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!

Tao 2911 Refusing any discussion or dialog in making article changes, removing of cited material etc., not just language changes

Tao you have gotten quite manic. You are removing specific cited information under the justification that you are only changing wording. Very specific information from cited materials has been removed. It is not just word changes. You accuse other editors of bias as justification.The fury in which you go about editing this article reveals a strong reaction and bias in you. This has been pointed out not just by "pro Da" editors as you suggest, but by several neutral editors and you have been addressed by formal Wikipedia editors about this as well when you were banned for a period.

Other neutral editors have also continued to try to point out to you that in fact you are not just changing language but removing specific facts for cited material and you ignore them as well. I will in the next few days list specifics. Again ,since you have a long history of ignoring any dialog, conversation or consensus before making edits this does constitute lack on consensus and edit waring.

One get's the sense that since you refuse again to discuss ANY edit in talk (as you have asked others to do) that you intention is simply to edit to your own bias. Again I would ask that you slow way down and ANY changes in language you put into the discussion BEFORE you make changes in the article.You cooperation would be appreciated.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bring up the specifics; I don't think you are reading carefully (see above please; respond). You're just making blanket allegations.Tao2911 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Be Bold"

"Be bold!

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator." Be bold and drop your opinion there. It is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly."

There were/are things wrong with this page, though not many now to my eyes. I came back, spotted them, made adjustments. I have clearly not been reckless. No, I am not going to clear every edit with Jason Riverdale, the arbiter of all things Da. I will make edits, argue my points, win some, and lose some, as I've done for going on two years now probably with this page. So buck up, Jason, quit whining, and make your points. Do not, however, just "undo" my careful, explained-in-each-case edits.Tao2911 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. Undoing can be part of the process, too. — goethean ॐ 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

of course. But often not a good idea when its of an edit opened for discussion and carefully explained in talk. As in Jason's recent flurry of undo-ing.Tao2911 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

...... Please put up in discussion points to be changed or edited BEFORE putting them in article. There are some changes you made I can agree with but it is kind of pointless when you continually already bypass the discussion part. Discussion after the fact. Goethean does have a good point that in lieu of an editors ignoring and bypassing a Wikipedia principle over a long history, undoing may be necessary at times. Are you willing to revert changes, after saving them, and enter into a dialog discussion before posting them in the article? As I said some changes I can live with, but not without discussion prior to changes into the article. There will be some points I will agree to and others we will have to have some more discussions. Some of that I am sure will be heated but maybe we can maintain a a cooperative disposition and come to consensus. This also will require you to slow it all down, also addressed by other editors.Hopefully if this occurs we can bring the article to settlement. Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a good idea, too. Why don't you stop censoring sources to suit your bias. Ta da! Seriously though - The edit you seem to be upset about I've completely demolished your argument against, and shown that you censored sources. Was I supposed to get you to agree to that? I don't frankly find you nearly as reasonable as you seem to think you are. Moving on. Just discuss the actual points, for Da's sake.Tao2911 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

... replaced conveniently edited end of Ford Greene quote that used to be there. You're unbelievable, Jason.)

Tao, as far as I can tell I did not edit Washington Post Ford Greene's full statement out from citations. I think that what might have happened was when I added the information in the article abut "two lawsuits" I might have re-added just that part of the quote from the paper citing "two lawsuits" as well as the quote in citation from SF Newspaper that said "the case was dismissed by Superior Court Judge" to support that statement.In other words it might have been in citation twice. Once with simply "two lawsuits" and then a second one with full quote from paper. Perhaps with the reverting of that section the second full quote from Washington Post (which included Ford Green's statement) got dropped. But again I don't think I took it out intentionally.I think it was in there twice.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

well, its just odd, because you once argued how "he handled three such cases" didn't mean that he "handled three such cases" re: Jones/Da, but that using special powers you intuited the writer to mean that he handled three cases unrelated to Da (one would hope that a lawyer would - have handled three actual cases in his career that is). However, the sentence is pretty hard to interpret any way other than he handled three cases against Da settled out of court (which would make a lot of sense - one often leads to the other in such instances.) I mean, that is what the sentence plainly says.

