Talk:Adi Da

Welcome to the Adi Da Samraj Talk page.

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

Subpages

/David Starr – Specific issues with Adi Da

POV dispute (continued from January 2010

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)

David Starr 1's concerns regarding neutrality, factual accuracy, and verifiability issues

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. Tao2911 (talk)

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)

David Starr Vandalism

I made some changes to sections that I had largely written in order to move page toward Starr's opposing view, with a number of my edits specifically doing what he had requested. I did not significantly change content in any way, except to accommodate Starr and some suggestions by others (removing an entire offending passage, moving sections, softening allegations, explaining use of "crazy wisdom" from sources). I hoped that these changes would then be reviewed by editors and see what the new take was, with further changes possibly going from there. This was supported by two other editors (neither of whom have a track record of often agreeing with me).

Starr then went and removed numbers of cited passages that are under dispute, in a clear act of vindictive vandalism, stating that this was carte blanche for him to "go crazy". I am going to try to find some way to get admin here ASAP. I feel like I am able to work with the other editors here, despite differences at times - you guys want to weigh in? Tao2911 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is to just say that I am notifying David Starr that I believe his behavior constitutes vandalism, and that if he doesn't cease I will report him to WP admin, per guidelines, which state that he needs to be clearly notified first. I'm posting a message in his talk page too.Tao2911 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr removed this notification from his talk page until I directed him to replace it.Tao2911 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on Tao, basically what you are doing is blocking me from editing here. Your allowing yourself the opportunity to edit at will without consensus. But every time I try and make edits here, you revert me and start an edit war. In the middle of a POV dispute and after I spend several hours going over in concise detail my objections, you go and completely rearrange the page making my hours and hours of discussion mute.

I disagree with your using making substantial changes as a tactic to render my arguments mute, and then reverting any edits that I make. You do not own this article, and while I find your methods pretty offensive I am sure that we can find a way to work together. But as it is your just bullying me all over the place and having your way as it were with the article and blocking me completely from making any edits whatsoever.

I think that I have been very patient with you over the past week in which I have not made a single edit to the article. Then you come in and make sweeping changes on your own. And then you revert me when I try and make some edits and call it vandalism. So is that what you want to be? The one hogging all the toys in the sandbox? And calling me a broken person? C'mon Tao, can't we work together? Or is it your way or the highway? At this point I am blocked from editing here by Tao. If I try and make edits, he goes straight into reverting everything I have done and tries to start an edit war. Can I get a witness? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, its not. What? His changes were all disputed material that I'm arguing favor of. All the changes I made were to accommodate Starr, and you in some cases. I wonder about you dude.Tao2911 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"making substantial changes as a tactic to render my arguments mute" I think you have a clear idea of how you want this page to read, despite citations or facts. I didn't make changes to "neuter" you. I made them to accommodate you, and start to move toward consensus. You already have a couple of "witnesses" - they supported the changes I made. Many of the changes you keep trying to make I have responded to at length. You don't respond to these explanations. You just keep saying the same things, and doing what you want. I have a record here of working with people - I can be a pain in the ass, but Devanagari, Jason, and even silent Goethean can attest that I work with people and we find the middle way. As my edits making allowances for your views show. So, let this version settle. Bring up your points again later (like, tomorrow! or next week!) And let's take it slow. Again, my changes did not change content, only order. I removed an entire passage you didn't like, etc (see above. I'm sick of repeating myself to you.) Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking Starr to read and respond to my long-ish discussion of "proportionality" re: mentions of sex, drugs, and abuse in Adi Da page, above, both here and in case he misses it on his page (I just feel like he doesn't read what I say for some reason.) I think this is in many ways the crux of our disagreement. I of course think I'm right. But I have been bested here before, and made allowances for it. Like, earlier today, yesterday, last week...Tao2911 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Starr's concerns are very valid and need to be taken into account, Tao. I think your response to him is good, taking it slow, and working together. This article isn't perfect. I have been agreeable lately, but it's because I don't know what else to do in terms of fixing things, and I don't have sources to support what I would like to see, so I've just accepted the biased leaning of the article (in some places), as a whole it is not that way. I am very happy that you removed the Divine Emergence paragraph, since that was highly disputed. That is a good policy to have, and I am very glad you are working with other editors here and we are going on the basis of consensus. We should take things problematic sections and post them here, and go through it with each other on what the concerns are, BEFORE any edits are made. That is really the only way to go, otherwise there is a constant back and forth, each person defending their own point of view about it. So let's try this.

That means no edits from Tao, Starr, or any of us! Can we agree to this?

At this point, I will mostly be offering opinions and feedback and speaking up if I need to, but I'd rather have Starr come to the forefront. He has many concerns, which I agree with, and I would like to see both you and him work together, slowly, on this. Looking forward to it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no wish to make any changes, except in some cases to clean up some references. I won't change text. promise. I'm wiped out. And I'll just say that you may not be able to find sources for many more "positive" changes because we have been exhausting the few tertiary sources out there, and proportionally (my new favorite word) the page may indeed be pretty accurate.Tao2911 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, while I have really appreciated your willingness to dialog and make changes in the areas I have addressed, it is clear that all editors here, including you, have biases that we are trying to work through. So let's try to not deny this fact Tao through irony of cynical remarks. None of us would not be working so hard and putting in so much time here unless we all had strong feelings for this subject and how it get's communciated.

In many places the article reads much better due to your edits. This is appreciated. That being said I do agree with Dev that Starr has good points to make and merely dismissing his suggestions as "vandalism" is not the answer. I too have felt very frustrated by the way in which you have sometimes in the past gone and made changes without discussion and the way some things got "unintentionally" erased during those heated dialog. When you do these things, it creates mistrust and that creates reaction. So I think we are ALL in agreement that NO changes without discussion. There are sections I still feel need some very small changes which we should be able to have a debate or have a discussion about.You get frustrated and cite how much you have worked on this article. But so has everybody else as well. If we can agree to slow things down I would appreciate it as well. You are exhausted and I have a bulk of work ($$$) coming in and need to focus on this. When I can I will start putting together some minor suggested changes and post them for discussion. Thanks again Tao for the areas you have cooperated on:)Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am up for small changes, as you say. I have been all along. I am touchy to many changes, because there has been a persistent impulse by devotees to mess mightily with this page. I have wrestled like Jacob to get this page into some kind of reasonable representation of reality instead of the the straight up Adidam.org cut-and-paste job I found here 18 months ago, much of it created and viciously defended by Starr (citing and misrepresenting WP guidelines in a particularly obnoxious fashion, pasting endless rules on my talk page (I noticed someone told him that in itself is against WP guidelines recently which I found ironic).) Then Devanagari showed up and tried to do the same thing, until he digested enough WP protocol and got enough Tao in his craw to get some idea he couldn't do that. And you JR have also tried to turn this page into something resembling a Da mouthpiece at times. And I just won't have it. Together, we've found what we do best here, how we can contribute. I've put people through paces, and been put through them. But this page is close now to sane fair and straight up citable - as you say, small changes now. All for it. I am happy to take them case by case. What I won't do is let Starr just show up out of the blue a decide he's going to take this page back to the form he created and defended before, discrediting all the work we've done in favor of an ideal all we have to do is go back to the record to see. He clearly doesn't want any mention of critical or so-called "controversial" material in any detail here, or in some cases stuff he just doesn't like (psychedelic use for instance). he has even just recently said that all allegations of controversial behavior are only from chat rooms and disgruntled divorcees. Pardon me, but that dog don't hunt. The facts say otherwise. So, bring up a line, and let's kick it around. I'm game.Tao2911 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives?

I get that fans of Da don't like the plethora of cited "controversial" facts. I get it. However, all of these are backed up with 5,6,7 or potentially more citations. Facts are facts. He took drugs. He directed group sex. he had 9 wives. He could be a brutal tyrant, he said in the name of enlightenment, but he never denied this according to accounts, some quoting him in the page. SO WHAT?

If the plan is to fight to remove these cited facts, that frankly is just not going to happen - the citations are just too numerous and indisputable. I suggest everyone go read the news stories (they're online). There are not just a couple of allegations. Again, Mill Valley spent months investigating, and they dug deep, had many sources. In fact, they did so well, that the church was forced to admit to everything, just saying that they didn't commit any crimes - all was consensual and spiritually inspired. Numbers of indisputable sources cite all of this. Then there are other authoritative sources (Feuerstein, Lowe) who report on all the "crazy wisdom" activities, etc. I mean, why else would Da have called it crazy wisdom. Get a copy of Garbage, read Knee 1972 on Beezone. HE never denied he used radical methods? Why are people here?

What I want to know is, what will you provide to counteract this depiction that you find negative? You can't just wish he looked better. You have to find the sources. Who said he was...whatever you wish him to seem like. Which is what? What do you want him to look like. The facts here are not in themselves positive or negative. They are facts. They are painting a picture you don't like. What is the picture you would like? What will you do if you cannot find facts to support your ideal view? Will you simply resort to vandalism? Will you just keep returning periodically to slap POV alerts on the page? No one is proposing an alternate view, with alternate tertiary citations. No one is actually addressing my points, just saying "bias bias bias" without proving it.

be proactive - show us what you want, with tertiary respectable citations to back it up. That's the challenge.Tao2911 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal

Wow! That Gurdieff Journal sure is packed full of information![13] In fact, this article is becoming increasingly reliant on it. No page numbers, of course. At all. Let me say that Tao's sourcing is extremely problematic. Has anyone ever seen a copy of this document, or is this another cut-and-paste job from an anti-cult website? — goethean ॐ 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23731995/Gurdjieff-The-New-Age-Part-IX-Franklin-Jones-Rudi-Part-I Here ya go - part one online. It's racy - look out.Tao2911 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it has an entry in WorldCat,[14] so I will consider it a source. However, it is troubling that so much of the article is sourced to this document. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll say yet again that the only reason I used it was that it is the only tertiary source compiling and synopsizing the autobiographical info from Knee and Rudi's book. I think the source is really only used through the Muktananda encounters. I'd be fine with sourcing that with something else if it exists - however, I've read the sources (Knee 72 carefully, Rudi in parts) and have made sure that info is indeed accurate as far as those two sources go, without any apparent bias. Also, the bio section contains no discrepancies against other contemporary accounts - for instance, stories of early days related by Sal Lucania in SF Chronicle interviews - some of the only tertiary accounts of early days from someone other than Jones himself. Later accounts/Knee edits by Jones/Da, of course, change story significantly.Tao2911 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go here: [15] , you can see that he says he is the founder and editor, which is another way of saying that I have no editorial oversight. Just based on the lack of oversight as well as his being the publisher and the writer of the article(s), this source would not satisfy WP:RS. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is resolved. It's got your Lib of Congress listing. What - the editor can't write for the magazine he edits? Your logic makes sense to you, I know, but its not an objective "rule." You're just making things up to suit your position.Tao2911 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Resolution; POV guidelines

David Starr - please go ahead and again point out the specific issues with NPOV you have with this page so they can be addressed. Some of your points have been addressed already, including removing passages you contested and other editors reaching agreement on sources you questioned.

You did this without consensus and without discussing first. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So POV tag can not remain indefinitely on page with no allegations of bias being put forward. Anyone know of a policy regarding time tag can remain before contested passages are put forward for discussion? Personally, I don't think Starr will ever accept a factual balanced page, but we have to address his points first before we can move on to arbitration.

I think arbitration is a good idea. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro line I know you have problems with is completely compatible WP guidelines re: POV; in fact its almost textbook: "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." Followed by 4 citations of people leveling these exact assessments. This is a spot on assessment of Wilbers, Feuersteins, and others opinion.

I stand by my arguments as they existed before you made recent changes without consensus. I can't be expected to renew my arguments here on the talk page every time you make non-consensual changes , act abusively, ignore the comments and sentiments of other editors, revert my attempts to edit here and creating sections on the talk page titled "David Starr's vandalism" just because I try and make few edits to the article. And then you say "What I won't do is let Starr just show up out of the blue a decide he's going to take this page back to the form he created and defended before, discrediting all the work we've done in favor of an ideal..." Predictably, the attitude that you project onto me is exactly what your attitude is. I am not bullying anyone or demonizing anyone but I really can't take any more of this abusiveness.

From WP:TEND

== Signs of disruptive editing ==

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

I am finding that you are fulfilling almost every one of the descriptions above. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We were doing just fine until you arrived, and the talk record attests to much compromise and solutions reached. This isn't helping.Tao2911 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below."

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation."

So come on - this takes care of a goodly portion of Starr's qualms. Let's get to it.Tao2911 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to build consensus, then I suggest you rethink your tactics and instead of trying to be the bully, try and see that we are all actually on the same team. As I have said before, I respect your POV and in spite of what you keep saying, have never tried to keep critical information out of the article. I have only tried to keep it neutrally presented without undue weight. I know that you feel that the article should be just as it is now, as it reflects your POV perfectly. But your POV is not supreme, just as mine isn't. Your changes as well as your comments have only rebuked my arguments for the most part and they were done without discussion in violation of our agreement.

No the page doesn't reflect my POV - I have worked with others and often written from others POV in order to find consensus and a neutral voice. My POV also is completely informed by available info, having read most it, not Adi Da accounts/books - therefor I think my view is a better reflection of that material because I am not an insider - as I've said over and over. Your characterization in completely unfair and simply untrue, as records show.Tao2911 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed issues of undue weight and we disagree as to the proportionality of coverage. As an example, if you go beyond the headlines of mainstream news articles and read the body of the articles you find that most of the articles contain more neutral paragraphs containing basic biographical information than critical paragraphs associated with the allegations.

Your complete lack of specific examples continues to make progress impossible. I can't seem to get you to show me examples - and the ones you do provide I explain carefully how they reflect available sources and you do not respond, except to try to remove sources or edit war. The so-called 'negative' info you find objectionable is (again and again I say) always qualified and framed to reflect source and context. You do not want any detail of controversial info, for example, despite its presence in dozens of articles of all sorts - analysis, criticism, admissions by the church, Da books, and dozens of news stories, all of which use specifics allegations because otherwise the stories wouldn't pass muster. Your choices for what you what to censor, and your edit history, simply prove you to be a devotee who doesn't want a neutral overview.Tao2911 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So I strongly disagree that reliable sources focus on negative assertions about Adi Da. Fringe sources, self-published by other controversial gurus do focus on negative issues regarding Adi Da, and I am sure that there are specific motives for this. That is why they are not simply neutral sources reporting on the facts, and therefore would most likely not be considered reliable sources. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

please, no preaching. And you've already been called on the template pasting thing and asked not to it, by more than one editor. I am addressing the undue weight issue - that's all I'm addressing, over and over and over...and over. I'm not seeing a fruitful engagement possible with you. You are refusing to bring up specific points, instead simply attacking me and repeating the same (misunderstood or interpreted) guidle-lines and accusations against me. I'm feeling no choice but to just go to an mediation request.Tao2911 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished manuscript of Knee of Listening being used here as a source

Here is an example of the first edition of the Knee of Listening: [16]

There isn't even a picture of the cover, certainly no content info.Tao2911 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice the date of publishing and number of pages in the comments section, 1972 as the year, and 271 as the number of pages, CSA press as the publisher or here [17] same date and number of pages.

your own World Cat link here has the list for the 1972 edition as "Publisher: [Los Angeles] Ashram [1972]", I assume Ashram meaning the bookstore that Jones founded with Lucania - the venture that would quickly become DHP; no mention of CSA. None of these links are even saying what you are saying they do.Tao2911 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here at Beezone.com [18] we find a copyright of 1971, a year before the first edition was published by the CSA press. And the page numbers found at the bottom of this page at the last chapter, [19] go as high as page 616. So this is the evidence that this is not the first edition of the Knee of Listening, but is actually the unpublished manuscript of the Knee of Listening . Unpublished manuscripts have the highest protection under copyright law and there is no "fair use" that would involve posting the entire book online. Even fair use for excerpting is highly controlled and limited legally to a case by case basis. Just the fact that Beezone is posting it is highly irregular. But the main problem is that there is no way to verify this text since it is not available through any other source other than the self-published Beezone.com. So I don't think this would qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS, and there may be serious copyright issues for Wikipedia. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to independently verify your information. This is all original research on your part, and pure hearsay. '71 could be typo - there are others there. I have the book. It's the same text. Beezone shows copyright, and cover of edition. You can't copyright an unpublished book, can you? You may simply not have the first edition. Show me an independent authority saying that version is a "unpublished manuscript" (why on earth would they have such a thing?) The source is a pro-Da devotee sight. You are grasping at straws, totally out of gas on this. What is your problem with the text? Jones clearly wrote it. You aren't even denying that...WP entry isn't quoting the Beezone site either. It's citing the book.Tao2911 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, I have the book in my hands right now, and the quoted text is not there. And if there are typos, then all the more reason to suspect the source. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry Starr, but I wouldn't trust your testimony here if it came notarized. Maybe if you get around to it you could let us know, in what way is the page misrepresenting Knee accounts - in "your" version?Tao2911 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Adi Da suit against followers excessive

Considering WP guidelines regarding "undue weight", I feel that detail of the suit against da-abuse accusers is excessive since it is not proportionate, to sources, or accusations. The passage about the suit against the 6 former followers is completely from one single source - it is cited 4 times, for each line of accusation. The suit and accusations of abuse against Adi Da cites 12 sources, with more possible. Dozens made accusations in interviews, in more than a dozen articles all of which cite numbers of accusers and detail lawsuit. Church only threatened one lawsuit. I think the JDC suit should be reduced to a sentence or two. Either that, or accusers should get more space. I'm not arguing for that, however - just a shorter synopsis of threatened church suit. The detail implies some kind of balance - in fact JDC suit paragraph is longer. This has bugged me for awhile. I think it should be addressed.

It now says:

"Adidam charged that these allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement.[18] Adidam said that the former members, (some of whom appeared on the Today show report)[54] "met several times to discuss, conspire and scheme to obtain extraordinary sums of money from Adidam under the threat of destroying the church".[18] Adidam alleged that before the negative media campaign, they had received a letter from the former members demanding $5.2 million dollars; if this demand wasn't met, they might undertake to destroy the movement.[18] Adidam then filed its own suit against six former members for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit further charged that these individuals tried to deprive the movement of its "constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion". Adidam sought $20 million in damages.[18"

It could simply read:

"Adidam then filed its own suit against six former members for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Adidam sought $20 million in damages.[18]"

I watched this passage develop. It was padded by biased editors to try to overshadow the allegations and lawsuit against Da. Again - completely excessive and not proportionate.

Also, I think the passage should include that the plaintiff was a 9 year devotee and wife of the president of JDC. That, or remove Wood divorce mention altogether, which is again disproportionate detail relative to accusations.

