There are aspects of this article that include bias, however, I simply don't have the time and energy to fight it like I used to be able to. So I have been accepting it, and given the lack of third-party resources to present the "other side of things", there hasn't really been a way to balance some of these parts of the article.

As a whole, I feel certain parts of the article are great. The Teachings Section is really good. The Biography is where I see the most bias happening, and instead of going into it here, or arguing with other editors, I would rather have David Starr summarize those points here, which I do contend with.

I do not feel that Tao2911 is trying to be biased for any purpose or intention, and I have enjoyed working with him on this article recently. However, his bias (as well as my own, and everyone else's) does creep into the article, and he can get heated when confronted about this. It is also true that it is easier to find support from third party websites about all the controversies and negative hype about Adi Da, so there is a natural upper hand to Tao's point of view. Either way, there is a way to have this article not represent the POV of any editors, but simply neutral, factual (truly factual, not merely verifiable but still biased and questionable), and straight information.

I appreciate the efforts of all editors involved here, including Tao and David Starr, and Jason Riverdale. Tao and David Starr have had a long history, and they have a tendency to bicker with one another about this article, without much positive consequence. I hope that we can finally all work together, go beyond our own biases, and create a (finally) neutral article. That is my two cents.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I too have appreciated others efforts - and have said so as we've gone along. I get "heated" if you will when partisan editors attempt to remove hard fought balanced mentions of the most obvious biographical facts, attempting to manipulate information to suit their own idealized version of this controversial figure. The nature of my "bias" if it can even be called that, is different in kind to those who have religious faith in Jones/Adi Da. I do not have an "atheistic" anti-faith. I don't think he was any less holy, worthy, or god-like than anyone else. I also think he is worthy of some mention, clearly. But that mention needs to be fair and balanced, accurate and fact-based. That is my only agenda. I don't care if people think he was god. I only care that all the information that I know I've spent the last 18 months carefully reviewing re: Adi Da gets accurately reflected, in the way I would have hoped when I came looking for an objective overview back then. I think Starr is the least flexible when allowing for this kind balance, ie any mention of potentially controversial information, however factual. He's the least willing to carefully respond to refutations of his demonstrated bias', and the most likely to misuse WP guidelines to support his position of faith. This is not a "personal attack." This is an observation, an explanantion, and a rebuttal to Devanagari's accusation.Tao2911 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Opinion: As I pointed out in #5, above, since another editor — Devanagari108 — has weighed in with an opinion, it would now be inappropriate for me to give an opinion under WP:3O. I would recommend, however, that it would be well if David Starr 1 would go ahead and clarify his position so that it will be easier to try to resolve those issues. Good luck to all. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to DS1 for doing what I recommended at the very moment I was writing those words. Again, good luck to all. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Sex Practices in Da church

Here is most of one of the series of SF Chronicle articles reporting on Jones/Da in 1985-86, which further clarifies sex practices in the 1970's (and after) in Jones' community according to the church's own spokespersons:

---

Sex Practices Did Not Cease, Marin Cult Officials Admit San Francisco Chronicle/April 9, 1985 By Katy Butler

Officials of the Marin. based sect of guru Da Free John conceded yesterday that, "sexual experimentation" as a spiritual practice was not abandoned in 1976 as they previously claimed.

"There have been incidents up to the fairly recent past," said Crane Kirkbride, speaking for the Johannine Daist Communion. "And we feel it is our right to experiment into the future..."

Some of the shocked members at the meeting had been unaware of sexual activities within the group's inner circle, sources said. Until yesterday, officials had maintained that all sexual experimentation ended in 1976 within the small religious group, whose guru now lives on a Fijian island.

Kirkbride said yesterday that some members had not been told about the activities because they were not advanced enough spiritually.

The homegrown group, which is not part of any major spiritual tradition says its religious practices draw on the "Crazy Wisdom" traditions of some forms of Tibetan Buddhism and on devotional spiritual practices within Hinduism.

Officials of the Free John group said they participate in "spiritual theater," a kind of psychodrama in which people are encouraged to release sexual and emotional problems as they travel the path to union with God.

Officials of the group conceded that "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction.

It is not proper wiki-etiquette to post the entire article to the talk page. A simple link to the article is the better way to go. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I leave out the allegations of abusive behavior that are leveled by a former member following these lines.

I do not bring this up to shock, or aggravate. I am demonstrating that this WP page is a fair and balanced reflection of all aspects of Adi Da, leaving nothing out - as certain editors would like to do. Everything is this article for instance is further explained in the Adi Da entry: use of "crazy wisdom", group sex practices, direction by Da, and admissions by spokesperson for the group for all these allegations. I added this to the Feuerstein citation, though it is also quoted elsewhere. Again, I want to hear a compelling argument for why this entire aspect doesn't deserve a balanced single short paragraph mention in a biographic profile of a religious leader.

Yes, but these issues were already covered in both the lead section as well as the controversies section. So as such they were already well represented in the article. To continue to add more and more references to these issues in is to apply undue weight and to inject bias in the mind of the reader.David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Other sources confirm and expand on these same admissions on the church's part, including the filming of sex activities, as cited by GF. Again, this all deserves its very brief mention. The bio section relates info to the chronology and his evolving teaching philosophy/methods. Lawsuits and 'crazy wisdom' are both given separate sections. I think considering the wealth of this type of info, Da gets very balanced treatment on this page.

Yes but your sources are fringe sources that are simply parroting the already existing news coverage that aptly represents the mainstream media's POV on the subject and were already well represented in the lead and controversies sections of the article.David Starr 1 (talk)

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that Tao has never seen a copy of this newspaper or verified the content and is just cutting-and-pasting information from the Rick Ross website. — goethean ॐ 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again - it's one thing when a rock musician has group sex or takes drugs. Perhaps hypocritically - the point is arguable - it's significance unarguably changes when the leader of a religious group entrusted with the spiritual well-being of his followers does so - and its reported widely in the news with some of the former followers pretty upset about it. You don't then pretend it didn't happen, or that everyone who said so is lying (as Starr has alluded, saying all assertions are hearsay in online "chatrooms"; or that it all stems form a couple's "bitter divorce" as JR tried to have the passage read) - especially when the spokespersons for the church are on record in a dozen sources as admitting some degree of such controversial behavior, including drugs, alcohol use, and sex practices of kinds generally deemed extreme. The page has to reflect the standpoint of a general audience. I think people are left to make their own conclusions with the page as it stands - again, all mentions balanced, objective, counterweighted, cross-referenced, etc.Tao2911 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to either amplify or minimize these issues as they pertain to the subject of the article. It is up to us to fairly represent all points of view in a neutral and fairly weighted manner, supply the sources, and let the reader decide for themselves. These issues were very fairly represented in the article both in the lead and given an entire section of focus within the article. To add more and more paragraphs with additional detail and non-neutral wording is to inject bias and undue weight.

Also it seems to me that you are using this talk page to make more assertions about the subject of this article in the hopes of prejudicing the view of any editor who comes here and becomes part of the discussion. You are focusing the discussion about Adi Da around all of these assertions that you are making about his activities, not on the article itself. So there is all of this freshly formatted discourse that you are creating on him and his "sexual practices". So just as in the article you are weaving bias here by focusing the discussion on what I believe you consider to be highly inflammatory assertions about Adi Da's behavior in 1985. I believe that you are doing this in order to create bias here on the talk page in the same way that you are using the same facts as a way of injecting bias in the article. Sorry Tao. But I need to call it the way I see it. I mean no disrespect to you and I do respect your point of view. I just feel that it was already well represented in the article. In my mind, to over-do it is to make Wikipedia into just another attack site. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Biography" is balanced

I just want to point out that of approximately 13 equal-sized paragraphs (combing the last few lines together etc) only three of them contain material that is being deemed problematic by partisan editors here. Only three. And in those paragraphs, each is at least half-comprised of information/apology/explanation from Adidam itself. How this adds up to bias, I have no idea. The sources cross-reference, and there are a plethora of them. The primary source for early years is Jones autobio, cross-ref'd with other sources where available (which is in a number of places.)Tao2911 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag is not vandalism, but removing it could be.