Tao2911 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since, no protest, I made these changes - there were repetitions re: the "legality" of "consensual" activities, so I removed one, that also didn't fit into JDC lawsuit mention.Tao2911 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You are minimizing the church's claim of extortion and removing the fact that they were sent a letter demanding 5.2 million dollars or the ex-followers would destroy the church before any of these claims were made and before any of the newspaper articles happened. So in doing so you are tipping the scales in favor of your POV and removing the balance and removing information from a newspaper source so that the reader has no opportunity to make up their own mind about these issues. I believe this may be a biased edit and should be reverted for NPOV. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please counter my argument regarding proportion of coverage. If you insist on keeping all this, its an invitation to then expand coverage of allegations, sources for which outnumber JDC suit 12+ to one. And I will then insist on them. All these extraneous explanations for why they brought their suit are just that - extraneous detail, per your own concerns in other sections. Also, you keep trying lump all the allegations of abuse or misconduct under an umbrella of some single lawsuit or threat of everyone against Adi Da. The allegations were from many sources, many in no way shown to be connected to suit/alleged "plot". The suit was from one individual, which the passage makes clear. It gets one line. JDC suit still receives three.

also, this page is not a legal proceeding - consideration of "people making up their own mind" confirms my conviction that you are always here to make a case for Adi Da. I am not here to make a case against Adi Da. I'm here to try to help get this page to proportionately and SUCCINCTLY represent the known tertiary coverage on him. If people want to "make up their mind," this page gives some indication where they can find more sources, for every position/stance.Tao2911 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The single source for the Da lawsuit info does not appear to be available online - for a paper the only proof I can find ever existing are the articles reporting abuse allegations on Rick Ross, and in TV interviews with its reporters on youtube (interesting watching btw). So it cannot be fact checked. All the more reason mention of this suit should be minimal. I've found in reviewing other sources that many mistakes or misrepresentations can occur. In this article for instance, one could safely assume that there would be further exposition on the ex-member allegations, in some sort of proportion that we can't evaluate. So the sort of weight leaned on the crutch of this one un-verifiable source is deeply problematic, to the point of it breaking and the case for any of this info falling on its face. I'll grant the mention as is. No more.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NBC also mentions JDC suit - in one half sentence, about two seconds, of a 15 minute report. I think this is an apt encapsulation of the "relative weight" of this story in the media.Tao2911 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao,I just now got to this issue today. Please slow it down a bit as we agreed. As I said I can't work every hour of the day on wiki right now as some work as come in which requires less wiki time. I understand the points you are making but I disagree with your edit. Can we revert your changes and I will make a suggestion taking into account your comments. Thank you for your cooperation.Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal disputes is now balanced, proportionate to sources. Undue weight was given to JDC lawsuit. The passage now

1) brings up that media coverage brought to light allegations of abuse, and admitted "experimentation" that occurred up to time of said allegations.

2) it's said that not all members witnessed such activities or engaged in them (which I added.) This mention is proportionate with reports, the bulk of the bodies of which mainly focus on accusations of abuse.

3) Mahoney lawsuit is now given a single mention, followed by single mention for JDC suit. I left extortion allegation. That says it all.

4) follow up includes balanced accounts of denial of sex activity, reports that they still occurred, admission that they still occurred, justification for such activity.

5)wrap up citation from Ford Greene, and lawsuit dismissal (I'd maybe like to know which one - this is unclear.)

"Accusations of Adi Da abusing his power as a spiritual leader garnered international attention in the mid-1980's.[8][54] Adi Da and Adidam (then known as Da Free John and The Johannine Daist Communion) were subjects of almost daily coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Mill Valley Record, other newspapers and regional television news over several weeks.[22][55] The story reached greater attention with a report on The Today Show.[56] In investigative reports and dozens of interviews, ex-members made numerous specific allegations of Adi Da forcing members to engage in psychologically, sexually and physically abusive and humiliating behavior, as well accusing the church of committing tax fraud. Others however claimed to never witness or be involved in such activities.[57][58][59][60][61][62] In 1985, Adi Da and his organization were sued by one of these former members for (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery; the suit sought $5 million in damages.[19]

Adidam countered with its own lawsuit against the former member and five others for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Adidam sought $20 million in damages. Adidam charged that their allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement.[20]

Though spokespersons for the church stated controversial sexual activities had only occurred during the mid-1970's, former high ranking members claimed they had continued up to the time of the lawsuits and interviews, but had been kept hidden to all but an inner circle.[63][64] A spokesman for the church then issued a statement to a church group and press that "sexual experimentation" was not abandoned in 1976 as they previously claimed, saying "There have been incidents up to the fairly recent past."[65] However, the church said that no illegal acts took place and the movement had a right to continue experiments in lifestyles.[66][67] A Washington Post article reported that "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."[18] Another lawsuit was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County, on November 1985.[68]"

I swear, if you can't see the balance in this, it is simply due to outright willful stupidity.Tao2911 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I must be outright willfully stupid then because this is one of your most biased edits yet. Censoring valid well sourced information from a local newspaper that printed information about the churches claim of extortion. This is information the reader needs to know in order to make an informed decision. Plus, this was not a consensual edit. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

again, not a court case. WP not about "making informed decision" (you are so off base with this. again, revealing your biased wish for good PR.) address one point: relative weight of coverage. One story (unverifiable) against 20 stories (all online). 2 seconds against 15 minutes in Today Show. WP only to reflect relative weight of coverage, not balancing viewpoints. Discuss.Tao2911 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Request Re: Adi Da page

I filed a mediation request, involving editors Starr, Jason Riverdale, and goethean, as well as myself of course. I did not involve Devanagari, because he is a devotee, the four editors requested seem like a good cross section of representative views without weighting a particular one; also Dev. seems generally ok with going along with consensus decisions. I figure he will likely find any resolution reached acceptable. Please say otherwise, Dev, if you wish to participate. You of course can enter at any time you wish.

I hope everyone can respond soon and we can start the process of finding a way to move forward with consensual edits to get the POV label removed.Tao2911 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind participating.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's go ahead with this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to go to mediation page and agree to participate I think. So far, only I (as requester) have 'agreed.' No word from Starr yet - this is only happening due to your presence, Starr. Please agree when you get a chance, or there might be an assumption you are only here to vandalize the page, and we'll be forced act on that assumption. Since you have been active since this request was sent, I assume are aware of it. goethean has (understandably) declined to participate. I still don't see Dev's participation as necessary, since more voices just means more complications. I don't think we should have excessive representation of pro-Da perspective. Let's see how it goes - if you find you need to get involved Dev, this can occur. I'm not opposed in principle, you seem generally reasonable and we've worked together fine - but as I say, too many cooks? JR strikes me as somewhat slightly less biased, if still Da-leaning. But then, you often accept reasonable edits more quickly than he does, so...? I'll just send you an invite. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I will participate, but with one caveat, and that is that we seem to be jumping ahead a bit in the dispute resolution process. That being said, I am just familiarizing myself with the process before I formally accept at the mediation page. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New List of "Problematic" Passages

I read this page and am frankly stunned at how balanced, proportionate, and reflective of sources it is - especially considering past versions. Examples of D Starr's problems - like the textbook balanced overview of a generalized assessment in the lead, now with 9 references? - simply boggle the mind. The drug passage has now been adjusted, with someone's secret help, but I think its better. I made other changes per Starr's requests that just made him more upset - but they included removing an entire passage he and others questioned, and removing some redundant mentions of abuse allegations, also per his request. Other editors approved of these changes. So what we started out arguing has changed.

Starr seems to have trouble pointing out specific passages, and then proposing alternatives. I am officially requesting (again) that he do so here, so that mediators will have a current record of issues to "mediate." this isn't family counseling; I don't want to be friends, or reach philosophical agreement - it's about the page. Please, let's get to it.Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate these edits, the Biography is looking much better.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Dev - thanks for the affirmation on record. I was trying before to keep drug mention accurate to sources - but someone (goethean?) shortened it - I then went back and smoothed it out a bit. I think the legal section is much more sensible. That section has come a long way - it was really confusing before, tortuous and long, from a lot of battling in the past. As i said before, it read a few weeks ago like a bad tennis match. Through a series of edits, I think we got to a neutral proportionate kernel.Tao2911 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I still feel that the page is pretty heavily biased and relies too much on fringe sources. I would be happy to go into detail re: my concerns particularly since every time I make edits I am simply reverted and accused of vandalism. I cannot do even this, however, because Tao2911 keeps changing the article, without consensus. I already went over in detail all of my concerns 2 days ago,[[20]] but with an agreement in place of no edits without consensus, the article is already completely changed. So the points that I made 2 days ago are not only for the most part not addressed, the arguments no longer make sense, because the article structure has been substantially changed. I would rather see the article reverted to 2 days ago, but that will probably never happen.

Tao, we all are going to have to work this out, but I will only be a part of a civil discussion that sticks to agreements, and agrees to take all viewpoints into account. You already agreed not to make any changes, and then went ahead and made changes anyway. Comments like " sorry Starr, but I wouldn't trust your testimony here if it came notarized" or "I'll grant this mention as is. No more." or "if you can't see the balance in this, it is simply due to outright willful stupidity", comments like these do not help in terms of finding consensus. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, you can keep going around and around like this, or you can just get to the points. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Now please - you can just keep making these general assertions, or you can point out passages that you have a problem with and we can get to work. Your problem with sources is a large reason for my belief in mediation.

I have been backed up by other editors on the inclusion of Gurdjieff Journal, and we removed source and whole passage from one article you didn't like. You've failed to say what differences in the bio section that you have from some edition of Knee that you have, or prove any discrepancy, simply trying to discredit some website that isn't even cited.

I made changes in accordance with a number of your complaints, and you responded by taking out whole sections of material that you knew would provoke. That was straight up vandalism, out of frustration - I get it. Your allegation that I did what you wanted to somehow "neuter" you was kinda weird, but ok. I honestly don't think you know what NPOV is regarding Adi Da. I don't. So I am requesting mediation. I would like for you to concisely, with no WP template pasting, say what your problems are, allow me to respond, and let the mediators make recommendations. It is because of you that there is a POV flag on this page. So please start taking steps to help get rid of it.Tao2911 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraneous quote in 'Teachings and Philosophy'

I believe this quote from Adi Da to be completely redundant, and somewhat out of keeping with the way the page now reads.

“I Am the First (and the Only One) to Realize and to Demonstrate seventh stage Realization, which (now, and forever hereafter) I Alone, and Uniquely, Reveal and Transmit to all my formally practicing true devotees and thus potentially to all beings."[75]

I propose we keep the citation, but simply add it to the description that precedes the quote. The description says the exact same thing. Why say it twice? The Da quote provides no insight into the idea, and is not in keeping with primary reliance on tertiary synthesis or general overview. It was added by Dev I think at some point, back when this section contained much more of this kind of ephemera.Tao2911 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with its removal. Also, in reading this passage, I caught this: "Adi Da stated that only he would ever exist in or manifest this seventh stage, which he characterized as an uninterrupted condition of spiritual enlightenment called "The Bright" that he had actually existed in since birth."

That is not true at all. That is the common interpretation of Adi Da's "First, Last, and Only" proclamation. He is the first one to realize and reveal the seventh stage of life, the first seventh stage adept. But his point is that on that basis, through devotion to him as the seventh stage realizer and seventh stage revealer, devotees can realize the seventh stage of life. The controversy is not that no one else will ever realize the seventh stage of life, and that Adi Da said he is the only realizer, and no one else can even realize the seventh stage. That is precisely NOT what he is saying. He is saying that seventh stage realization can happen in anyone's case, but ONLY through devotion him as the unique means of revealing that state.

So that what is important about this quote. He is saying that he is the only one who can reveal and transmit this realization, in the context of devotion to him, so anyone could realize the seventh stage of life. In fact, the sentence just before that says, "He declared that only devotion to him as the "avatar of the age" or "The Promised God-Man"[71] could free people from the activity of "self-contraction" and reveal the seventh stage to them."

The sentence I quoted at the top is in contradiction with places in the rest of this article. So it should be removed. I feel the quotation is necessary for people to understand that anyone could realize the seventh stage of life through devotion to Adi Da. You could argue that the sentence I quoted just above this says that, but I don't see this quotation hurting anything to make it clear. It is from a book, yes, but it is okay to keep that as a source, the majority of this article is now tertiary sources, so I don't find that to be a big problem if one quotation is sourced from literature.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just gobbledy-gook. In the quote (and 1000 other places) he says that "I Am the First (and the Only One) to Realize" the so-called 7th stage, and says also that no one else "can or ever will" realize it. Devotees are not expected to "realize" it, in the way he uses the term - just get the 'transmission', feel his good vibrations. Their only access is through devotion to him. You are completely contradicting yourself, and Da's own statements. Which are in the section. Tho I know you think it makes sense, to you.

All I'm saying is that we could lose the quote, and say that it is only through devotion to da that anyone can have the 7th stage "revealed" to them (they will never "Realize" it - he is the only "Realizer" he says over and over, and over...and over...) But if it means you are going to start going all Dev. on this passage, padding it with more credulous contradictory Adidama, I'll pass.Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, I changed "exist in" to 'realize' per Dev's comments here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not just not true. You do not have a right understanding of this, and have admittedly not ready any of his books. So you should just try to understand what I am saying. Adi Da said that he is the first last and only Adept, meaning he is the only one who can reveal the seventh stage of life, and who will continue to reveal the seventh stage of life. The purpose of him revealing it is so that others can realize it. The catch is that you can only realize the seventh stage of life through devotion to him, through his transmission. But yes, devotees can perfectly duplicate Adi Da's realization, exactly. That's the whole purpose of the Adidam philosophy "you become what you meditate on". It is flat out not true that Adi Da said no one can realize the seventh stage of life, and devotees can just dig on his vibes. It is read this way, but that is a misunderstanding. Maybe "gobbledy-gook" to you, but it doesn't matter, that's how it is, and that's what he said. There is tons of literature on the stages of practice in Adidam, and how devotees awaken to the seventh stage of life, and go through the four stage process of seventh stage of life, "by his grace". So I have removed that line. It is simply not true. If it was true, then fine, I am not trying to hide the controversy. It is flat out there that the only way anyone can realize seventh stage is through worshipping Adi Da. That is plain as day in this article, stated in this section, in the beginning lead, and again in the Adidam section. So it's clear enough how it all works. I am not going to pad this section with anything, in fact, I don't want to do anything with it but leave it the way it is. I don't want to get into this. You don't have an understanding of Adi Da's teaching, and want to act like an authority, who has read 0 books. If you think this section would be better without the quotation, then let's remove it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't make edits base on insider "understanding." You can cite information and clarify based on that information. I'm not pretending to be an authority. I'm quite adamant that I am the only one around here who hasn't read Adi Da save through tertiary sources, save Knee now in two editions (I have two more on the way through inter-university library loans. curious about the changes. Also Garbage and Goddess is on the way...) As long as everything is consistent, cited, and accurate, I have no problems. All I'm saying is that if the info is present twice, and one of those is a quote, we should remove the quote, per WP style recommendations. We should aim for neutral synopsis if we have a source.

btw, I didn't write that passage about first/last realizer. I thought you did, and based my argument on the information given me. but I have read that sentiment in numbers of places. I question you removing it - was it cited? I'm looking into it.Tao2911 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

all hail the mighty google: "Also understand further. It is not about the first seventh stage Adept in the sense that there could possibly be more. There has never been one before, and there never will be another. It is not necessary that there be another. Now, there can be seventh stage Realizers—My devotees will have the capability of realizing the seventh stage—but there need not be any seventh stage Adept. Such a great Work is Accomplished once and for all." Ta da. clear enough now to me.Tao2911 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing legitimate cited material AGAIN without consensus

Well Tao, I started to do a suggested edit to discuss with you on the legal dispute. I was considering your comments on Adidam lawyer Wood etc and how to make an appropriate edit based on your comments suggestions. But given your comments and not waiting for discussion to take place before removing cited materials... so much for consensus, tendentious: civility and slowing things down so there can be some discussion.

Simply stated you have, over the last few weeks, changed and removed cited material without discussion several times. I have tried to cooperate, listen and consider your suggestions and work with you. I have been civil, avoided personal attacks, tried to bring up discussion before changing things (even when legitimate citations were removed) and in several cases agreed with changes to be made because to some of the arguments you have brought up were legitimate. However language like " it is simply due to outright willful stupidity" does not help consensus. Looking over your participation in wikipedia you seem to have a long history of inability to be civil with a number of editors.

Please restore the lawsuit cited material you removed so it can be discussed. It is not un-reasonbale and your refusing to do it violates wikipedia policy.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

address, please (same as above). (material's legitmacy in dispute, btw)

Please counter my argument regarding proportion of coverage. If you insist on keeping all this, its an invitation to then expand coverage of allegations, sources for which outnumber JDC suit 12+ to one. And I will then insist on them. All these extraneous explanations for why they brought their suit are just that - extraneous detail, per your own concerns in other sections. Also, you keep trying lump all the allegations of abuse or misconduct under an umbrella of some single lawsuit or threat of everyone against Adi Da. The allegations were from many sources, many in no way shown to be connected to suit/alleged "plot". The suit was from one individual, which the passage makes clear. It gets one line. JDC suit still receives three.

The single source for the Da lawsuit info does not appear to be available online - for a paper the only proof I can find ever existing are the articles reporting abuse allegations on Rick Ross, and in TV interviews with its reporters on youtube. So it cannot be fact checked...In this article for instance, one could safely assume that there would be further exposition on the ex-member allegations, in some sort of proportion that we can't evaluate. So the sort of weight leaned on the crutch of this one un-verifiable source is deeply problematic, to the point of it breaking and the case for any of this info falling on its face. I'll grant the mention as is. No more.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NBC also mentions JDC suit - in one half sentence, about two seconds, of a 15 minute report. I think this is an apt encapsulation of the "relative weight" of this story in the media.Tao2911 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New version of whole passage:

1) brings up that media coverage brought to light allegations of abuse, and admitted "experimentation" that occurred up to time of said allegations.

2) it's said that not all members witnessed such activities or engaged in them (which I added.) This mention is proportionate with reports, the bulk of the bodies of which mainly focus on accusations of abuse.

3) Mahoney lawsuit is now given a single mention, followed by single mention for JDC suit. I left extortion allegation. That says it all.

4) follow up includes balanced accounts of denial of sex activity, reports that they still occurred, admission that they still occurred, justification for such activity.

5)wrap up citation from Ford Greene, and lawsuit dismissal (I'd maybe like to know which one - this is unclear.)

make a case. Write a counter version here and I'll be happy to consider. I'm sorry if I acted to fast for you - you had been active, as had Starr since I posted the above request, so I moved. I'll be happy to consider something if you can show me an improvement - as always. I've made my case. make yours. I wish you and Starr would spend more time being specific and proposing alternatives than all this bickering.