I think that I have established that this is a good faith effort to improve this article per WP standards. Since the third party opinion was crashed, I am requesting that the tag remain until the specific issues that have been raised are addressed. This is per WP guidelines on templates. That means that if you remove it without consensus, and without resolving the issues that have been raised, then that would constitute vandalism. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do what you have to do; I will definitely seek further arbitration. I don't think you have addressed my arguments in any way however. I of course maintain that the page is balanced, and we were doing quite well ("having our fun" as you put it) before you decided to reappear and slap NPOV tags on it. Welcome back.

Please bring up your individual points of contention, perhaps under individual headings here in talk, so that they can be addressed clearly for reader/arbitration reference. I will in many cases probably just cut and paste my responses from some of the voluminous material above. Maybe you could even factor some of those responses to your points into your new allegations of bias.Tao2911 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only later saw Starr's point by point above. Still feel he didn't address my points. Just hoping for arbitration to sort it.Tao2911 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Divine Emergence" passage

I just take this line by line, but I won't with further passages, at least not now. Only saw Starr's points above after this.

"There were persistent accusations of him abusing his power as a spiritual leader.[8][46][47]" Ok - well sourced, not in dispute (tho you said earlier that this was only from chatrooms. I could keep adding ref's if you need.

Next line: "In 1985, visible tensions emerged after a number of ex-devotees allegedly requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them.[48]" we have a ref., that as I've said, stories have been used in other places from this source in the page. It's not the NY Times, but I think its passable. Plus passage says "alleged". It's in keeping with other reports of Jones/Da being unavailable and unwilling to entertain criticism. I could cite those news stories if you'd like.

"As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church." Ok, that's a fact, no dispute, explicated at length in legal section, but needs mention in chronology in bio, per other WP precedents. Mention in bio, explain details in separate section.

"Adi Da did not personally address any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond." This is true - he did not personally respond. A fact. No dispute.

"He emerged from apparent seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a near-death experience that he found especially significant, calling it the “Divine Emergence.”[49]

Ok, he was in apparent seclusion. This is supported by adidam accounts that can't be sourced here. Don't see much controversy in this. He had a breakdown, a near-death experience. This too is widely discussed by his devotees. He called it the Divine Emergence. Another fact. Ok - so what's the problem. The inclusion is the last independently reported event until 2007. I've called for more info if found a few times to fill out chronology. I have been working really hard to please you devotees. I wish you'd do your due diligence.Tao2911 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Description of Rudi in Bio

Tao,I have no objection to mentioning that Rudi was an oriental art dealer. I think your choice of it's placement(in the beginning of that section,perhaps having to do with your own bias,is odd. Yes the work Rudi did took place in the store sometimes (sometimes not) but Adi Da did not go to Rudi to study "oriental art" He went to study the particular form of kundalini yoga Rudi taught. That's what it was about. So a request to change the wording to take this into account is reasonable and appropriate.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

you are seeing bias in very strange places. I'm feeling quite besieged by the Da-ists. Saying he was an oriental art dealer is now biased? That was his job. he held all of his meetings in his gallery/shop, at least the ones Jones attended. Jones describes it at length and often in Knee - never describing meeting anywhere else, talking about weekly sessions in the shop and hanging around. They actually met for the first time on the street outside the shop. His father would visit. Nina worked there. Plus, sources phrased it this way in synopsis. I even think Rudi WP page says this. In no way does the passage imply Jones studied oriental art. I will see about rephrasing it tho to try to suit. Weird.

However, I do appreciate you voicing your concerns here and asking me to make the change since I wrote the passage. A good approach.Tao2911 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentions of "Controversial" Material Proportionate to Available Information

From guidelines: "Wikipedia's intent is to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources, original research and ideas are therefore excluded...content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources...Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

'Original research' has now been completely removed. I see no more examples of this once prevalent problem on this page.

The main thing I want to address is proportionality. Starr alleges that description of critical views and controversial events are excessive and violate NPOV. I do not believe this to be the case, as can be demonstrated by the proportion of TERTIARY information available on Adi Da. A large proportion, perhaps as much as 90%, of the independent tertiary information available on Adi Da concerns the controversy surrounding him, and everything t least mentions it. This controversy was not isolated to a couple of lawsuits in 1985, as Starr asserts. Those lawsuits were part of a much larger pattern of controversy that related to Adi Da's philosophy, activities, and "teaching methods" that spanned at least a decade, his culturally most influential decade at that. This controversy and the subsequent reputation Adi Da acquired are the signature way he is regarded in the culture at large, if we are to use available tertiary sources as guide and rule - as guidelines indicate we must.