Dev. is on board with my changes. Again, if you insist on keeping that excessive line, I will insist on detailing every allegation from every report in every newspaper and television interview.Tao2911 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this, I have not been paying attention to this part of the article at all, so I am refraining from any comments. I don't know how it looked before, what changes you made, and what the issue with all of it is, so I cannot offer any feedback either way. I am on board with the recent changes in the Bio to the drugs and removal of Divine Emergence paragraph. I have not been reading the Legal section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the earlier version is pasted above in the other section devoted to it. Or you can compare before and after in history.Tao2911 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So the big change I notice is the removal of Michael Wood from the Lawsuits section. Is there a reason for this?--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

please, somebody actually read my explanation for the change, and address my points if you have a problem. See above section, and this one. The Wood line was excessive detail - if you bring that in, I will insist on more detail about O'Mahoney being 9-year devotee and wife of JDC president, and more details of her charges against Da.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It was just a question, no need to get threatening. It's fine not being in there.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what the consequences of fighting for inclusion of that info, which some are "threatening" to do - I'd already said a few times why it was removed.Tao2911 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Books

I find the Books section still reads with bias, as if to create suspicion on the part of the reader as to the legitimacy of The Knee of Listening. It says to me, "The original one is good, but watch out for the later edition, it gets a bit funky, its about 5 times the length, has all kinds of added stuff, and basically his whole bio is re-written, plus it has this ridiculous section on his "pre-birth" whatever that means!"

that's your subjective take. I don't read it that way at all. The facts there are all cited from sources. Its not editor analysis.Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of The Dawn Horse Testament or The Aletheon, which are his two biggest and he said most significant texts. How can you have a Books section just discussing The Knee of Listening, how much it has changed, how scientology isn't in there anymore, how much it has been re-written and revised, and not mention anything else of the other 60 + books, not even two of the major texts?

Because Knee is the book that has tertiary source analysis, not Adi Da self-estimation. its his first and by far best known book, and the book that made him famous and paved the way for his becoming a guru. its the book they most promote to the public. its the book used as source in this profile. There is Knee, and then there is all the rest. Find brief tertiary analysis or synopsis of other books and it could be considered.Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This section needs some work, I simply will not accept it as it is. I will be searching for sources and making proposals.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bon chance.Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Art

I also do not understand why "Venice Biennale" is something that isn't allowed to be mentioned. This sounds like bias on the part of the editor, and in general, there has been a kind of attempt to "downplay" everything about Adi Da in this article. I'm not for exaggerating, but things should simply be stated.

The way I would state the art section is this: "n the last decade of his life, Adi Da produced visual art which he called "Transcendental Realism." These works were primarily photographic and digitally produced. In 2007, Adi Da opened at the Venice Biennale, chosen as a solo collateral exhibition, curated by Italian art historian Achille Bonito Oliva[94]; the exhibit then moved to Florence. He also was represented by a commercial gallery in Culver City, California.[95]

That wording is straight from a magazine titled "The Enlightened World".

Google search pulls up absolutely nothing by this title. Not striking me as real authoritative, this. Oh, and btw, that wording was the wording on this site, from a version that I wrote, until I changed it 2 days ago. That version you quote back to me btw also reflects some other recent changes, making it no more than a few days old. Dev, come on.Tao2911 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the line about the Biennale is what I am quoting to you directly from the magazine: "Adi Da opened at the Venice Biennale, chosen as a solo collateral exhibition..." That line. The rest is, yes, yours. What do you have to lose by mentioning this? Are you afraid it might make Adi Da look like a good artist or something? It's just a factual mention.

It's mentioned here, this guy goes to the Biennale and talks about seeing Adi Da's art: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/venice-biennale-bidding-farewell/. If it's not true, then how come everywhere you look, it is mentioned as being part of the Venice Biennale? Is it not clear in this passage that it is a "solo collateral exhibition"? Isn't that the point you are making? Either way, I am not convinced by your interpretation and argument, when sources say otherwise. I will look at more sources and articles.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

show happened same time as Biennale. but but he wasn't in THE biennale - it was "collateral" to it. Confusing right? You are proving my point. I am saying that even mentioning it is misleading. The distinction of his involvement is too convoluted to clarify in entry passage. Also, I just completely shot your source out of the water. it is no way authoritative, in any way shape or form.Tao2911 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would like to propose the inclusion of this line from this same magazine article, for the Biography: "Adi Da Samraj describes his early years as being focused in two fundamental activities: investigating how to realize truth, and developing the ability to communicate that truth through artistic means, both visual and literary." I think this could work instead of the "Bright since birth" line.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First, your second point: I don't know this source, but that line sounds overly credulous (after quickly checking for source, as I say above, to even bring it up is beyond ridiculous.) It's not factual. Its yet more Da self-analysis, and we have plenty of that. No way. Plus, adding a quote that long in the midst of the bio makes no sense. I'm not sure you have an ability to read a passage and recognize what fits in terms of readability - you always just want the heroic characterization. One, the bio reads now chronologically with name changes as they occur, and minimal subjective interp, except as it pertains to those events as they happen (ie he quit drugs because he found them problematic. Devotees experimented because they said it was to grow spiritually, etc.)

Second, I have explained this Venice biennale thing numbers of times, at length. Da wasn't in the Biennale, or 'open at it' (whatever that is supposed to mean). He was featured in a "collateral exhibition." The explanation this demands takes up too much room in the profile. "Collateral exhibitions" are completely independently run and funded - the quality of these shows are wildly uneven, and they have no official sanction or oversight or "quality control" by the Biennale curator or organizers, which was what was implied before by wrongly including the Biennale catalog in references. I've been - I know. Adidam wants people to think he was in the Biennale because of its prestige and legitimacy. He wasn't. The Biennale consists of two parts - the pavilions, in which dozens of nations select 1-2 artists to represent their country (these are always mid to late career artists of great significance, not dabblers having a first show like Da). Or, there is a large group show curated on a theme by the Biennale director for that year. Da wasn't in that either.

This is all esoterica to the uninitiated, and continued to make the section tortured, trying to allude to these facts. Most people don't know anything about the biennale anyway. if they want more info about his shows, they can pursue references. i will continue to protest this point, and the inclusion of Biennale mention in this section.Tao2911 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dev here. Adi Da was at the Bienalle, the collateral events were considered part of the main show. And Adi Da was published by Welcome Books, and has critical acclaim from some of the top art critics in the art world. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"was considered part of the main show" No dude, it wasn't. That's what I'm explaining to you. If you don't believe me, do the research. Don't confuse the issues - the "critical acclaim" such as it is, is mentioned (kuspit, oliva). The Welcome book is mentioned. Why are you bringing those up? Making a case for...?

I am saying no to the Biennale mention - there is no significant loss of info. Just confusion.Tao2911 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying yes. I mean why not? It's valid information, not made up. It happened. It was an important event in the life of the subject. You can see here that the collateral events are part of the Bienalle, [21] Here are some examples of other artists who list their participation in collateral exhibits of the Bienalle, Atta Kim, Jeffrey Isaac, and Caterina Davinio.

The distinction is still valid. He wasn't in THE biennale. Who is going to understand what a "collateral exhibition" is? No one. You don't. Look at this list you link to - there are dozens of completely unaffiliated events, with no Biennial oversight/relationship. It's a list of shows - every art event in Venice that happens at the same time as the Biennale. Not in the Biennale. The Biennale is a very specific thing, with two parts as I said. He's not in it. So no Biennale mention.Tao2911 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the collateral events aren't a part of the Biennale, then why are they part of the official Biennale website? [22] The artists above all list their Biennale collateral event showings as just that. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that it is excessive confusing detail that is misleading and only emphasized due to biased POV.Tao2911 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Agreement, Partisanship

Starr and JR, I see you seem to have responded to mediation request, but you still have to agree lower down on the page in some way. Dev already has.

I will participate in mediation as long as we have the agreement that there will be no more changes to the article without consensus, and we all stick by that agreement David Starr 1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the only changed I've made are to sections that I have largely written, in nearly every case recently to simply try to move the article toward devotee concerns.Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, I have a legitimate concern that having created a concise statement of my concerns, that you not then make changes, which would change everything about the structure of those concerns regarding the content of this article. None of us own the edits that we make and none of us own this article. So are you able to stop editing non-consensually for whatever period of time that it takes for the mediation process to occur? David Starr 1 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also - I want to say for the record that of four people involved in this mediation, three of them are admitted followers, committed believer/devotees, or admirers of the controversial religious guru this entry profiles. Your investment in the topic naturally stems from this. As you have all made clear in word and deed, you want him to look good, admirable, even "holy."

What is your point? You are just as biased, but in the opposite direction. You feel negatively about Adi Da, and have made nasty comments about him (which I can find and quote back to you) numerous times in the history of this Discussion page. What's the difference between being an admirer and being a hater? Equal bias both ways. Point is, it doesn't matter, so you can forget this "you want him to look good, admirable, even holy" kind of bullshit. You arguably want him to look bad, and as controversial, and suspicious as possible. Either way, we both have to discard those points of view and work toward a neutral article, regardless of what you want and I want. So your bringing this up is truly irrelevant. Maybe if we were all devotees or something, it could be an issue of bias, but the fact that you aren't is enough to demonstrate that there is more than one point of view happening here, which can serve the article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. My statement regarding this is at my user page: [[23]] Please stop misrepresenting me on this talk page. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

being a "fan" as you state is being an "admirer". Ok? You wear your bias on your sleeve. Its clear enough. with Da, you are on the bus, or off the bus. He didn't leave much room for ambivalence, did he?Tao2911 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a follower or a devotee (surprise.) I certainly find some of his accomplishments admirable. However, discounting everything ever published by Dawn Horse Press (adidam's mouthpiece), virtually all analysis and press in some way addresses his controversial reputation and/or the reasons for it (a glance at citations proves this.) Devotee editors have consistently tried to remove these mentions or minimize them in every conceivable way. I have been fighting to have the entry reflect the relative weight of available info on Adi Da, in a neutral non-partisan way. Working with devotees, remaining tenacious in the face of the onslaught of hagiographers, has been at time fruitful, often difficult, and I (and others) have walked away in the past seeing it as impossible. But I am refusing to allow the partisans to win this round.

With all due respect, perhaps you should review WP:Assume good faith. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for your good faith list of specific problem passages. Gee, another link to a guideline - for me? Aw shucks. ; )Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I anticipate this being relatively contentious, but then, anytime this gets to mediation, it must be. I will continue to make a case for a tightly worded, neutral, factual overview, that reflects the current available tertiary sources.Tao2911 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

David Starr and Tao asked me to comment on the editing issues here. So here are a few thoughts. There have been similar issues on the sustainability page. They took an approach that might help. The editors there are trying to bring the article to FA status. So they set up their own FA Project, with a "sign on team" of editors. Some editors use different colours when commenting, which makes it easy to follow their threads. They also agreed on their own groundrules. The other thing they did was to set up subpages for the talk page, where specific issues could be properly set out and ticked off point by point, rather than being fragmented and gradually disappearing up the talk page and then off into archives. For example, a page could be created specifically for the issues that David Starr considers are POV issues. These can then have stable discussion threads under each point, and be individually ticked off when they are resolved. It also helps to regularly archive the talk page, at 320 KB it is currently far too long. Clean off issues as soon as they are stale, and regroup every now and then when discussion loses focus. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some other thoughts

I find it helps to remind myself from time to time what our common ground is. We are here to play a game, the Wikipedia encyclopaedia game. Whatever particular personal hats we wear regarding Adi Da, once we start engaging here, we must take that hat off, and replace it with the hat of a Wikipedia editor. If we don't do that, then we are playing the wrong game, and we shouldn't be here. To play the Wikipedia encyclopaedia game, you have to follow the rules. The most basic rule is that Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. And the way things are verified is by citing reliable sources. The information that can be verified should be put together from a neutral point of view without the use of peacock or deprecation. Suppose we had two versions of the Adi Da article, one written by an Adi Da devotee and other written by an Adi Da critic. If both editors had their Wikipedia editor hats firmly in place when they wrote the articles, it should be impossible to tell which editors wrote which. The strength of a properly written Wikipedia article is that it is reliably sourced. The weakness is that truth can slip through the cracks. But truth slips through the cracks anyway. As events recede into history, the only reliable sources that are left are... the reliable sources that are left. That's just how it is. It's fine to have personal agendas about Adi Da. But an editor who doesn't step aside from that and don their Wikipedia hat is wasting other editors' time. How much time has been thrown away here by playing all kinds of games other than the proper one. There's only one king here, and that is reliable sources. Sniffing out relevant reliable source, on and off the web, is the most important thing to be done. If we want a something added, which we know is true, but we can't find reliable sources, then tough, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Conversely, if there is non-trivial stuff we don't want added, but there are are a number of reliable sources, then tough, it belongs in Wikipedia. Courtesy is the other key part, essential oil for the wheels of the game. It's fine to have strong views and get aroused when they are challenged, it's just that our aggression shouldn't rule when we wear our Wikipedia hat. It helps to watch that aggression. Instead of clicking "Save page" after typing that really clever put down, remind ourselves that our Wikipedia hat is slipping and try doing something else for a while. Personal attacks never work... never. You get your short term adrenaline hit, but you have just inflamed your fellow editor and encouraged payback. This stuff goes nowhere. The same applies to wikilawyering. It is aggressive to repeatedly tell another experienced editor that they should AGF and not make personal attacks; that in itself is a personal attack and does not AGF. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for voice of sanity, E. I have been guilty of being testy at times - its been frustrating here of late. However, I appreciate you reiterating, as well informed of WP guidelines as you are (better than anyone else here), that its not about "winning a case" or swaying POV to suit position. Its about accurately reflecting sources, and their relative proportion, with NPOV editorial voice. I keep saying this over and over - I have striven to write from both sides (working successfully with editors from all positions,) and to get this page to reflect to available info in said proportion, which I don't feel this page ever really has up to now. We have gone from way off the WP guideline map a year ago (and more recently when partisans retook the page), to at least on it. I personally think we are fairly close to the goal. I think this has some partisans upset. But I continue to research sources and add them as found. If anything, proportionate to coverage, I think Adi Da is getting off with a fairly light touch. But I greatly anticipate getting to Starr's points, so we can move past the bickering and get to just wrapping up points; and failing that, to making clear what is insoluble.Tao2911 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Feuerstein's 'Holy Madness' first edition

I got my hands on a copy of Georg Feuerstein's authoritative first edition of "Holy Madness: the shock tactics and radical teachings of crazy-wise adepts, holy fools, and rascal gurus." As you may be aware, at the time he wrote this he was still a firm admirer (still devotee?) of Adi Da, and the long-ish chapter (longer and more clearly positive than others) is a gold mine of supportive info for the bio section. I added a number of citations, fixed a couple passages in line with source. He details all the G/G period shenanigans, sex, film, drugs, booze, and no one in Adidam denies any of it, with Da's explanations for such behavior quoted, and stating plainly that such "tantric" events happened until at least 1986. His bio echos the one here in WP almost exactly, and I added it as citation in a number of places.

Also, I added a brief mention of Divine Emergence. I'm happy to read it, because it not only provides an authoritative mention of an important event post-legal period, but it describes and quotes Da talking at length about the "D.E." It finally explains the lengthy videos of Da just sitting there on youtube - his body is now a "perfect vehicle" for his message. This is incredibly helpful. I knew this event was crucial, but didn't have a good source for it. Before I get flack for the partying mention here is the quote: "3. Crazy Wise Chaos and the Community of Devotees: Burned out by months of partying...Da Love-Ananda suffered a sudden collapse at the beginning of 1986. On January 11 he suffered what he described as a {near-death} experience. This was one of many... since his days in college... it has special significance and continue to shape his relationship to his devotees into the present.

...it is now referred to in the official literature...as his "Divine Emergence." In a talk at the end of February 1986, he explained that on that eventful morning in January he had spoken of his grief, sorrow, and frustration at the seeming futility of his teaching work. he told them he could no longer endure their rejection and abuse and he wished to die." Then he said he did. Etc.

There is a lot more. lest his position be questined, he ends the chapter thus: "Da Love-Ananda [name revealing date of edition, 1991] is an enigma, a paradox, for which there may be no solution other than the nonsolution of enlightenment itself." This is NOT his position 5 years later, when he becomes vocally critical.

Ok. Let me have it. Or surprise me, and thank me for my excellent research and diligence. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, clearly at odds with his critical position, GF nonetheless quotes our friend David Lane at length in his chapter on Da, hopefully helping to put to bed the persistent impetus to totally discredit the guy and his book with Scott Lowe. I say this despite the fact that Lane isn't quoted anywhere in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Masking Controversial Behavior Against Da's wishes, from 'Holy Madness'

"For years, community representatives did their best to clean up Da Love-Ananda's talks before printing them, and in general they tried to tone down the crazy aspect of his behavior and teaching. Da Love-Ananda, on the other hand, constantly criticized them for presenting a distorted public image of him; he wnated to be portrayed as the wild man he is, despite possible dangers resulting from such a public image. He wanted to be free to teach in crazy-wise fashion and he felt that people approaching his community were entitled to know that he was no mild-mannered teacher but, as he once put it, a "conflagration" in which [the devotee] gets scorched and consumed.

"It is difficult and superfluous to determine what might have happened if his followers had chosen to represent him more faithfully over the years. It certainly would have been fairer at least give newcomers more of a sense of the crazy-wise ways of their guru. Instead, there were and are many marginal friends of the community and even formal disciples who have no concrete idea of his past crazy-wisdom exploits. Many students really do not want to think about them, preferring to remain ignorant of the details lest they should prove too upsetting." Georg Feuerstein, 1991Tao2911 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911's continued edits without consensus

Judging from the edit history here at Adi Da, Tao2911 has pretty much taken over the editing of this article. I have been abiding by an agreement that I made, and that I thought we all had made, to not edit the article without consensus. So I am asking how other editors feel about consensus, and how they feel about Tao2911 being the only one who feels like he doesn't need consensus to edit. Also please note whether or not you think that Tao2911 is injecting bias with his edits. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Because Starr is completely refusing bring up any specifics and seems to be holding the page hostage, assuming from past experience that no matter how well cited material is that he finds distasteful in some way he will refuse to recognize, I have quite simply been citing the hell out of everything to prove irrefutably every single line in this entry - I also continue to make small word edits for accuracy to sources and considering Starr himself (if for no other reason than to give him no possible way to complain.) I added the 'Divine Emergence' passage because its a nearly verbatim quote from the most authoritative neutral bio ever written on Adi Da. Refute it. Question the source. Go ahead. Please. Question the validity of the event that characterized the last 20 years of his teaching, and why it shouldn't be there. Let's get down to it.

Wait for Starr to sign off on that inclusion? We all know that wasn't going to happen. I'm going carefully forward, listening to other editors (JR made a nice edit tonight - cheers) in order to make this an ever better entry, reflecting every WP standard and guideline. Just as we have for months without Starr. Successfully. I should have four different editions of 'Knee' in my hands within the week (including one published by 'Ashram' 1972), as well as 'Garbage' ('74) jsut to make sure that we can be sure of current citations, and maybe add more. I will continue to cite things.

I have no desire nor is there any need now to significantly change the text of this article - which I actually haven't done since Starr reappeared, except to consider his (and others') positions. In some cases changes were made to placate him (which hasn't in a single case worked) and in other cases to make it impossible for him to refute present material. Either way, the page wins. One of these days, Starr'll maybe get around to making a list of complaints and I can carefully point him to all the citations for the passages that offend him, and their relative weight in the coverage - and if Starr can provide alternate or additional sources and material, I will like nothing more than for us all to consider and include them. This has yet to happen, even once. So, for now, until that happens, I'm just going citation crazy.

If Starr refuses to begin to put forward specific points of contention that will allow for mediation within the next week, mediation will be aborted, good faith having failed to have been shown. At that time more productive editors will have to consider getting rid of the POV label.Tao2911 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New subpage

I have started a new subpage called /David Starr – Specific issues with Adi Da. It is listed at the top of this page where it is easy to find. Would you please list, point by point, all the specific issues you have with the article, David. This will provide a stable place where your concerns can be properly heard and addressed. Others editors can open a discussion under each issue. When an issue has been resolved, it can be ticked off by entering {{tick}} (Y) --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

bless you, Epipelagic.Tao2911 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! David Starr 1 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America", sources

Well, I finally looked this source up - I think Dev or JR has added it as source at some point but I noticed that there were no specific page numbers. Google books provides numbers of pages from it, but not all. It is incredibly well-sourced and researched, and is a wealth of supportive bio info. It supports everything in the bio up to now, as well as more recent significant events. I have ordered a copy of the volume in question from another library, and hope to have it next week.

I must express some frustration that apparently Dev or JR was aware of the information in this source since it was being cited throughout the page, and yet I was being fought about including info in the bio that is not only supported by this source, but expanded and made even more explicit in many cases (primarily using various editions of Knee as source, as well as news reports, and many other sources cited in a choice bibliography.) Divine Emergence, lawsuits, drug use, series of documented psychological breakdowns, etc (like, JR, the fact that Jones had a vision of an oriental import shop in CA, convincing him that Rudi was his man when they met.) Not helpful.

Also, the same could be said re: Holy Madness 2006, which JR seems to have, since he cited it last night. This makes it even more confusing for why I am being fought about including a totally neutral time-line about events covered there too in great detail, supporting everything I have been having to fight for including, ; it yet again reveals a seeming intent to create a "selective" portrait in line with some ideal, that is not in keeping with a proportionate review of available info. This is not writing for the other person's position.Tao2911 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Relative to page numbers on the "New & Alternative Religions" source they are all there. I merley quoted the pages that information on Adi Da is available.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

With a page this contentious that is not suitable. It needs specifics. So I'm working on it. And knowing that you had read this and cited it, and that you've fought me (with Starr, and not) on information that I only had less definitive sources for is... disappointing.Tao2911 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal not a RS according to the RS noticeboard

See the link here: [[24]] I have to say that I agree with this assessment. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow - you agree with your own opinion on the RS board? That is shocking. Somehow, I remain unconvinced, even when you say it in two places, and pretend to be two people. In any case, simply because you are contesting it, I'm finding all the same info in other sources and removing that citation or simply backing it up with second, third, fourth, fifth citations. But you keep working on this.Tao2911 (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published, fringe source. There are enough scholarly and media sources about Adi Da. --JN466 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)" I believe this is a formal wiki editor... yes.... no??? Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Same editor that did the GA review. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tao, You do realize that the source has to specifically support the statement? That means that just because a source uses the word cult with the word Adidam, such as saying the Adidam cult, doesn't mean that they are criticizing him for his cult-like community as you have stated. That's original research and/or synthesis. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

are you saying that he was not criticized for having cult-like community? This is a good litmus test, of any sort of reasoning ability or ability for NPOV. And editors are expected to summarize information reasonably from sources - not everything has to be a quote. You just can't make wild interp. I qualified the HECK out that sentence, and it is a reasonable synopsis of those bunch of sources, and the general trenchant criticisms. You're good at finding guidelines. That is one.Tao2911 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Free wheeling editing without discussion nor consensus from Tao 2991

Tao, the paragraph Fredrick Lenz is simply free wheeling editing. I don't feel that it is relevant in this section. So what if some folks in the Adidam communnity were in conflict with Lenz devotees.From what I hear it happened this way and then no biggie. It simply is not relevant to the article. You have been asked by a number of editors to put inclusion up for discussion. Were does it stop or end if you do not work with others. This has been addressed by a number of editors which you continue to ignore. You are taking liberties in what once was attempt to be a balanced article and simply free wheeling it.Having fun no doubt but moving the article to bias and lack of nuetrality.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant, because its one of two tertiary sourced event we have from 1986 to 2000. Its from a valid source. If the bio is to be complete, you need events in his final years. I think its very interesting info. I think many others would also. It shows activity. A bio with a 20 year gap is absurd. Mainly continuing with sourcing info.Tao2911 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What does "show activity mean"? Are you going to try to include all kinds of irrelevant information just to fill in a 20 year gap out of your good intentions and honest journalism? What is "absurd" with the gap? There are plenty of bios in and on wikipedia that are quite brief. Maybe since there was no major conterversy reported in the media in any significant way during the 2000 - 2008 you want to create it? I strongly disagree on these tactics. Your argument for it is very weak and not relevant as some other points you have brought up. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is significant because it involves another guru. It also allows mention that he thought he was Vivekananda, which is bloody significant. You over and over prove that you don't want a thorough bio. You want a selective hagiography - I get it. That was Da's thing. Lenz has a questionable rep, so you don't want the association with your dude. This is like not mentioning that Eric Clapton married George Harrison's wife in a bio of either. They are both huge celebrity gurus, as far as that sort of fame goes. Are you kidding me? The active merging of two religious traditions? Irrelevant? sigh...

" Merging of two traditions" ... exaggeration. I know Georg F says that they were welcomed however I don't think but a small handful of his devotees are in Adidam as I understand. Hardly a "merging of two religions." This is your subjective opinion and weak argument for it's inclusion. By the way I have no problem with Lenz. I only read a part of one of his books and found it humorous and interesting. By the way wiki does allow for some paraphrasing from sourced citations but I think the word George F used was "welcomed" so I find you choice of language "recruited" odd.

Finally to quote Tao "and as I have maintained for a year, indicates that this page should be about two paragraphs." Revealing your own bias. Sigh back to ya ... Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da came to me in a vision and he told me that I must come to this page and "constantly criticize those false friends and cultic devotees for presenting a distorted public image of me; I want to be portrayed as the wild man I am, despite possible dangers resulting from such a public image. I want to be free to teach in crazy-wise fashion and I feel that people approaching my community are entitled to know that I was no mild-mannered teacher but, as I once put it, a "conflagration" in which the devotee gets scorched and consumed." (that's the quote from Feuerstein by the way...)Tao2911 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, Tao. The Divine Emergence paragraph is anything but neutral at this point.

You have not posted anything here to see if other editors agree, and have gone on and on simply editing this article, and then making mentions of it after it is done here in Discussion. I am getting tired of asking for consensus before edits are made in the article. David Starr has made this point numerous times. You are not addressing this point. It is possible for you to work with other editors here by posting proposed edits before you put them into the article? Is that too much to ask on a topic this controversial? We have a good body of editors here, all willing to work together, except you continually violate that by making edits in the article, and giving some reply about "tertiary" this and that. There has been NO consensus on anything you have posted recently, and you just keep going. Something will have to change.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Divine Emergence...The source: "3. Crazy Wise Chaos and the Community of Devotees: Burned out by months of partying, Da Love-Ananda suffered a sudden collapse at the beginning of 1986. On January 11 he suffered what he described as a {near-death} experience. This was one of many since his days in college...it has special significance and continue to shape his relationship to his devotees into the present...it is now referred to in the official literature as his "Divine Emergence. In a talk at the end of February 1986, he explained that on that eventful morning in January he had spoken of his grief, sorrow, and frustration at the seeming futility of his teaching work. he told them he could no longer endure their rejection and abuse and he wished to die." I will back this up with New Religions when I can get access to those pages (not online, book on the way) So, are you questioning source?Tao2911 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please address why you are making edits without consensus, without posting proposals for everyone to look at. I don't care how "tertiary" or legit it is, I am not arguing content with you right now, my point is why are you continuing to edit this article instead of working with fellow editors. You have significantly re-worked the Adidam section, on your own. You have not posted or said anything about it here beforehand. This simply will not work. You do not own this article. We are all here to work together on it, and you are just taking charge, and feel that you have free roam as long as everything is "tertiary".--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am looking at this language in the 2006 edition so I am not making this up. Do you have a big objection to a one word language change? Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: the Lenz passage. "welcomed his community"? Biased edit, then trying to say this is from the source? Its not there, you're making things up again. The passage is a straight quote from New Religions. I made a footnote.Tao2911 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have the Google book page open in front of me. It doesn't say what you say it does. I quoted it. I am not allowing for any argument on anything. So I am citing like crazy, and being true to sources. And I even took out some of the skeptical position that bleeds through in places in 'new religions' (including the Lenz passage, which borders on humorous), and even in that early Feuerstein - these editors acknowledge that Da is kooky, even by the standards of his peculiar niche in the culture. Which is why it remains a mystery what you and Starr want to see on this page. I just keep adding the notable sourced facts, and not even playing up the controversial bits as much as ANY of the accepted sources.Tao2911 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the last entry above relative to Dev or my comments? The Feurstein quote I am refering to is on page 176 of the 2006 edition . It reads " Also in the year 200, Adi Da welcomed into his church ..." etc etc. All I am saying is the term "welcomed" is more neutral. I still feel that as stated above this is not a significant event in the bio as well. Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

well there you go - the passage is from New Religions (as I said), and that is what is cited. I don't have that edition of GF. NR is I think a preferable source - its an encyclopedia to start with. That is the source, so we should stick to it. "welcomed" is not neutral. Big difference from "actively sought." They didn't come to him. He went to them. Not a big deal, but a much different orientation. What is expanded on in NR is that he sought them in part because they were known to be wealthy. I did NOT include that - it wasn't necessary and would inflame partisans here.Tao2911 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam Section

Removed the murti-Guru section. This was true at an earlier point in Adi Da's teaching, but later on he said there would be no successor, not even advanced practitioners that would serve as "murti-gurus", speaking more about how he would continue to work in an eternal manner. The rest of this section looks fine to me, some good edits here. Still would have preferred going the route of consensus, Tao.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev, you can't do this. It's cited by an accepted tertiary source - find another source to counteract this. It is from 2006. That is pretty late. So find another source, or leave it alone for now. I'm not attached to the info, but it's got a source, and I read in some other story about how a couple of his close female devotees were expected to do this. Believe me, I'd love to have that made explicit, that it didn't happen. Just want sources.

If I try to get consensus for even just quoting accepted sources, as is apparent, nothing would get done on this page. So, I am quoting sources, and citing up the wazoo. Let the critics argue with quotes from the sources. That will be a short argument. One would think. But weirdly, not so much in practice...Tao2911 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Tao it seems like you are engaging in original research with all of this sourcing that you are doing. The source has to specifically support the statement that you are making. You are adding sources for things that couldn't possibly support the statement that is being made. The source can't simply infer the the same thing as the statement. The source actually has to say the same exact thing as the statement that you are adding the citation next to. The whole books section is looking like original research to me. And your using the North Coast Journal and Lane as a cite for the pre-birth section of the "Knee of Listening"? What gives? David Starr 1 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

tell me a specific passage and I'll give you the source. Oh wait - there are citations! See all those? Now with shiny new footnotes in many cases. Check em out.Tao2911 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"pre-birth" is from Knee publicity page - there's a link. Page count, text, Scientology from Lowe. Mention of changes, scientology, radical edits New Religions, Feuerstein. "Most famous book" - all sources, including GF, New Religions. "North Coast" - what the prob, where? Please, read it first...also footnote.Tao2911 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's take books line by line:

Adi Da wrote prolifically about his spiritual philosophy, creating the Dawn Horse Press in 1973 to publish his books. It continues to print many Adi Da-authored titles.[5]

no problem with that - I hope and pray. Or there is no hope.

Best known among these is his autobiography,[109][110] "The Knee of Listening" (1972),

you aren't questioning this are you? Again, this is a given.

the 1973 edition of which contained a foreword by well-known author Alan Watts. Subsequent editions have undergone extensive changes.[111]

Watts, we're good right? And the editions have seen changes, yes? Citations talk at length about them, hence...

"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.[112]" Lowe did the counting, and this is a quote from him, this whole line. New Religions also mentions page count, and goes on at length about changes. I made a footnote.

For instance, a chapter on his time with Scientology is no longer included,[113][114]

we don't dispute this right? Tell me you aren't? But it doesn't matter - New Religions mentions it.

and there is an added chapter on "the secrets of Adi Da's "pre-history"(before his birth in 1939)."[22][115][116][117]

Kneeoflistening.com quote. Its not only cited, but it fits in with other facts throughout entry, to make a sensible orderly page. We could however scrap this, and go with New Religions passage about Da's extreme wont to rewrite.Tao2911 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher, Eugene, Ashcraft, Michael. (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, Volume V, p.88-89 "...in later editions, Jones' childhood is presented as utterly exceptional...It is clear that Jones’ autobiography might best be understood as a kind of auto-hagiography, since its purpose is to preserve for posterity a sanitized, mythologized, and highly selective account of Jones’ life and spiritual adventures."

and there is an added chapter on "the secrets of Adi Da's "pre-history"(before his birth in 1939), Then, for citation you've got the North Coast Journal? I think that you are getting a little sloppy with all of this citing that you are doing. It's becoming almost impossible to verify the text because a lot of the sources are saying some part of the statement, but not the statement entirely. You cant use several sources to then combine into a statement of your own. That's synthesis and it's original research. The source has to support the statement, exactly. Just because a webpage says cultic studies and links to Adi Da does not support the statement some criticized him for cult-like community, just as an example. We are on the same team here. You want your edits to stand the test of time don't you? David Starr 1 (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

you do love to make up rules. I don't know what the North Coast passage is refering to specifically, I have to review. No, not every line needs to be a "quote", dude. You CAN summarize a number of sources in a single statement if that statement is reasonable and supported by sources.

WP guidlines: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context."

Also: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."

I'm not going beyond 'source intent' anywhere. The 'books' passage is completely neutral in tone. Your complaint is that it implies something problematic, in that you think it is 'bad' for him to look like he edited his books. Source analysis says he did this, and not necessarily negative. Feuerstein talks about it being crazy wisdom activity in Holy Madness '91. Lowe characterized it more negatively (but I don't cite this, only page count etc). New Religions says it more frankly, without view, but as something to consider (see footnote, pasted above). This passage doesn't lean any way, and uses three sources with slightly different POV.Tao2911 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, Starr, I want to ask that you make specific accusations re: POV issues. Yes, there is some citation clean up needed in a few places - precisely what I have been working on. Most of that had less to do with me; a lot of these sources are left over or sloppy seconds from others (as I have been discovering and pointing out.) I got rid of the source you wanted gone, because it turns out I could get my hands on all the sources he was using or that made it redundant from other sources. But what is the problem in the text? You have gone from making some pretty wild assertions to now just picking on a couple citations. Come on. Where's the beef?Tao2911 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam Section: No Murti-Guru

Sometime in the mid to late 90's, Adi Da removed all mention of Murti-Gurus from his teaching and literature. The idea was that there would be advanced practitioners, who had realized his seventh stage state, and would thus be able to function as a transparent "agent" of his. Later on, Adi Da re-defined the term "agent" and said there would no longer be any human agent, and he subsequently created the term "instrumentality", distinguishing it from "agency".

Here are the definitions of those two terms as they appear in the Glossary of The Aletheon:

Agents/Agency--The Means that serve as complete Vehicles of Avatar Adi Da's Divine Grace and Awakening-Power. The Means of Agency that were fully Established by Avatar Adi Da during His physical human Lifetime are His Teaching-Word, His Image-Art, the Hermitages and Sanctuaries that He Directly Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered, and the many Objects and Articles that He Directly Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered for the sake of His devotees' Remembrance of Him and reception of His Divine Avataric Blessing-Transmission."

Instruments/Instrumentality--The collective (and egoless) human means for magnifying Avatar Adi Da's Transcendental Spiritual blessing in the world, even forever after His physical human Lifetime. In the technical sense, Instrumentality is the collective function of full members of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam Ruchiradam *who are, necessarily, formally acknowledged practitioner of the "Perfect Practice"). In the more general sense, all those who truly devotionally recognize Avatar Adi Da serve as "instruments" of His Blessing-Regard in the world."

With these definitions in mind, I quote from a 2007 publication, titled "The Orders of My True and Free Renunciate Devotees", pg.110:

"I am to Remain (forever) Most Perfectly Effective (even after, and forever after, the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily human Divine Form). And (even after, and forever after, the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily human Divine Form) I will Remain Effective by Means of the continuous Work (or always Me-serving Instrumentality) of My True (and formally acknowledged) Instruments, which Instruments (or unique Instrumental Means) consist of all My (at every then present-time) formally acknowledged "Perfect Practice" devotees who are full formal members of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam ( who are formally acknowledged to be practicing the only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam in the "Perfect Practice" context of the only-by-Me Revealed and Given seventh stage of life)."

Okay, so here he is saying that his sannyasin devotees, who are practicing in the context of the seventh stage of life, would function as collective "instrumentality". That means they have realized the seventh stage of life, and also that they would not function independently as a "Murti-Guru" would, but rather the collective body of such sannyasins, who are in the seventh stage of life, would be "instruments".

He goes on to talk about the forms of Agency:

"Likewise (even after, and forever after, the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily human Divine Form), I will Remain Effective by Means of the continuous Work (or always Me-Extending Agency) of My true (and formally acknowledged) Agents, which Agents consist of My Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Word, My Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Image-Art, and the Formally by-Me Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered Sapta Na Sannyasin Hermitages and the Formally by-Me Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered Ruchira Sannyasin Sanctuaries.

So here he is defining what his Agents are, and no human is listed. In the past he spoke of there being human agents, which were the Murti-Gurus, but as you see, this does not exist in the literature anymore. He goes onto describe how the collective body of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order (in the seventh stage of life) functions as "Instrumentality", defining it so that it would not be confused with the function of a "Murti-Guru", or with any kind of "Agency" function, even subordinating them to Agency:

"In principle (and in the real event), after (and forever after) the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily (human) Divine Form, My fully Initiated and fully established seventh stage Ruchira Sannyasin devotees, can and must (because of their unique, and intensive, and truly and profoundly renunciate devotional and Transcendental Spiritual recognition-response to Me, and their unique, and intensive, and truly and profoundly renunciate formal accountability) function collectively (but not individually)--and, necessarily, always by virtue of their ego-surrendering, ego-forgetting, ego-transcending, and really Transcendental Spiritual Invocation of Me, and always by virtue of their real, and truly devotional, participation in My Divine Transcendental Spiritual Gift--as secondary and supportive (but True, and Transparent, rather than ego-bound and "self"-appointed, or independent) Instruments for assisting (or effectively conducting) the always and forever only-by-Me-Given Transmission of My Avatarically Self-Transmitted Transcendental Spiritual (and Always Blessing) Divine Presence, to My devotees in the same stage of practice-demonstration as theirs, and to My appropriately prepared devotees (in the First Congregation of Adidam) in earlier (or different) stages of practice-demonstration than theirs."