This means that we do not evaluate how Adi Da or his followers wish him to be seen. As he himself clearly states as reflected objectively in the entry, he wished to be viewed as the Promised God Man, as the only method of 7th stage realization, or rather awareness of that stage since only he would ever realize it. This is not how any but possibly 2000 claimed (not verified) followers view him. The way he wished to be also kept changing, as his name changes and declarations of new manifestations and revelations testify - as do the radical edits his books were subject from one edition to the next. Again, this makes him or his followers untrustworthy sources for information in most cases.

Therefor, the entry must reflect the available tertiary information. With this as guide, the page could arguable contain a much greater proportion of so-called "controversial" information. I have been quite sensitive to the desire of devotees and followers in my editing process. I see Adi Da as sharing some significant similarities with other figures of his generation, many of whom he reports having crossed paths with. Ram Dass, Ken Kesey, Carlos Castaneda, etc. In the era in which he came to prominence, drugs were not seen as problematic or negative, as Starr seems to now consider them. They were an expected initiation, and unfamiliarity with them would have been seen as suspect. They played no more, and certainly no less, role in his trajectory toward "enlightenment" than Ram Dass, Tim Leary, Castaneda, or Kesey. In this way, one short paragraph synopsis of his drug mentions through multiple chapters in his autobiography is not disproportionate. Not having mentions of drug use in bios of these others figures would be seen as patently absurd.

As for the first line Starr claims is "disproportionate" ('praised for ideas, but criticized for...') it was precisely proportionality that had me construct that sentence in that way. Most authoritative voices on the topic have said exactly this: he had some good ideas, but his controversial behavior has overshadowed those ideas. This cannot be in dispute. This is reflected by available information, as any quick review reveals. Or an in depth one. This is precisely what I have discovered in 18 months of reviewing sources and working on this page.

Therefor, I will reiterate, that proportionately, if anything there could be more detail concerning the controversies and criticisms of Adi Da. But I am not arguing for this. I think as the page stands, it reflects relatively proportionately how this figure has been discussed by reliable sources at large in the culture (not, again, among his followers who are relatively few.)

I think Starr's desire to excise certain information stems solely from his bias as an admitted "appreciator" if not devotee. I do not think he is accurately assessing the proportion of independent information of Adi Da, or how that information is reflected in this entry. I believe the NPOV tag to be unnecessary and unwarranted, and I don't think that Starr engaged in this process consistently, thoroughly, or patiently enough to make this assessment, refusing to counter my arguments in favor of sources or phrasing, and failing to familiarize himself enough with the sources in question before undermining the hard work of numbers of editors over past weeks without consideration.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Citations

Lake County News

Lake County News: I called the LCN today. They are NOT a published paper. It is a online newsletter owned, operated,written and edited by one person. In other words self-published. Via wikipedia policy there has to be some editorial oversight for quoting sources. A one person operation simply cannot do this.

this is hearsay. Review the material on its merits, and as reviewable by a general audience. I do not find this compelling evidence. What I do find compelling evidence is a series of stories, including an interview with a devotee, and a balanced sympathetic story about Da's death, reflecting balanced POV. But I can see that this issue is going to be relentless, so I am going to rewrite that passage using indisputable sources. This may involve moving some of that info to another section - however, lawsuits and allegations of abuse need mention in timeline, despite more complex exposition in separate sectionTao2911 (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you post the additions in the article please submit here in discussion so we can avoid debating issues in the article itself. ThanksJason Riverdale (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, I put some tags on a Lake County News citation. The tags are now gone, but no new info has been added to the citation. What happened to the tags? — goethean ॐ 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Here they were removed by User:Tao2911, with an edit summary which explains exactly nothing. Do not remove tags from the article. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake - I was trying to find the info and didn't mean to delete.Tao2911 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount San Antonio College Philosophy Group

Mount San Antonio College Philosophy Group: I have called several departments at the school none of them know about this publisher. I can find NO address for the publisher or phone number. Searches for the publisher on Amazon.com bring up no results. When the actual book title shows up there is no ISBN. While not conclusive yet, certainly, this is a perhaps questionable as a third party source. I will continue to research this by talking to our local librarian about how one determines or identifies if a publisher is not self-published.I will make no changes to the article until this is completeJason Riverdale (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this issue was solved. Goethean has weighed in in favor of inclusion. Librarian is not WP authority. Why are you trying censor this source? You have not addressed any of my arguments in support of including it, instead persisting in this effort to censor this material. Please review my arguments in favor on inclusion, and address my points. I'll make it easy for you:

1) Lowe's is the only essay cited, and he is not editor or publisher, or associated with Mt SAC.

2) source is authoritative, PhD asian religions prof who actually lived in Da community, not involved in lawsuits or other wise associated with stories from 1980's.

3) comments are contextualized as critical, not used as NPOV source for general info.

4) press has published other titles, that you already said were convincing. Book was independently reviewed by another university journal, by another religions professor/scholar/author.

Man, ya'll are determined, aren't you? No seein' the forest for that big ol' devotional tree. Please read my comments above, re: proportional info. I will keep adding indisputable ref's to back up the page in current form.Tao2911 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have supplied an ISBN from WorldCat in the biblio info.[12] — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok on the Lowe book :) It just seemed odd that there was not pub address etc. Promise no more questions on this one!

Tao I am not asking for material to be removed in this particular case. With LCN it is simply a questionable source with no editorial review. That is just plain wiki policy.You have requested the same compliance yourselfJason Riverdale (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Rearranged Sections, removed disputed passage - tweaked 'art'

Ok - considering the view of Starr, and the disputed passage re Divine Emergence, I made some changes, not much in substance, mainly in arrangement of page. It was deeply problematic having a separate section for issue that then had to be alluded in bio but not covered etc - so I just cut the divine emergence thing, since I only wanted it there for something more in bio. It was just disputed, who cares, ditch it.

So then I moved the disputes section up to time-line, tweaked it to fit, moved some info from garbage passage to better fit in media/legal. Starr still isn't going to like it, but it completely reflects the proportion of info available. As citations show.

I added some sub headings since the bio was so long and needed some sectioning.

Moved art mention in bio per Starr request to art section, found better tertiary refs, and made info more accurate. I removed Venice Biennale mention, just solo show in venice and florence (same show) - it's way too complicated to explain that he wasn't IN the biennale, despite all the Da press trying to give that impression. So let prestigious curator mention be enough.Tao2911 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed over your re-arrangements. Already looks significantly better. Once again, appreciate your hard work here, Tao. This is shaping up, I may make a more detailed comment later on once I read through the article again.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted this. We have a consensus here that we will not do major edits without consensus. I have met that agreement and am not going to have to completely redo all of my arguments around the issues regarding this dispute just because someone sees fit to change the article any way they want while others have spent many many hours relegated to the talk page without a single edit to the article as a way of showing our good faith regarding this dispute. If you want to make a major change like this, bring it here to the talk page first as I have done above with material that I have challenged, then we can all decide together whether or not it works. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on Starr - many of these edits were made with you in mind! Devanagari, an admitted devotee, is down with the changes. I just worked my ass off to try to address numbers of the issues YOU BROUGHT UP, and you reverted them. I didn't change substance, only order, in order to reduce redundant mentions of controversial info FOR YOU. With the backing of another editor, I'm reverting my changes for other editors to review. if they say no, then back we go to the version you are happy to just slap with a label and leave to die. Wait for others to weigh in - please.Tao2911 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean already did the revert. My hero. Let's check this out, folks. I think this new version makes a lot more sense...Tao2911 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I can now edit at will. Yoo Hoo! David Starr 1 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you a broken person?Tao2911 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Made various changes to lead and bio

Made various changes to the lead and bio sections. Cleaned up the language following WP:NPOV, using disinterested tone etc.

Thanks Tao and Goethean for making substantial changes without a consensus, and reverting me for asking for said consensus, and for citing WP essay don't revert for consensus. I can now finally edit the article, Yay. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)