And further elaboration on how a collective instrumentality functions as opposed to a Murti-Guru:

"However, such Instrumental devotees do not (and should not) function thus by (merely personally, or individually, or even collectively) presuming to make intentional Spirit-Initiatory efforts toward any other individually (or even toward one another individually). Rather, all My devotees (including all My Ruchira Sannyasin devotees) should (always and forever) simply resort to Me, according to My Instructions (as Given in the by-Me-Finally-Approved, and Ruchira-Sannyasin-Order-Authorized, Renderings of The Aletheon and The Dawn Horse Testament--and, additionally, as Given by Me, during My Divine Avataric physical human Lifetime, to the Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam, for appropriate instructional dissemination, according to My thus Given Instructions, to My formally acknowledged and, as required, appropriately, rightly, and truly prepared devotees, during, and after, and forever after My Divine Avataric physical human Lifetime), and each and all will (on that basis, and in due course) be (even via all the kinds of formally by-Me-Given Means) Transcendentally Spiritually (and altogether) Blessed by Me."

This is not easy to understand, and is rather complex. There is a difference between Instrumentality and Agency in Adi Da's language and literature, even though on the surface they may seem synonymous. And the function of Instrumentality is still not equivalent to or the same as what used to be described by him as "human agency" or "Murti-Guru". On this basis, I am proposing to change the paragraph in the Adidam section. I am not sure if it is fruitful to get into a discussion about Instrumentality and Agency, in its place, and it may be better to not try to explain it. There could be mention of how there would be no successor. I am not sure if we want to make something out of this, or not, but either way, it should accurately reflect what is the case, and I understand your source said this, so I am providing you with sources that are more recent that say it is not so anymore. In this case, it is acceptable to use these books from the Dawn Horse Press, since no tertiary sources exist that discuss this matter.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can actually work this in though, now that I wade in. It's not that complicated, really. cheers. Let me work on this. You sign off on it. Ok?Tao2911 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Tao2911 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good edits on the murti-guru part. I removed the sentence you put in about sahaj samadhi being in yogic literature. This is not a completely true statement, even though you have a nice tertiary source. It is the opinion of the author, his own interpretation. Adi Da's literature no longer (and has not for a long time) had mention of "Sahaj Samadhi", rather it has changed and become more detailed, and he has written extensive material on how what he is talking about is not the equivalent of any other samadhi, including Ramana Maharshi's use of the "sahaj samadhi". I could sit here and quote extensively to you about it, but I don't want to put you through that.

Everything you put in doesn't have to be critical, or balanced with criticism. Sometimes it is enough just to state things.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think everything needs an "opposing position" at all. That is simply how the passage in the source read. I understand your point, had a similar question, and thus don't want to fight for that inclusion... I'll put it in a footnote as quote.Tao2911 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

footnotes

I am starting to use footnotes with citations extensively, so that we can head off some disputes. If we know what the source says at ready reach, it makes it easier to evaluate how it is being presented in entry. As I've said, I have some more sources on the way, which should help clean up some things.

I implore Starr to carefully read these footnotes and note all sources before he brings criticisms. He posted an old series of issues on the new sub-page without reviewing the page; most have already been addressed.Tao2911 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Knee of Listening

I have now the 'Ashram' edition of Knee of Listening, 1972. It is indeed different from the Beezone version in many respects, and you see already how he began to edit experiences in order shape a persona. It is also different from the 1973 version. So 71, 72, and 73 (and 79, and 83, and 89, etc) editions all show significant edits. this has a bearing on how we use these sources in regards the author, and subject of profile. Tertiary source analysis acknowledges and speaks to this point in numbers of cases, so we should as well.

The book is listed at beezone as "The Knee of Listening: The Life and Understanding of Franklin Jones, Copyright 1971 By Franklin Jones - All rights reserved" Every book is copyrighted - all rights are always reserved. We are not republishing it. We are using it as source, and citing to accurately reflect this. it is only really used for more detail on his early years - much of this detail was removed in the '72 version.

Other sources (including newspapers and New Religions) have used it as source, proven in that info found in these tertiary sources is found only in this 1971 version - and New Religions cites beezone. We don't know in what other way it may have been published in the past. In any case, it is copyrighted to Jones, it clearly reads as his writing, it shares many passages and similarities with later editions, so as far as we know he wrote it. It's a useful source, in addition to others - particularly on his early life (up to Muktananda discipleship). I will adjust cit's/footnotes accordingly.Tao2911 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the edition held by any library? — goethean ॐ 22:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be referring to this edition, ISBN 0877070938. It is held by 34 libraries. This edition, which appears identical except for the lack of an ISBN, is held by zero libraries. If your book has the isbn listed above, it is permissible. If it does not have an isbn, I'm not sure how anyone is going to verify your usage of it. — goethean ॐ 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If a website is reproducing the book, then they are indeed violating copyright laws and we cannot use such violations to verify information for Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

please read carefully - I made this explicit. The beezone version has no known print edition. I have 72 Ashram, and 73 first Dawn horse - all similar , but different. Beezone version is used as source by New Religions in America, vol V, Lowe, news articles, and Feuerstein, making it a necessary addition here. It can be verified much more easily than the print version - by simply visiting the webpage, and linked. I made quoted footnotes for most usages of it in entry.Tao2911 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It can be verified much more easily than the print version - by simply visiting the webpage, and linked.

You need to ask yourself a question. If one of these devotees came up with an unpublished manuscript which you had no access to except through scanned pages posted to a devotee website, and they planned to source sections of the article to it, do you think that you would be okay with that? — goethean ॐ 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would if it was used as source by a 5 editor reviewed encyclopedia entry, at least 3 news stories, and first hand witness/former student yoga scholar Feuerstein, all of which are used as sources for entry - all use it as source, in bibliographies. We could not use it, and just go with their interp of said source. Or go to source as well. No guideline is writ in stone - all have allowances and interp. It is always use best/necessary source, with sensitive use. Just like we use some quotes from Da in this story that are from Da websites, because no better tertiary, or even secondary, source. No where is this source used here that is not backed up by tertiary source.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing link

goethean tried to remove Rick Ross link, but someone replaced it. Site is there for balance with Adidam sites. All those sites are "biased." They have remained stable for months, indicating acceptance that having those opposing views off-setting each other is fine - I think it is only reasonable to have links to significant sites for controversial figure like this.

If there is dispute about this, let's see it here in talk.Tao2911 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who undid my removal had a different rationale than yours. His rationale (site is relevant, and author is respectable and notable) is valid. Your theory above that links relating to the subject of the article need to be balanced is not really true. This is an article on Adi Da. One would expect it to link to Adi Da's website. Nothing about that requires "balancing" through the addition of critical sites. I accept User:Hqb's rationale, but not yours. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

whatever allows you to leave it alone, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:No. The issue is verifiability. Wikipedia policy. Look into it. Does your book have an isbn, or not? — goethean ॐ 13:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage and the Goddess period

Hi. This inclusion needs a lot of work for neutrality. There is a very good description of what this period was about from a spiritual point of view in Georg F.'s book. So I have started to work on that a bit. (I would try and get consensus first, but it really doesn't work to only demand consensus from 3 editors while the 4th one edits away.) :-) Basically Feuerstein explains that Adi Da offered experiences high and low (including mystical experiences) teaching that all experience was to be transcended, that it was all garbage and should be thrown away. So I feel this POV should be included also instead of trying to make it into just being about sexual exploitation. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had been reading George F 2006 edition and had started to see that in describing this period he actually had fuller essential description of what occured. So I agree with Starr inclusion here for the sake of balance and neutrality. One can be selective in what one chooses to include from even a 3rd party cited sourse to create bias and I feel that is what has been done prior to this latest fuller description.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JR, glad that you agree. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

the bio section does not get into details of teaching, anywhere. its a timeline of facts. put it in crazy wisdom in teaching section if you need to. Do NOT pad the bio with justifications of explanations - that is not how the rest of it reads. keep it to single line descriptions, per sources, or I will move it. keep it readable and quick.Tao2911 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you did this. i will be moving this if you don't. We have gotten into this before. Those issues seem biased to you. But they are just sourced events/facts. Every single line in bio could have explanations and justifications. Just put it in teaching section. This reads as totally biased insertions in otherwise factual timeline. its almost too long as it was - this is just stylistically not working at all. Clunky and amateurish sounding - like a biased editor trying to shift the tone.Tao2911 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't undo this Tao. We are trying to reach consensus on this article. You can't remove the actions from the teaching if the very source that it's coming form is talking about it in those terms. To do so would be to divorce the text from the sources intent. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, your stylistic prefrances are totally irrelavant. You choose to talk about Garbage & The Godess period and selectively used just a section to support you bias. Having contexct for this period in Adi Da's Work is relevant and necessary. It is also a legitamet citation form Georf F book. So " clunky" well again this is not your personal english essay. Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"He divorced Nina, but she remained in his life for another decade as a disciple." Nina is still a devotee to this day, but it seems that this sentence is implying that she left after a decade, which is not true. Not sure if any third party sources prove this. We'll see.--Devanagari108 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Source (Feuerstein) talks about her (and 5 other wives, leavin four) being permanently booted of the island in the 1980s (breaking up of 'mandala' 1986-ish). That's what source says - it does not say she is still devotee (which she may still be - I don;'t dispute this.) Find source, and then cite. If not, leave it.

this is neutral factual language? "During this time he used his spiritual abilities such that hundreds of his students experienced "visions, spontaneous body movements known as kriyas, bliss states, heart openings, kundalini arousals, and sahaja-samadhi" This presupposes Jones HAD spiritual abilities. No, SOME students (Lowe was there, and said he saw nothing, and that it seemed like group psychosis - he spoke with many who did NOT experince anything either, reports this. SOURCE.) reported having had such experiences. Detailing what these are using this kind of specific Da description is extremely weasel-y. Also, this mention predates the garbage period - it fits in previous paragraph. I don't mind the mention, like it actually, but I neutralized it and moved it. The passage says that the reason of crazy wisdom was to grow spiritually and release attachments, summarizing PER SOURCES. The Jones theology can be added in a footnote. I suggest that as a way to include that information, which I think is indeed helpful if people want to understand this better. Or, you can add something to Crazy Wisdom in teaching - however, the language needs to be factual, and yes, has to suit the editorial voice of the page as it exists - which is neutral.

That lead line that Starr has so many problems with seems to really be twisting his bonnet - that line is an attempt to give a general overview of his estimation among the known visible sources. Not our friends, not the voices in our head. Sources. The majority (SOME) of those notable sources seem to praise him for his ideas, while also criticizing him "for what they perceive as" (not all, SOME, not objective fact, but subjective PERCEPTION) - the three lump criticisms are then listed, with a citation example for each (I don't believe I am having to explain this for the 30th time...) This is a fair summation of Lane, Lowe, Feuerstein, Wilber, and others. Lane's essay, for instance, is cited (not the one in his book) and called "Separting the message from the man." Wilber says same thing; so does Lowe, GF. I am not just making this up. This is not "original research." This is a COMMON analysis, THE common analysis, and a neutral presentation of that fact. Some like the books, while saying da's behavior/community/isolation are "problematic" (a word Wilber uses and discusses) and then these are now cited for each. Its is qualified - it is not fact. it is a fair summary of the critical overview for lead. this is according to guidelines. Please, let's move on.Tao2911 (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and before Starr gets upset about replacing "Jones" with "Free John" as somehow diminishing when name changes in bio, Feuerstein in 1992 lists him in his bibliography as "Free John, Da(Bubba)"

The material is exactly what the source said. Read the footnote. This is an attempt to bring neutrality to a very biased section. Tao, I think that you have been doing a good job with many parts of this article, bringing in high quality sources, footnotes, bringing in more neutrality in some places. But seriously, no one owns these articles and no one should try and keep others from editing here. This is a collaborative process. The only way all viewpoints will be represented is if we all contribute. Thats just the way that it is. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

oh I fully understand what you are doing. I therefor made adjustments and suggestions to you about what I find problematic. I made suggestions to you about how to address my problems - which you have yet to ever do, btw...Tao2911 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, "some" is a weasel word. Please read WP:weasel. It's impossible to balance and it's why the "who?" inline template exists, so that editors can bring it to attention that it doesn't belong. It is recommended that such statements be directly attributed to their source so that the reader can analize for them selves the veracity of the statement. David Starr 1 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying you can't edit. I told you which of your edits I approved of. Please address my points. "some" is not by nature a weasel word. I fully understand how in some cases it can be, but it simply isn't in this case. Do you not understand my points above? You seem unwilling or able to address them. I have brought them up 52 times now. I guess i will simply rewrite it to sidestep the massive cognitive/perceptual dissonance you seem to be experiencing.Tao2911 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I question Starr's quote, now in footnote, at citation '70' for kriya events. Supposedly from Feuerstein 2006, p. 155 - this language is more effusive and positive than even the 92 mentions, in an edition that in the intro he says he made changes to express and admittedly negative evaluation of Da. I would like another editor (presumably JR, since he says he has text) to check this.

I do not question that some people said these things happened. Happy to have that in bio. In time-line, this is described by GF as happening after the move to Persimmon, BEFORE G&G. So I placed it accordingly. For relative weight in TERTIARY coverage (not desired weight), it is a one line mention here. That some, not all, experienced "visions and spiritual experiences." This is lay language, for a general audience. Footnote includes passage from GF, per other incidents to clarify/expand, without ruining readability. The way this was phrased by Starr was biased, implying these were objective facts. They were not. They were subjective experiences, with dissenting voices. The sex allegations that Starr wishes to "balance" with this info get a lot more description, and are objective facts. They happened. Not conjecture. There is a difference. This is all according to sources, not my opinion. And not Starr's, other editors.

Please check quote if someone besides Starr has 2006. Meanwhile, I will check 92 version. I am acknowledgin a useful inclusion of info - I am disallowing biased, undue weight, excessive detail.Tao2911 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Point by point; This is untrue RE: it happening before Garbage and the Goddess. Feuerstein is talking specifically about these things happening during that time. I will add to the footnote his next sentence which says this. I placed in the article that Feuerstein is saying this so it is attributed to the source, I disagree with your characterization that I am adding bias, I am trying to balance bias. I don't appreciate your implying that I am fabricating the footnote without any evidence that i have ever done such a thing. You are again engaging in personal attacks and not assuming good faith. By reverting my edits you are again attempting to prevent me from making good-faith contributions here. I have reverted you a second time. Please do not edit war. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

here is the actual quote:"From my many conversations with longtime devotees, it appears that for several months [Adi Da]..." and so on. You left off the "it appears." I grant that GF says that it was during G/G - New Religions posits that such things occur before, and lead up to, more 'controversial' events. So I will move the mention - but I will not allow you to add full quote. it's in the footnote, just like everything else. These 'events' are subjective and had by some. All the specialized language is credulous and overly detailed. Since it seems necessary to add, I will find Lowe quote to say that others did NOT experience such things, found them questionable, and add this, also as FOOTNOTE. We have one source for subjective 'visions.' We have ten plus sources, including Adidam admissions, for objective sex and drugs. Proportional to sources, it demands the coverage it receives.

"Visions" are not facts. "Claims to have visions" are facts. Having sex is a fact. "Envisioning sex" and "having visions during sex" are subjective. get it?

I disagree. If he says they appeared to have happened then it's the same as saying that they happened. It's well-sourced, it's explicitly represented in the text, and it's balancing what would otherwise be a very one-sided explanation. Let the reader decide! This is the only edit I have attempted since you last reverted me a week ago. And you have done over 130, without consensus. With all due respect, this seems to me to be more about you trying to own this article. I have reverted a 3rd time. Please do not edit war!!!David Starr 1 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added line, summarizing in editorial voice, per editing guidelines ('use your own language to summarize source. don't over-quote.") For general audience. Material is in footnote, I am not removing. Just as I have placed detailed info that might inflame YOU in footnotes. This is not edit warring. its editing.Tao2911 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great. And since you have diminished the line about spiritual experiences, I have gone ahead and diminished the line about sexual experimentation. If you want neutrality then they both have to be weighted the same, since what we are talking about was about both, according to Feuerstein. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Relative weight, Starr. you don't get it. Count the citations. its not about 'balance'. Not a cort case. About relative weight of coverage sources. I will replace previous version. Do Not remove cited material.Tao2911 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"other" removed, summary of trenchant criticisms

Look Starr- I am working with you. Quit reverting my edits. I took out other. I have summary of criticisms that should be in lead, with 8 citations. I will add footnotes to clarify for you. Stop reverting to the contested version you already asked me to CHANGE. I will alert admin to vandalism if this continues.Tao2911 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. So if you won't allow me to edit, and just revert what I do then how do you suggest this article proceed. With you continuing to be primarily the only editor, and anyone else will have to spend an entire day fighting with you simply to get in a single edit? Also you seem to have managed to repost the article within itself such that there are two of everything. It would be good if you could fix this.David Starr 1 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you removed "some" it doesn't change anything. You can't just say someone was criticized, you have to say who is criticizing them. If you can't say who, then it shouldn't be included. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr, what the heck? Each criticism is cited. Can you not see those numbers, by each criticism, and at end of sentence? What is the problem here? I don't get it? There are like 8 citations there listing critical essays. As I said before - I will pull quotes for footnotes when I get the chance, but this is a reasonable summary of the common criticisms. Are you just going to pretend those citations don't exist? They are there. I summarizing in spirit of sources. You need to knock this off and be reasonable, man. you are being completely absurd. Spend your time finding some sources for the "praise", that has NONE.Tao2911 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - once again, for the record, because I don't think Starr can actually read without Da goggles - I crafted a line that I still think is a reasonable summary of at least 6 different cited sources, that said that while some folks still liked his ideas, they think he went off the rails later. A fair summation of Wilber, Lane (who is the most vocal critic, and yet loves his early books. His essay is called "separating the message from the man" for god's sake - CITED in line) Feuerstein, who says the same thing. Lowe, again. And others. I cited all of these. Starr can't read citations I guess - can't bring himself to click that little blue number. Might be bad news I guess. So head in the sand, he keeps slapping POV labels on the line. Stop the madness, Starr. You're losing it.Tao2911 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki policy on this is clear, you should make attributions in the article (not in the citations only), so that the reader can decide for themselves where this info is coming from. I am not out of line by asking for attributions. It's wiki policy. It's also not out of line to add a little POV disputed line when it has been discussed over and over with no resolution. I'm having to fight you for even the smallest of edits. This is really getting old. Can't we work together and try and find consensus? David Starr 1 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

for once, just address my points. its attributed - LOOK AT THE CITATIONS. I will add footnotes soon - but you don't need a footnote to know what Wilber said. Or Lane. Or Lowe. Or what the title "The Paradox of Franklin Jones: separating the message from the man" means. Why are you fighting against this standard cited FACT, that Da had critics, numbers of them.

when I have tried to put critical info in the article, you fight that too. There are brief neutral mentions of these critics in reception - you know, Wilber, Lowe, Feuerstein, etc? All of those? Remember those? So the lead covers those - right? As the page has for months? Round and round we go, where it stops only Starr knows...Tao2911 (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Starr Edit Warring/Wiki Lawyering

Starr, stop accusing me of edit warring. i am making edits WITH you. I am responding and explaining, not reverting. Every version is an edit, not a revert. This is not an edit war - you reverting my changes to passages and not addressing my concersn here IS. Also, Epilagic already cautioned you about "wikilawyering. It is aggressive to repeatedly tell another experienced editor that they should AGF and not make personal attacks; that in itself is a personal attack and does not AGF." This applies to this blanket claim of edit warring. That is not what is happening. Knock it off, or I will report you to admin. The record here shows my good faith.Tao2911 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if it is being suggested that other editors check material that I have added suggesting that I may have fabricated a footnote, then it's fair game to remind you to assume good faith. I think that you need to be a little more flexible Tao. And Epilagic was warning all of us, not just me. I think it's pitiful that anyone has to go through all of this over one a few additions to a single paragraph. I am hoping that others might jump in here. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you fabricated - I indicated you may have "selectively quoted" - which you did. "it appears" does NOT mean "yeah, its totally factual. Wow!" Leaving that off and inserting whole glowing quote as fact re: 'hundreds swooning in ecstasy due to Da's magic powers' is beyond ridiculous (and you wonder why there is a problem?) Just own your bias, and move on. It is pitiful - I took your useful addition, made it neutral, completed your selective footnote, and there we go. Done. Move on.Tao2911 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this bickering. You are totally misrepresenting me above. I just want to make this article better. Please let me edit. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is more useful, David, to post things in the Subpage, instead of bickering here. As you can see, things are getting heated, and good faith is being thrown out the window. I'm not pointing any fingers, but let's take Epi's comments into account, and make use of this subpage for conversations like these. I understand your frustrations, and I would like to recommend that Tao calm down, and work with editors here, instead of getting self-righteous and angry. Maybe Arbitration/Meditation/Third Opinion, whatever, something is in order to restore order to this article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dev, I tried this for the past week. Not editing the article, spending many many hours posting here in discussion my concerns, but to no avail. Meanwhile Tao does another 130 edits to the article that are based expressly on his POV. So I felt after a week of no editing and watching Tao edit away, that I might try and edit 1 paragraph. And after an entire day, Tao only fights me such that at the end of the day, none of my edits stand. So if I spend another week voicing my concerns here, then Tao will just continue to do anther 130 edits or so. I am not here to sit on the talk page. And I am not reverting Tao every time he tries to make an edit. Take a look at the history. [[25]] He edits at will.

I agree to your point regarding arbitration. I don't really have any other option if I am to actually contribute to this article. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have noticed this pattern as well. That is why I am suggesting we move forward in a more administrative fashion, rather than amongst ourselves, which has gotten us nowhere.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev, you and I have worked very constructively together many times, even as of yesterday. Starr, a number of your edits today still exist in some form, even whole lines and numbers of footnotes, and again, I have addressed everything you have ever brought up. Removed sources, changed passages, found better sources, added footnotes, softened passages - and tonight, I allowed a number of your changes, added footnotes, and changed lead sentence to address you concerns. You reverted my adjustments over and over and over, not discussing in talk and not working with my points. You can't simply make edits and expect they get to stay if they don't work, read in context, are redundant, are biased, or break with WP guidelines. Make good edits and they will stand. Make biased, bad ones and they will be adjusted to reach consensus. I am a voice here, so I am part of consensus. I can, do, and am working with you.Tao2911 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So it seems to me that there is a lack of communication between Tao and Starr, amidst all the editing. Maybe there is some way to slow it down, and communicate more?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how there could be a lack of communication. I mean take a look at this talk page. Tao seems to think that the process is I voice my concerns on the talk page and he then makes the edits the way he sees fit. And then if I don't like it, I have to bring it up on the talk page. I have praised Tao several times today for his edits, even pleaded for consensus. But I do feel that he is exercising pretty much complete control over what goes into the article and edits without consensus. You and JR discussed this at length here [[26]] David Starr 1 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all I can say is that you are right. I leave this in the hands of Admins now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr, the lack of communication is that over and over, I make lengthy lists of pleas for you to respond to, and it is as if you are responding, not to what I write, but to some imagined tape loop in your head. See my comments above - again, I addressed many of your concerns today. I have incorporated many of your ideas over the last weeks, complied with your requests. You do not address mine. You do not listen or propose middle ground. You slap POV labels (your recent entre' here) and hit the undo button. I have bent far toward you - you have done little of the reverse.

And btw, these 130 edits you keep accusing - very disingenuous. Most of those changes are tiny corrections and citations and changes to address your concerns (removed sources, passages, etc), and the rest are additions from the new sources your presence demanded.

Look at this page - it has seen a radical improvement recently. And it will continue to improve - I have new sources, and should have hard copy of New Religions within the week, to access pages not available online. others are on the way, like Gurus in America etc. I am committed to see this page be the best sourced balanced page it can be, while remaining succinct and pithy. Hence, when lines are added that don't fit current version, I will ask for adjustments - as I have. And when these aren't addressed (as Starr seems unwilling to do), I will make those changes myself, with all consideration given to all sides. A neutral reviewer will see the balance and source legitimacy/respect of this page. Everything is sourced, neutral, contextualized.Tao2911 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao I respect your position, but so far you have ignored all other editors requests, requests that have been made over and over again, to not edit here without consensus. Consensus means that you aren't the sole decider of what edits get made and how. I don't see a radical improvement at all because this page is leaving out other POV's on key issues. It would be much better if you would allow other people to make contributions.

I have responded to you over and over again, but you continue to say that I don't. The main thing for me is why do I have to plead to you to allow me to edit? There's something wrong with that picture.

You can't be the only one allowed to edit without consensus. This page is not neutral, that's why there is a NPOV template at the top of the page. There are relevant, well-sourced aspects of this article that you aren't allowing. This prevents the reader from being truly informed. In my humble opinion, you are involved in ownership of articles and you are censoring other verifiable POV's. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a POV flag because you put it there. I maintain that the page is balanced. We could find a lot more middle ground if you would start acknowledging how many changes I have made on your behalf, how many issues I have addressed for all of the "pro-da" editors. that wold be a place to start. You made some edits - you did not seek consensus either - some were workable, some were not. This is how its going to go. You can't just keep hitting undo, and getting hysterical. You make a change, I make suggestions to your change. If you ignore those, then i will act on them respecting your POV. that is what happened tonight. You did not make an attempt to understand or act on my suggestions. So I acted - those demonstrably biased edits could not stand. However, with some adjustment, some things worked, and new footnotes were added to include extra details you wanted. There are two line overviews describing already the same things you wanted overly detailed. This is how it can go - if you learn to listen, and act with not just against.Tao2911 (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle ground would be good. It is possible to work together, as Tao and I have been doing in the past. Right now there seems to be a bit of a mayhem, and we've lost the smoother trail we were on. Not sure what to do, except that perhaps an Admin interference will set things more on track.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you have middle ground when everything you did today is removed, and your called hysterical simply for trying to edit a single paragraph and adding a few inline warnings. I can't say its been fun, basically a wasted day of absorbing abuse. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

the self-pity is unbecoming, and unwarranted. There is a line about 'visions and experiences' that is due to your additions (tho not in the form you added it, the bias of which was simply not acceptable.) A good addition. There are new footnotes and citations. And I took out the word 'other' that you were having fits about for two weeks (tho I think demonstrably for no other reason than you don't want any mention of Da having critics - your refusal to acknowledge its removal demonstrates this). You keep getting what you want (removed sources, removed passages, changed words, etc etc etc) and you never so much as say 'thanks' or even grant that we're all working with you.Tao2911 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I changed the photo of Adi Da sitting with Muktananda, simply because it was too small, and I recall reviewers for GA Status asking for larger and clear pictures. So the photo I put it in its place is from the same time period, and is clearer, and larger. I added a photo of him from 1973, which I felt covered the span of his Vedanta Temple awakening, and opening of the Ashram bookstore. That photo, I believe, is taken behind the Ashram bookstore. I also added photos for 1986 and 2000, since these were such a "dramatic" period of change in Adi Da's life and even physical appearance, it felt useful to include photographs alongside this section. I have also added a photo of the sanctuary in Fiji, since that is mentioned in this article in two places, seems important to have a picture of Fiji.

Also, I am working on obtaining a photo of Adi Da in Fiji, and also am considering obtaining permissions for photos from the Garbage and the Goddess period, if others feel that might be useful.--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos are fine now, no mas! Pic with Muk is really bad tho - blurry, compressed.Tao2911 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the color photo that you replaced with sepia one. please replace it. The full color was better for page. Sepia implies manipulating picture for ideal.Tao2911 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage & The Goddess

I want to consider broadening this section a bit. It is a significant part of Adi Da's teaching and life, and a source of the majority of controversy surrounding Adidam. Jeffrey Kripal has written an essay in "Gurus In America", titled "Riding The Dawn Horse: Adi Da and the Eros of Non-Duality". It particularly discusses sexuality in Adidam, as a part of Adi Da's teaching, focusing in on the Garbage and the Goddess period. I will post excerpts here that I find could be used for more material in this article. I am not proposing including all of this text, but something from what I post should be considered for possible inclusion. If we are going to mention it, then let's get into it:

"Indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of Adi Da and his tradition is the quite public fashion in which they have handled the question of sexuality and its central role in the spiritual life of the community. It is difficult, for example, to imagine a celibate guru when his daughters and his two partners are not only present but ritually privileged during the ritual of darshan. Certainly the goal of celibacy is offered as an accomplishment of serious spiritual practice, but never is this celibate goal allowed to smother or deny the centrality of the emotional-sexual nature of human behavior, including and especially religious behavior. Nor has Adi Da avoided the topic of sexuality in his books or conversation. Quite the contrary, he has spoken and written about it at considerable length since he first began teaching and publishing in the early 70’s, often in a bawdy, delightfully humorous, even “obscene” way (obscenity, of course, always being a matter of personal taste or preference). Indeed, the first two lines of his very first book, an autobiography entitled The Knee of Listening, read thus: “On November 3, 1939, at 11:21 a.m., in Jamaica, New York, I was born Franklin Albert Jones. The sign of my birth is Scorpio, marked by the images of Spirit and of Sex, the eagle and the crab.” The astrological stage was thus set, this one, it seems, for an inevitable drama of extremes (KL, 9, n)...And then, of course, there are the devotees themselves, many of whom are quite willing to talk about this aspect of their guru and their own devotional lives. Where exactly to begin? And, more importantly, where to end?"

"Garbage and the Goddess was published in 1974 as the third book to appear from the community. Only the guru’s early autobiography, The Knee of Listening (1972), and a companion volume of some of his early talks, The Method of the Siddhas (1973), appeared earlier. Already in this third volume, however, the guru had made his first name-change, from Franklin Jones to Bubba Free John. “Bubba,” we are told, means “brother” and signals a kind of closeness or intimacy (GG, v). It also happened to be his childhood nickname (LTF, xiii). “Free John” was a new rendering of Franklin Jones. The free-wheeling style of Bubba’s talks and the openness of the community in this third volume certainly bear this out. Garbage and the Goddess was the first book to be published with a color cover, perhaps a sign of the community’s developing resources. Both the colors and cover design are distinctly 1970’s: mauve, yellow, and purple dominate the display."

"In terms of actual content, the volume’s combination of philosophical sophistication, elaborate and delightfully honest descriptions of the devotees’ ecstatic and visionary states (in one scene, for example, a female devotee recounts her dilemma of having to urinate in the midst of an ecstatic state [GG, 76-77]), simple but effective line drawings, delightful photographs (refreshingly in sync with the running narrative of the text), and often humorous expressions of Bubba make it, in my opinion, one of the most important, interesting, and certainly one of the most entertaining things to come out of the American guru culture. Here is a text in which one can laugh out loud. Indeed, laughter is theologized, for “humor is the bodily confession of God” (GG, xv). But humor here is not only a theological principle. It is a funny turn of phase, a photo full of smiles and laughing human beings, even an occasional “offensive” expression."

"The book also has a fascinating history. Other than The Knee of Listening, the guru’s autobiography, no book published by the community has sold as well and as fast as Garbage and the Goddess. Unlike their previous print runs of 5,000, the press published 20,000 copies. They sold exceptionally well. Better, it seems, than the book was read. Despite the text’s rather obvious messages that the “miracles” of Bubba were over, and that the spiritual life has nothing to do with extraordinary experiences (hence “the garbage” of the title), people began showing up at the ashram, looking for both these same extraordinary experiences and the parties portrayed in the book with such color and warmth. This was not the message the guru or the community wanted to send, and yet clearly on some level that was precisely the message the book was sending. Ultimately, then, despite the book’s commercial success, the community chose to withdraw the book from the market. Hence they gathered as many as they could from the bookstores and burned them. This poignant, deeply ambivalent event captures well the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of portraying the religious nature of what were essentially Tantric experiments of transgression and sexual experimentation to a public audience. What began as a remarkably honest attempt to document a particularly creative period of the tradition ended, quite literally, in flames. Still, not every copy was lost, and the book stands to this day as an important record of these early defining months. It can still be found in the personal libraries of the devotees, even if it remains a rare find in the used book-store circuit."

"The text itself recounts a four to five month period in the life of the community from March of 1974 until around July 7 (the talks actually extend into August), at which point the “last miracles” of the guru were said to be complete and no longer necessary to the teaching, and the Community was now to take over the task of communicating the guru’s message to the world: July 7, 1974, then, effectively became the birthday of the Dawn Horse Communion (GG viii), the origin date of the tradition. And indeed, this is the movement and the message of the book: that, as of now, the extraordinary events of the early community, so lovingly recounted in the book, are no longer necessary to the practice (GG, 19, 296-297, 330, 339, 345, 353). As manifestations of the goddess and her phenomenal world, such dramatic experiences (kundalini phenomena, synchronous experiences, numinous dreams, possession states, involuntary bodily movements, shouting, a miraculous storm, etc. ) may or may not continue to arise; regardless, they are non-essential to the realization of Consciousness itself. Baldly put, they are “garbage” to throw away for the grace of that which is always already the case, Consciousness itself."

"The image of garbage comes from the life of Bubba and his first guru, Rudi (Swami Rudrananda, born Albert Rudolph, 1928-1973), who used to hand Bubba (as Franklin) a greasy bag of garbage whenever he visited (GG, 102-103). Through Rudi’s teaching, throwing away the garbage became a simple ritual with a message, namely, that one must ignore the unusual states of mind and body that inevitably accompany spiritual practice. Throw them away, with the greasy garbage, and move on. From now on, Bubba’s “Force,” manifested through the devotees in the period of miracles, will be replaced by a kind of pure “Presence” (GG, 338, 349). The responsibility for attracting and working with new devotees now lies with the textual deposit and the “great Community of unreasonably happy men” (GG, xiii), both seen as extensions or embodiments of the guru himself (GG, 30, 330, 366). Indeed, in one passage, the community is seen as the Devi, the goddess-consort of Consciousness, or again as an “Avatar,” a literal embodiment of the divine on earth (GG, 335)."

"Some of these implications are drawn out in the first chapter of Garbage and the Goddess, which recounts the events of Saturday evening, March 23rd at the ashram, a night that became playfully but seriously known as “The Saturday Night Massacre.” We will soon see why.

During this night and in subsequent ones (recorded in later chapters of the book), Bubba set out his understanding of sexuality. “Sexuality is a phenomenon of nature,” we are told. “It exists universally and has no individual form. It is a process prior to personality” (GG, 8). As a modification of Consciousness, it should not be equated with something like Freud’s id (Bubba never mentions the latter category, but it seems to be in his mind), that is, as “some sort of insane animalistic presence in which nothing but mass murder and destruction are hidden.” Granted, “the true spiritual process is very wild in many ways, because it is alive. But it is not out of control. It is an absolutely conscious affair . . . .” (GG, 89) The reason people fear such a force is because they have conventionally obstructed these energies to such an extent that they are no longer in touch with them (GG, 89) and their own intimate connection to the Light that shines infinitely above the head. They assume that they are “the 20 watts” of their little self concepts, of their little psychophysiological egos, and that even these few measly watts will gradually decline until they blip off, like the little light bulb in the refrigerator, at the closing of death. But this is all wrong: “It is not smacked into your body when you are born, frozen there while you live, and then run out when you die. It is a present, ongoing creation” (GG, 99). In actual fact, “there is one Reality, without differentiation. It is full, it is only blissful, there is no danger, and there is no curse” (GG, 90). Sounding rather like Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents, Bubba goes on to claim that the “cult of this world” is “all about the suppression of ecstasy,” and that it is sexuality where human beings most commonly and most profoundly reconnect with the ecstatic experience that we all seek."

"The social custom of marriage is an obstacle to the spiritual life because it blocks the flow of this life-energy from circulating among other human beings. “Perhaps the most tight-knit cult is the cult of couples, because in the midst of such pairs, heterosexual or homosexual, the ecstasy of the communicated life-force is ritualized and made exclusive.” And for real spiritual practice to begin, the sexual powers must be released from the tyranny of social convention and systematic suppression: “If the function of sexuality is obstructed, as it always is in the cultic personality, nothing like the internal and radical spiritual process can take place. The center and process of sexuality must be absolutely free, and this is possible only when the individual understands and realizes his entire complex condition in the always already prior Condition that is Reality, Truth, Self, and God” (GG, 31). Sexual freedom, in other words, is ultimately based, not on a kind of libertinism (although there are occasionally elements of this as well), but on a proper ontological understanding of sexuality as something natural, conscious, blissful, and secondary to the prior condition of Consciousness itself, of which these energies, again, are a modification."

"When Bubba actually speaks about marriage during the Saturday Night Massacre, he sounds remarkably like John Humphrey Noyes, the charismatic founder of the Oneida Perfectionists, and perhaps there is a certain unknown “American historical echo” here. Granted, the theological frames are quite different (Noyes’s utopian Christianity vs. Bubba’s American Tantra), but the basic working principles are quite similar. The “cult of couples” is a negative thing because it prevents the life-force or “love” from being distributed throughout the sacred community (GG, 28). Marriage reinforces the cultic view of the ego, namely, that it exists and that it is somehow important (GG, 7). It is thus the responsibility of the community to undermine marriages and all exclusive relationships (GG, 7-8). All the usual social distinctions are obsolete now; they may function automatically, “but they are not true” (GG, 10). Thus the community should feel free to create entirely new forms of social practice, of family, and of generating children (GG, 17). In order to perform such a radical teaching, Bubba, like Noyes before him, intentionally breaks marriages up and sleeps with the wives of his male disciples (GG, 36, 38, 43). Indeed, at one point, when Bubba returns to his house with a few male disciples and a number of wives (but none of their husbands) and without his four usual female attendants, the editors comment: “By this time it was obvious to everyone that Bubba wasn’t just criticizing the forms of our social lives but was also destroying them” (GG, 40)."

And this part of his essay is titled "Crazy Wisdom":

"Historically speaking, most modern gurus who have employed Tantric practices and ideas in the West have become the object of serious and convincing ethical critique, almost always involving their secret sexualities and false fronts of celibacy. These patterns, moreover, can hardly be explained away as postcolonial distortions or, much worse, as scholarly fictions or ill-intentioned Western projections (the traditional claims of those who prefer polemical scape-goating and identity politics over historical accuracy); quite the contrary, they show every sign of being traditional and well-grounded in the indigenous and ancient literatures. As Bernard Faure has so powerfully demonstrated, for example, there is a distinctly “red thread” in the Buddhist Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions that follows a logic of transgression and turns to erotic experience as an inducer of transmoral mystical states, and this no doubt has a great deal to teach us about the sexual scandals that plagued American Buddhist communities in the 1970’s and 80’s. The exact same thing, of course, could be said about any number of Hindu gurus who have become well known in the West, from Krishnamurti and Swami Muktananda to Bhagwan Rajneesh and Sai Baba. Indeed, in 1985, Jack Cornfield studied fifty-four Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain teachers operating in North America and found that thirty-four of them had had sexual relationships with their disciples."

"In this historical American-Asian context, it is hardly surprising that serious ethical charges involving sexual abuse and authoritarian manipulation have been leveled at Adi Da and his community for very similar, if far more open and acknowledged, antinomian practices and ideas. Bay area journalistic reports from a single month in 1985 are especially salacious and deeply troubling, and any full treatment of the erotic within Adidam would need to spend dozens of careful pages analyzing both the accuracy of the reports and the community’s interpretation and understanding of the same events, the latter framed largely in the logic of “crazy wisdom,” that is, the notion that the enlightened master can employ antinomian shock tactics that appear to be immoral or abusive in order to push his disciples into new forms of awareness and freedom. Perhaps what is most remarkable about the case of Adidam is the simple fact that the community has never denied the most basic substance of the charges, that is, that sexual experimentation was indeed used in the ashrams and that some people experienced these as abusive, particularly in the Garbage and the Goddess Period, even if it has also differed consistently and strongly on their proper interpretation and meaning."

"How are we to make at least some sense of such consistent patterns, both in the individual case of Adidam and in the larger mahaguru scene? My own sense is that we need to develop a new paradoxical hermeneutic of the mahaguru (or mystic) that does not commit the fallacy of conflating the mystical with the ethical but is, at the same time, willing and able to advance honest and public ethical criticism based on clear, if always culturally relative, moral principles (like the integrity and freedom of the individual human being), the latter which may or may not find a place in the tradition being studied. In other words, we need to develop models that can embrace the positively ecstatic experiences of the text or believer, the deep and real hurt of the disaffected, and the full historical record of the scholar."

"Along these same lines, I would also point out that the “crazy wisdom” rhetoric displays in a religious form what I have long argued in more rational, ethical, and historical terms, namely, that there is no necessary relationship between the mystical and the ethical (that is, there is nothing contradictory about individuals having profound religious experiences with “immoral gurus”), and that, more radically still, altered or dissociative states of consciousness experienced as spiritual realities are often catalyzed by (which is not at all to say reducible to) explicitly traumatic contexts or acts. If an individual can have a life-altering out-of-body experience in a car wreck (clearly an example of serious physical trauma), why cannot he or she experience the same at the hands or feet of an amoral or transmoral mystic?"

"Indeed, I would go so far as to say that no fallacy has done more damage to the critical study and public understanding of mahagurus (or mysticism in general) than the historically and psychologically groundless notion that profound and positive mystical states imply or require some sort of moral perfection or social rectitude on the part of the teacher or text inducing them. As Rudolf Otto taught us long ago, the sacred is not the good or the moral; it is rather a mysterium tremendum et fascinans, a mystical secret at once terrifying and gorgeous, at once traumatic and terrific. For all its obvious dangers and liabilities, the crazy wisdom tradition at least openly and honestly recognizes this basic metaphysical paradox and struggles with it in a relatively open way. So too should we."''

There is a lot more, and a lot in Kripal's Notes that could also be used in this article. I have a copy of this essay saved as a Word document, if any editors here would like a copy, I can email it to them, just ask.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even bothering to wade into this right now. We all know that Da had many reasons, good or bad, for doing everything he did. There are 50-80??? books right? There is a 'crazy wisdom' section in teaching. If anything of detail concerning this is going to be added, it is going to have to be there. This entry however is NOT the place to get detailed explanations of Adi Da theology. it isn't. Your impulse, and others, is to try to get as much of this in there as you can. My impulse then is to try to reduce what you've said to a line or two of comprehensible info for a "general audience."

The timeline bio can't support any of this info. The garbage paragraph as it stands is succinct and covers all sides. Starr's "visions" are there, sex practices (which needs that brief list from GF that Starr keeps removing) are there, drugs/alcohol are there, reasons for such practices are there - to 'shock' and free from attachments/patterns, members quoted as not just sex, list of experiments all 'for spiritual purposes' . This is a reasonable summary from tertiary sources. As is the 'crazy wisdom' description in teaching. Both excellent brief WP-worthy sections, sourced up the wazoo.

For years, Pro-Da editors have persistently tried to keep mention of G/G practices out of this entry. Having one short paragraph that covers the whole thing in a balanced fashion is crucial. It is not slanted in any way - Starr has consistently tried to remove any mention at all, and now he and Dev are trying to pad it with extensive Da theology, removing specifics from sources of practices, so that it once again becomes vague how it was he became controversial (first line in lead) and what led to lawsuits. Garbage period helps explain this, mentioning start of crazy wisdom teachings. It is not given any more weight than any other event in this rapid pithy bio.

if pro-Da editors start insisting on adding more theology/apology for why Da made pornos and had orgies (Feurstein word choice), then i will insist that we use Feurstein 92 and New Religions to detail more of said practices, and that is not where I want this to go. it will not be good for the page, but relative weight of source material must be maintained. Right now, everything is in proportion, everything gets a line. There are footnotes with more detail. Also, Garbage book is mentioned, and footnotes/citations are extensive. Those interested in more detail can find it without issue.

Dev, I appreciate you working on photos, and keeping your head in the game.Tao2911 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good Dev. Thanks for posting this here. I agree as far as broadening the description of this time using Kripal's work which is published by the State University of New York Press. I look forward to adding this information into the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

address my points, or expect your edits to be contested. Do not add any of this to bio. Bring your suggestions to talk.Tao2911 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little here that isn't already covered in entry. The bio is a terse factual time line, in no need of embellishment - as I've said before, every line could have reams of explanation, pro and con. It's an encyclopedic entry, not an adidam pamphlet. Also, this is not the place to ahve a broad discussion of any of these topics, not in talk and not in entry. All discussion about sex and gurus is not applicable here. Page tells THIS story, reports Adi D facts - not discussion of whole topic. Even bringing this up here is a violation of WP guidelines. Pasting all of this info here is not cool, and against WP etiquette.

As for 'crazy wisdom' this one line already in entry and sourced, covers it fine: "Much of the controversy regarding Adi Da related to the years in which he said to have employed "crazy wisdom", a teaching method in which a yogic adept employs seemingly un-spiritual methods to awaken an observer's consciousness." There it is. Relative weight to his other teachings, this is fine. Don't start padding it.Tao2911 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Entry as of 2/13 - looking good

With Dev's new photo additions, this is entry is looking nearly perfect. It is well organized, non-repetitive, thorough without excess detail, sourced well, and written with a consistent neutral voice. I don't think many more changes are necessary. I will just say that I am awaiting New Religions in America, sections of which I know cover 'Divine Emergence' in more detail, so we might be able to explicate that section slightly more. And I mean slightly. I think that would help balance the end of bio, which feels a bit pat.

Starr has continued to contest a single line summary of Da's many visible later critics in lead - reflecting the detailed explication of these criticisms in reception, per WP guidelines. I had tried to summarize these critics as in most cases admiring Da's ideas, but questioning his activities/behaviors, but Starr refused to allow the mention of this. I was forced to simply say he has numbers of critics, which is a fact, as 8 sources demonstrate. Footnotes are forthcoming. If anyone would like me to work the admiration back in alongside the criticism, feeling this a fair summary of the cited sources, let me know.

I don't feel Starr is likely to accept any mention of 'controversial' activities in Garbage passage, no matter how balanced, unless he can insert some lengthy apologetic quotes. This is completely out of keeping with rest of bio entry, and shouldn't happen.

I would like to let this thing lie for a few days until I get the New Religions text. I would like to work on refining citations and adding some footnotes. Other than that, I would hope we can leave the body more or less alone.Tao2911 (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao if you made this edit While neither Adi Da nor Adidam denied his practice of polygamy,[107] a spokesman stated that he spent later years living a life of solitude and contemplation.[17]

it is a good one and give more neutrality to it. Thank you. Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

this passage would normally say "he was married to Joanne Smith for 40 years. They had two children." That is not the case with Da. How is this biased? It is a fact, neutrally presented. These things you keep saying are biased are just facts. In a mention about children, you mention spouses. Biased would be to say that there are rumors that he continued to sleep with numbers of students up to his death. Which is true - there are rumors. But since they are just that, we don't mention that. We have sources saying what the passage says. It answers the question from bio "what about all his wives?" There is the answer. It is NOT biased. You can't just say bias. You must point to what is biased. Since there isn't anything, I can see why you aren't. You don't like word 'polygamy.' It has negative associations for some. Not for Da, who according to GF was quite frank about his practice, occasionally (not often) recommending it to others.Tao2911 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do contest various portions of the article and will continue to do so until consensus is reached. Admins say that I am right about the line in the lead, so inline warnings will stay until the critics are cited. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

where do they say this?Tao2911 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"ere subjects of almost daily coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Mill Valley Record, other newspapers and regional television news and talk shows over several weeks" ,,, this should be summarized in a more simple way. It is not neutral mentioning all the newspapers etc. Just state that that the was extensive media coverage. Period. More neutrality needed here Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't like the vagueness of this passage in past. Plus, you are just trying to have it say what the lead says. The body should expand on the lead intro to topic. Those three papers listed are the major papers who did in depth stories - they deserve mention in the way Today show does. It is not biased. it's totally factual. Diminishing them, as before, by saying "a few local newspapers" and "a couple of stories" simply wasn't accurate. Saying three out of eight possible such mentions is not bias. Source itself for passage says that "there was almost daily coverage of allegations for weeks."

When I researched this and found out how extensive this coverage was, I was shocked. Previous version here gave NO indication the extent of this coverage. It is worth making clear. This is how the vast majority of people know him, if they do. Think - New Religions says perhaps 40,000 copies of Knee have been sold. Tens of millions of people saw or read these stories. Deal with proportionate coverage. This is not a court case, a trial, a presentation of facts for people to make up their minds as Starr keeps saying; the point is not for balancing viewpoints. Count the sources. its about reflecting those.Tao2911 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article still biased.

There are still many instances of bias in the article. So I am hoping we can reach consensus about how to handle them. What won't work for me is for me to spend hours on the talk page while Tao edits away. So how are we going to work this out? I guess an RFC/U may be the only way unless Tao is willing to actually abide by an agreement to only edit consensually. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already said, that I would like the page to remain stable, and perhaps get a review by neutral party. Btw, you added POV tag without discussion. Yet again (what is this, ten times now?) How is mentioning that he had critics and listing them biased? That sort of mention has been in lead for many months. I made the change you requested. You didn't say remove line - you said you couldn't wrap your ahead around how 'some' means not all - 'some' people, listed and cited, are now in lead. Bias bias bias, you little pro-Da activist, you. I have clarified sources greatly. This neutral mention is proportionate to source coverage, a great deal of which is critical, and sources support. Find biased passages and bring them here. If we don't reach consensus, then you don't change it. I am not touching it, except to add some footnotes as promised, for certain citations. Tao2911 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr, you removed the entire legal allegations paragraph from lead that have been there as long as I've been aware of this page, which is two years, without any notice or discussion - you hid it. This is vandalism. You keep making edits you don't explain or announce in history labels. You know these edits are going to be contested. Do it again, and I report you for vandalism.Tao2911 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead Sentence under dispute

I want to say that I am quite upset that Starr has forced this sentence into the form it has now had to take. The point of the line was to summarize the common criticisms (cited) from a number of sources, reasonably and in the spirit of those sources per WP NPOV, that are then discussed more specifically in 'reception'. Because Starr has demanded a list of specific names, the sentence now reads as unwieldy - probably his intent, so that he can try to (secretly?) remove it. I would like some support from another editor - I know that the other active editors are all pro-Da, but why not practice your neutrality and good faith muscles and help the page out here. But if it has to stay like this, I will fight for the inclusion. It is how the proportionate source material on Adi Da needs to be summarized for general audience in article lead.Tao2911 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I only just realized that Starr had removed numbers of sourced and cited, neutral lines from lead - in replacing them, I reworked praise/criticism for POV and readability. I removed the timeline split - early praise, alte criticism - simply saying he was praised by some (cited) crit'd by others (" ").Tao2911 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly untrue. You need to stop these false accusations here on this talk page. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr Vandalism

Starr in the last 24 hours has simply hit 'undo' to many of my edits (many of which were simply reworking his material to reach consensus), removed contested cited material, and removed an entire paragraph of cited material from lead that has been unchanged for two years all without any notification or labeling for the History record. In some cases, he has even labeled his changes with minor edits failing to mention major ones, masking them(today.) This clearly constitutes vandalism.Tao2911 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found yet more vandalism - more significant lines missing (about shift in teaching) from lead and elsewhere without clear record. I'm reporting to admin.Tao2911 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Tao2911 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable behavior Tao. You need to stop accusing me of vandalism. These accusations are totally false and unacceptable. Again, please stop. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Divine Emergence

Vandalism aside, I made some edits to the article. I find that the new "Divine Emergence" paragraph has some issues, which I wanted to work with you on, Tao. I added one line about the '86 event, and another one to the 2000 event, also a line likening them to each other, which I think is useful. These events are difficult to discuss, from Adi Da's side of it, there is a lot of esoterica involved, with his descriptions of "full descent" and "full ascent". I'm not sure this is the place for that. But there is a way to describe that is useful and gives some contextualization (which I find is lacking currently). So here is what we do know:

1.) These events were death-like events which Adi Da said signified a spiritual transformation in his body

2.) Consequentially, he said that these events signified changes in his teaching and work with devotees

So, for example, with the 1986 event, the big change that can be pointed to is how he began to require a more formal approach to him, ceasing to work in the manner of "Bubba", as a friend of his devotees. He also took on a new name to signify this, "Heart-Master Da Love-Ananda". He also began to call his devotees to renunciate and celibate practice.

In 2000, the same thing happened, but with different consequences. His revelation became more "pure", according to him, and his body became a perfect "murti" or icon, for the realization of his devotees. After 2000, his writing changed as well, and his teaching came to a final summary, which is how it has remained since. So in that sense, 2000 was the "final transformation", according to Adi Da.

this is mentioned in teaching. I absolutely agree we need to get a clear brief mention of this into bio, as with DE - it is clear in ref's, even to a degree in bio now, that 'these changes signify new revelations', focus, etc. But the line you added ["From this period on, Adi Da's realization of himself as an avatar of the divine, gave his teaching a focus that it has since retained"] is not NPOV. It is saying that his teaching objectively 'gained focus." We don't know this. Someone may have said/thought so - certainly Da could have. But this is interp, an opinion, and should be phrased as such if added (as in "bob said it gained focus.") But we need an objective, thorough, sensible, and brief way to address this. Also, the tense is present (your source from when he's still alive I think) so that also would be a problem - even indicating he is immortal or something! Not NPOV, right? Avatar mention has to be introduced, tied into other passages that already cover this, etc. I have to sleep, but I think we can figure this out. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are some points to think about. I am not really suggesting adding content, I think the best thing is to keep it brief, to the point, and to avoid delving into complexity. Also, there is some content here I find questionable, which I would like to discuss with you more:

"Said to be beset by “dark forces”, there were reports from his community that doctors had prescribed tranquilizers for what they diagnosed as anxiety attacks."

I am not sure what this really has to do with it? Is it a necessary inclusion in this article? Does it serve a purpose, other than to discredit, cast doubt, or otherwise include a critical statement? I think the section would be fine without those sentences, they don't seem to be serving much, and I find them to be biased. The source of them, this "Introduction to new religious movements" book, I was reading through the article, and it is heavily biased against Adi Da and Adidam. You can use it as a source, but you will have to neutralize the language, which is undoubtedly negative in their write-up.

Then there is this:

"Some of these followers did join Adidam, creating some measure of conflict among long-time disciples within the community who felt the new members were overly privileged."

Is there a point in mentioning it? I am not super-offended by it or anything, nor do I find it to be a repulsive statement or anything like that. But what is its purpose? These two sentences I am bringing up, they read like clever side-comments, or side-notes, that don't really have to do with the section, but are just thrown in there for "critical balance" or something. I think they should be re-considered, and a structure, or context for this section needs to be more in place, so that it reads smoother, clearer, making factual points, and nothing more than what is necessary to understand it. Rather than just trying to include information that relates to the event, as an off-shoot for piling in more critical info. I am not pulling in info to off-shoot from things so I can include positive info. I have hardly made any edits to this article in a while, so my stance should be clear. We work together pretty well, so that's why I'm re-entering the editing aspect of this article, maybe it will be more successful that way. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Also, the jump into wrapping up the Bio after the "Divine Emergence" section doesn't seem to work. Seems like there should be more discussion of the final years of his life, don't you think? Maybe one more section after Divine Emergence that gets into this? I mean, there is discussion of '86 and then 2000, but that's hardly a discussion of his later years.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dev- I appreciate your approach. I'm not going deep into this now, but I have said I think that last section needs work, but as citations show, those three events are really the only things in New Religions available online, and those passages are almost verbatim (with actually some material removed that might lean it all too negative.) 'Divine Emergence' period has some more pages in hard copy, and when I get those this week, we can work together to fill it out. It seems to be the only tertiary source that covers things post '86. Unless GF 2006 does, but I don't have that source. My only concern about change now is that we need the sources first. I know you have experience/inside knowledge, but we need sources. I'll check back with you on this - let me know if you find good tertiary sources.

Give me your appraisal of changes to lead.

And what happened to that great photo with the flames? I liked that one - it really zipped up the page. It was better than the one there now - as I say above, the sepia is not my fave.Tao2911 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changing photo back. Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I was sharing my own knowledge, the issue will be finding sources that somehow correspond to it. Let's check back in on this section once you have those things you are talking about in hand. In the meantime, I will search for tertiary sources that address this subject in any way. Will post thoughts on lead soon.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead looks fine, for the most part. I know the part that David Starr found objectionable was, "Others were more critical, including Georg Feuerstein,[12] Scott Lowe,[13] and Ken Wilber[14] who while sometimes still praising his ideas, came to question what they perceived as Adi Da's isolation, controversial behavior, and cult-like community." This is obviously, well-cited, and mentioned later in the article. But it may not be entirely necessary in the lead. The lead, according to wiki policy, should give a good overview of the article, while also mentioning any controversies, which we see in the last paragraph of the lead. So I don't know, I think the lead would benefit from not having that information about "cult-like community", but if we are going to get into a serious argument about it, then I'm not really bothered. That's my view on it.

Regarding "cult-like community" and other cult suspicions, I found this in "The New Religious Movements Experience in America" (http://books.google.com/books?id=uXoUYS4H1GsC&pg=PA118&dq=Adi+Da+New+Religions+in+America&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false):

"Demonstrating an awareness of how gurus and their new religions are suspect to widespread suspicion and a recognition of how the intensity of the guru-disciple relationship in Adidam could be open to such quesitoning, Adi Da has also declared that, "I am not here to be the center of a cult."

This seems like a necessary inclusion in this article. Most of the controversies carry exactly these kinds of suspicions, or at least point to them. However, what is not represented in this article is how much Adi Da has criticized the cultic approach, and how much he has said about not being the "man in the middle", or in the center of a cult, etc. Rather than get into too much detail and say more than is necessary, maybe a short paraphrase of the above quotation could go into the Adidam section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that your re-work with tertiary source sources is a good one Devanagari.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The line was an ok rework - I see where you were going. But it had a bit too much 'Da-flavor', smacking of Da-speak - a tendency I respect that you've owned, Dev. I just reworked the wording to make it sound more colloquial, and a little less lofty/devotional.Tao2911 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good edit.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The cult thing: the line says some have had questions about the 'cult-like community.' Carefully NOT saying cult. WP page not saying it was a cult - though any number of news articles made no such distinction, right? I emphatically do NOT want to get into Da's whole "I hate cults" rants - I know his position, and i also know that he was regularly dismayed at the cultishness surrounding him. Sources report this, and they (New Religions, GF 1992) say that this is a bit of a blind spot, in that while he decried this at times, he did much to maintain that status quo and create that environment. He was criticized for this - hence the lead line. Not as a 'fact' - the reporting of a 'common criticism'. This is what Starr couldn't get - he, one, didn't like the word cult within 500 miles of the page, and two, didn't want any mention whatsoever of Da having prominent, persistent critics. If it was just one or two, we wouldn't be mentioning them in lead. I think in balance, among mainstream accepted scholars (Kripal excepted of course), Da has fared in balance not so good (just counting them), especially after an auspicious, lauded start. This is what this line was alluding to originally - I didn't want to get into list of names - which is why I said "others" and made 8 citations to cite them - the details happen in reception. But Starr demanded names, and now I think it doesn't read as well (too long), but oh well. Let me know if you think we can reduce that back, reword.

I don't think it's necessary to have names at all, since that comes later in reception. So I am for removing names in the lead.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

so finally on the cult thing, I don't want to get too much into that, not the details of accusations, or the theoretical rebuttals. Tao2911 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I also do not want to get into this, but I am for including one simple summary line in the Adidam section, based on what I posted above. It is worthy of a mention, with all of the media "cult" hysteria surrounding Adi Da and Adidam. But it does not need to be an elaborate discussion of this and that, or how he said this but then maintained it around him, etc. Just a simple line, I'm going to try and make this edit, see what it looks like, and how it reads. Then maybe you can give some feedback?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your above comments Tao. I think a simple mention in the intro about "cult like activity" is appropriate as this is cited and part of the controversy. Appreciate a number of edits done the last couple of days. I think it adds some balance.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. This is why I want to work with you guys - I don't pretend to 'own' this page, but we've put a lot of work in, and there were some attempts here recently to just get rid of a lot of that work, scuttle it. So as we've all said, let's work on refining it, and let's get that stupid POV tag off.Tao2911 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever removed those names from lead. Are we agreed that its ok now?Tao2911 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Muktananda line in Bio

I don't want to open a can of worms about this, but I am not feeling totally resolved about the inclusion of this line:

"Over a confrontation regarding the actual nature of enlightenment and how to achieve it, they would end their relationship, later disparaging each others' relative level of spiritual accomplishment."

The first part is totally fine, but the "disparaging each others'..." part is what I am finding questionable. I see you have sourced it, and saw your footnote. I remember reading about this before, where someone was describing how Adi Da would talk bad about Muktananda, but all he could give for evidence was that he remembered it from talks. His citation for the statement was itself not supportive of anything other than his own memory.

So I'm wondering if you could post the info from the source, and if we could find out how trustable this claim this really is? Is it anything more than a claim? Is there any source that states this that is actually verifiable, meaning it doesn't just mention that it is so, but gives further citation? If that isn't the case, then I am suggesting not including the line, since there wouldn't seem to be apt justification (from lack of real verifiability) to include it, and the para would benefit from simply not having it, in that case, since it's nature would be questionable. I would like to stick to really verifiable content here, even if its critical, that's okay as long as it is presented with NPOV and is balanced, but also real.

Just some guy writing about Adi Da and throwing in lines like that, somehow getting published in a tertiary source, does not necessarily qualify for inclusion in the article. Do you know what I mean?

Again, I am not wanting to open a can of worms about this, I am not angry about this line or anything. Just wanting to research further, and hoping you can help shed some light, Tao.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That line, that you quote above from entry, is a summation from a number of sources - and a neutral phrasing. i don't remember him saying he just remembered it from talks. Lowe speaks about it, first hand from hearing such things; I think a member is quoted as hearing and reading these things in transcripts in New Religions; and GF mentions it as well in the '92 book. These are really common accounts. Are you questioning them? Again, everyone seems to mention this in overviews. I added the line that Da maintained his respect etc. I think GF quotes in a footnote for that passage how Da persistently called Muk a black magician (I thought it was the other way around until reading more accounts, but they both said things about the other.) I think the mention should stay - it's in too many sources. I will add another citation. Tao2911 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are footnotes that have the passages from two sources.Tao2911 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Two different tertiary sources with slightly different implications

I wanted to bring up again two lines in the article that I still feel bear some real discussion.

Later that year, Adi Da actively recruited the following of “Frederick Lenz, or "Zen Master Rama"

I know we discussed this a bit Tao before and I tend to bring up things like this again after some discussion. It still does not sit right with me. There are two tertiary sources ( maybe where this section is taken from. In one source the word "recruit" (Gallagher)is used and in the other the word "welcomed" is used (George F). They have different meanings. Recruited implies a more aggressive action in relationship to Zen Master Rama's students. From what I heard Adi Da encouraged those people to consider becoming his students. Maybe Dev can be more exact about this. I also heard that there are not huge numbers of Len'z students that are now with Adidam. Also since the word "welcomed" is used from 2006 edition of George F book(and he is NOT a fan of Adi Da) I think it more accurately portrays the sense of what actually occurred here. I can scan the page this is on or even write the copy in the discussion section.

I know JR has brought this up before, I haven't been too active about the Lenz thing yet. But this is a valid point. To speak as an "insider", it was in 2000 that Adidam began to see a flux of Rama students, and it coincided with the event at Lopez Island. It was there that most Rama students first saw Adi Da, and shortly afterwards they became devotees. There were a few who came around in between '98 and '00, but not many at all, and they were the few that steadily tipped off other students to come check out Adi Da; 2000 Lopez Island being their main opportunity.

So it is not actually true that Adi Da "recruited" them. They made their own approach, and Adi Da did welcome them. He did make a positive gesture toward them. But "recruit" is really false. Since there is a tertiary source that says "welcome", Feurstein himself wrote that at a time when he was negative, then I suggest we use that term instead.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The source says 'recruited'. So until we have another tertiary account, that is all we have to go on. Dev, just because you were around means all of nothing here, no disrespect. I mean, even granting you were, you have no idea potentially what was happening behind closed doors - all accounts say there was a great deal of compartmentalization in the organization. So - I would like to read the entire account from GF - the word 'welcomed' keeps getting mentioned here, but I haven't seen the whole passage. JR maybe you can transcribe in a new section here. Make sure to make it verbatim. I think there can be a way to find some middle ground. NR says quite clearly that he recruited them because money is perpetually a huge issue from Adidam with their overhead, and Lenz's students were known to generally be successful in business (I didn't add all of this, but could have). This has the ring of truth, backed up by accounts on Lenz. Whether or not they stayed is not an issue - NR also says that turnover in adidam is enormous and rapid, with only a few stalwarts holding to the center. Apparently, Dev is one. I used to live monastically - I know this to generally be the truth of things.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, JR is saying that the Feurstein source he has, from 2006 (written while Georg was negative) says "welcomed". I was not trying to say that my own account was justification, I was just offering it in support of what Georg wrote, when he said "welcomed". So I don't know if you missed that...but JR's whole point is that the word "welcomed" appears in a tertiary source.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

were subjects of almost daily coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Mill Valley Record, other newspapers and regional television news and talk shows over several weeks.[23][90] The story gained greater attention with a two-part expose on The Today Show.[91']"

To me this is a bit overdone relative to having to mention every paper etc that this was reported in. Certainly this story was widely covered for a short time. That is not in question. But already in the introduction it is already stated In the mid 1980s, allegations by former devotees of financial, sexual and emotional abuses within Adidam were reported in a number of regional newspapers, television news reports, and talk shows,[19][20] culminating in national coverage in a two-part expose on NBC's The Today Show. There is also plenty of references,with detailed headlines and links to ALL the papers, Today Show transcripts etc etc. Done and stated. It seems to me that it does not have to be repeated in such detail There are sources that make the statement that it was simply widely covered in the media. Having NBC Today Show repeated... fine that is a well-know show on TV but the rest seems over done, repetitive and not balanced.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JR here. It is a bit excessive, and should be reduced to summary.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I am encouraging this mention is that when I began to research this period, the WP entry gave me no indication how widespread this coverage was. The page implied there were some Marin and Lake county local newspapers who wrote a couple stories. And I found out it was much more intense and widespread and in depth than that. I found talk show interviews on youtube, and watched the today show two day report, and read like 20 separate news stories. I don't think this is overplayed at all. There were numbers of stories in the Chronicle, at the time one of the largest papers in the country. The biggest in Northern Cal. But it was Mill Valley that really spear-headed the coverage, and so they should be mentioned too. I think the mention has to stay. It's just one line, and its the truth. Proportional coverage, folks. There is much more info on this that anything else - its not about a 'balanced' portrait. Its about reflecting the available info in the proportion of that info available. You can't argue this point - multiple stories each in multiple newspapers and TV shows, vs everything else.

Another reason to keep (brief) newspaper list info: it expands on, rather than simply repeat, intro line from lead.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So a couple of point...I disagree about all the mentions of every newspaper in the above section article.It should be simply a summary sentence. I had agreed since the Today show is a national show it can be repeated. But the newspaper thing is EXCESSIVE and unnecessary. You have plenty of headlines, direct links to Today Show, a whole site(Ross) in the article, which accesses ALL of the newspaper articles directly and tons of references with specific headlines etc. The Mill Valley is a small town paper nestled in the hills of Marin County (paper longer existing) and I believe that one of the ex members who brought the lawsuits lived there (Dev?).So "proptional" coverage indeed! I have not objected to inclusion of all the sexual theater, drug experimentation ect. I am not trying to "white wash " in this edit. Merely address bias use of information excess. Guess this will be part of the arbitration.

Relative to the change of "welcome" Rama devotees. I am going to change that to this direct quote form Georg F 2006 edition. He said it, he is a strong critic of Adi Da and this is a appropriate language to directly quote him on this matter.I will cite book, page and direct quoteJason Riverdale (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't obscure the facts to suit POV

I am all about find the most neutral way to convey information from sources. I've been working diligently to do so, and have appreciated feedback from others on this account. But I also witness a persistent impulse to try to undercut necessary factual detail because that detail is found 'unsavory' by people with certain POV.

I have simply added a number of SINGLE LINE expositions to clarify info that I kept reading allusions to in the WP entry, but that were clearly being dodged by POV edits. Like, what was 'sexual experimentation'? Oh, it was group sex, sexual theater, making films, swapping partners, having sex with the guru, all directed by Da. Ok. Clear. Question answered. Don't dodge the sourced facts, don't go make the reader dig elsewhere. Moving on.

A few news stories about allegations of abuse and controversial behavior for a religious leader (not long after Jonestown - with SF being the home of that other Jones)? Well, actually, turns out it was dozens of reports in the biggest newspapers in northern California plus TV shows (never mentioned in WP before). This was NOT clear before.

My sole purpose getting involved in this page has been to make the page I wanted to see when I came here looking for info, and it wasn't here. I didn't want a bunch of Adidam propaganda. I didn't want a bunch of lurid 2nd hand reports from 'haters.' I wanted a good overview of how this guy came to prominence, and some light shone in some of the shady corners that all POV parties (both ways) wanted to downplay - accomplishments AND scandals. Our job as editors is tell the story as the sources tell it.Tao2911 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My sole purpose getting involved in this page has been to make the page I wanted to see when I came here looking for info, and it wasn't here. I didn't want a bunch of Adidam propaganda. I didn't want a bunch of lurid 2nd hand reports from 'haters.' I wanted a good overview of how this guy came to prominence, and some light shone in some of the shady corners that all POV parties (both ways) wanted to downplay - accomplishments AND scandals. Our job as editors is tell the story as the sources tell it.:-) :-)This is pretty silly statement and odd for jutification for not allowing ANY editing of what you have placed in the article. Look Tao I have been cooperative, civil, listen to all your reasons but NO WAY are you here for altruistic reasons or wanting accurate information.You , Dev, Starr and me are here with bias reasons. NOBODY spends that much time on an article unless something is driving it. You are NOT nuetral and I got to call you on it dude!It's too way silly and being from NY I got to say something . Cheers!Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

whatever gets you through the night, dude.

And for what it's worth, I have 'allowed' tons of edits, and made many to accommodate you, and everyone else. I can't help it if I'm the only one here able to craft a readable summary sentence from sources.Tao2911 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage and the Goddess again

We have from two different scholars (Kripal and Feurstein) very good descriptions of what this period was about. I think it would be good if we had a fuller description of what they actually said. Feuerstein did make it very clear about experiences high and low, both mystical and sexual, being the teachable moment of that time. I think it needs to be included. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is only mention of the controversial behavior, not the "teaching" behind it, which is that all experiences, high or low, do not result in happiness/realization.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys just keep conveniently ignoring the two lines that follow the single sex line mention. "These techniques were said to be used in order to help "shock" students into insights regarding neurotic patterns and attachments. Members said that experiments in everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality were all in attempts to grow spiritually." That is it. Nothing more needs to be said. All the pages of Da and GF together saying nothing in essence more than this. Nor does any other part of bio give more than single line mentions to anything. I refuse to allow you to pad this paragraph with more teaching info/Da apologetics. "Crazy Wisdom" section in teaching likewise covers it just fine. Unorthodox techniques to create shifts in awareness. Period. It is perfectly clear now to a general audience. No detailed theology necessary. It would start to sound like adidam.org again - that is if they weren't so determined to avoid mention of any of this.

there remain a number of footnotes about this, explaining some of your Da justifications.Tao2911 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

The reception section seems to be mostly critical. I believe that there could be an improvement here. Perhaps we could bring in something from Kripal here, and there are some positive things that are said in Feuerstein, and also positive things on the art as well. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have felt this way in the past, I agree this is a good idea. Why don't you make some edits and then everyone can discuss them here? Btw, I don't understand your tagging of "who" in the lead. Isn't it clear that Wilber felt that way warning people about "step into his community at your own risk", and hasn't Feurstein made similar criticisms? I'm just curious why you want names in there, the reason I am not arguing with Tao on it is because it seems like the people he lists do have those criticisms. Can you help me understand your POV on this?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is really clear and admins backed me up on this at the incidents page. You are supposed to say in the text who is saying it. Not in the footnotes. This is in general but particularly when using the word cult. See WP:WEASEL for the general case and WP:AVOID for cult in particular. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please Starr. I've been asking that question over and over. And how unfortunate to see you back. I do wish you'd go away and let the rest of us keep working this out. You demonstrably have no interest in being productive here.

I've removed your "who" tag, since you failed to explain it in talk, or address that three other editors with differing POV had agreed on that solution.

Wilber's postive/negative estimations cancel each other out - "still greatest realizer - step in at own risk". There are three positive mentions - three negative (GF formerly positive turned negative, so balanced really). There's already something from Kripal. Two neutral (USC guy, expressing no opinion but making neutral analysis of reports that are inarguable, and Wilber.) This is not slanted - can you not count?

Oh wait, then there is the line listing all of those book endorsements, that I added weeks ago. Come on. Unbalanced? Starr, clearly biased, keeps coming and stirring this crap and the devotees fall right back into it, unable to recognize that Starr has no willingness to engage here constructively. He has fought over and over to remove all mention of anything that doesn't fit in his picture of what he wants people to know about Adi Da, despite any source or common sense explanation. Respectfully, please keep some wits about you, folks. I know you want Da to look spectacular, but this isn't about that here.Tao2911 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of counter-productive, useless conversation I am talking about. Starr makes some point, Tao gives an angry reply. End of conversation. Please reach resolution, I will not be tolerating this kind of back and forth this time around. It goes nowhere, and it doesn't matter what side I take, it just fuels more back and forth. Come to a clear understanding based on wiki policy. Or get a third opinion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

we HAVE a third opinion. Yours. And a fourth. JR's. Did you forget that YOU rewrote the lead, in a triumph of indepedent reasoning? I wish you wouldn't give Starr this kind of weight - you see where it leads. You give him ammunition and he goes nuts on the page, scuttling our ability to make progress together. He isn't to be reasoned with, and I don't feel that way about either you or JR. You have your pro-bias, but even you can admit the fact that Da at the very least HAD critics, and the sources say it. Starr can't even admit that.Tao2911 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My reply above was written for both you and Starr. I do agree with Starr on certain points, and I just want to encourage him to begin suggesting edits, instead of fighting with you. You two clearly don't get along! In the meantime, we can keep working Tao, and I want Starr to be a part of this article, so hopefully you can find some middle ground between the two of you.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Kripal was in lead, not in reception except as book endorser. If we can find a non-Dawn Horse endorsement, I'm ok with that added. keep it relative to other mentions - ie one line or so.Tao2911 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar, punctutation

Hi Dev - I appreciate your wish to refine the text, but just want to caution you with use of commas, conjunctions, dashes, etc. I know Da liked some tortured sentence structure and you are steeped in that stuff, but keep an eye out for your tendency to bring that here. I'm just going through a streamlining some of your edits. A double dash, btw, is not an accepted text edit.Tao2911 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to fix your grammar in some places. I'll be more careful with commas and dashes. It would be good if you could avoid making statements like this, "I know Da liked some tortured sentence structure, just shows your bias, not a necessary comment. Let's be civil.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Feuerstein talking, before he was even a critic. Everyone knows the guy tried to reinvent the language, for good or ill. My grammar didn't so much need fixing, but you made some ok changes. Some were not so good. Keep moving forward.Tao2911 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Talk.

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

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

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

Kundalini Yoga link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yogic Super Powers not NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a neutral summary re: "powers"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hermitage link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

Reasons for POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 153, the source for the statement in the article, is this link: Venice Biennale Collateral Exhibition : Adi Da Samraj. This link: [27] clearly states that the exhibit came to Firenze "Direct from its widely acclaimed official participation in the 2007 Venice Biennale". Two sources clearly say it was so, including one that is already referenced in the article. There is no reason to omit this fact from the article as we could probably find additional citations as well. Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a source: see the guideline at Wikipedia:Sources#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia. This important artistic achievement should be included in the article, in my humble opinion. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Divine Emergence Re-consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive

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

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

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

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

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

Bibiography ideas

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

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

Main article: Robert A. Heinlein bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dev attack on page

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Books Section Consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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