So then, mysteriously, that part of the sentence in the footnote disappears, replaced by the hanging "..." and you edit the section to remove text supported by three sources saying that there were several lawsuits, to only two, diminishing them at that. As I describe above. It's just convenient, is all I'm saying. ;)

its clear you'd like everyone to believe that since there are only two filed lawsuits that you have quite vigorously attempted to find the records for (even adding the lawyer's address as a footnote - lol), that there are no others. By this logic, all mention of the suit threatened by Adidam against apostate followers should be removed. However, it is mentioned in a source (that we can't confirm because it's not online, but the headline says it), as are threatened suits settled out of court. I don't care if you can't through your original research find records for them (if they are settled before being filed, there won't be any. We have three good sources, that you use elsewhere, that say they occurred. That's all we are here to reflect. Surely you can grasp this, as much as you would like to just sing Da's praises.Tao2911 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article protected

Because a content dispute seems to have broken out again, with accompanying reversions, I've protected the article for three days. Hopefully this will allow editors some time to negotiate without worrying about who's doing what on the article. Protection can be removed or extended as necessary and if a consensus edit needs to be made in the meantime, you can request it using {{editprotected}} (instructions at the link). EyeSerene^talk 09:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

fine by me. I stand by the edits I've made, everyone explained in tag lines, most just style, grammar, punctuation (and accepted by JR). I've quite thoroughly made my case about the single specific problem asserted by Jason Riverdale, and shown his qualms to be completely (dare I say) "without merit". Sure wouldn't mind some lurker acknowledgment of that fact.Tao2911 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I can't do that and continue to act in an admin capacity, but I think it might be worth asking for more outside editors to get involved at the two WikiProjects listed at the top of this page (Biography and Religion). The article seems to attract a large amount of pro- and anti- WP:SPA activity (just to clarify, I'm thinking specifically of you, Devanagari108 and Jason Riverdale). EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the objectivity, which is more than can be said for another admin who got involved here, paving the way for a strongly regressive Da-ward slant. Clearly the vast majority of my editing efforts also have gone toward this page; it is why I even began editing WP in the first place. I'd bet most people start because they see a page they think needs balance or correction. In the process I have unwittingly become (dare I say) an Adi Da expert (quelle horreur) having read most of the sources that discuss him (a short list) and a number of his books. But I have regularly contributed to other pages when I come across something that seems off or inaccurate. I do not have the time or energy to get into the thick of it on other pages. I just want to see this one be the best it can be. I strongly suspect Devanagari was the newbie who at first used his own name as editor tag - a quick google search revealed testimonials, pictures, and videos of him on Da websites. Called on it, he changed to the current tag, but has kept his Da-love on his sleeve (he's honest, I'll give him that, though utterly unable to write in an objective voice - or use comma/semi-colon properly). Jason Riverdale is an admitted Da devotee/admirer with a consistent record of slanting the page strongly, proselytizingly pro-Da, even to the point of manipulating and censoring material (as shown above.) Nonetheless, both have made some decent contributions. I'm not sure those have outweighed the persistent tug toward devotional bias they've thousands of times revealed in their edits, and I hope they can restrain the urge to bully other voices out again (no matter the specious wounded-bird pleas for understanding and consensus). I'll say one thing - neither is as utterly mad as David Starr1.Tao2911 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was involved here a while ago, so perhaps it's me you're thinking of from before :) Regardless, I don't have any particular problem with editors concentrating on an article that interests them as long as all edits comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V etc. Even so, I think that confining one's edits largely to a single article is a mistake, as it prevents one gaining a wider appreciation of how Wikipedia operates and how other contentious articles are written. It also, of course, reduces the suspicion that editors are here for the wrong reasons - advocacy, promotion, debunking, etc.

That said, one way of achieving balance is by editors of opposite viewpoints working towards a compromise. Both you and the others here seem reasonable, intelligent individuals so I hope this will be the end result. I'd just advise you to go a little slower when making mass changes to allow time for a response, and to avoid accusations as to the motives of other editors unless you have very good evidence. If you have specific concerns about certain edits, provide diffs and I'll be happy to take a look (or perhaps take them to ANI). No-one has much patience for editors who appear to be here solely to protect an article or whitewash its subject, and I'm quite prepared to use the admin tools to exclude those who do so. EyeSerene^talk 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

... Thanks EyeSerene for you mediation. It is very useful. Your continued involvement is appreciated I think that we need to cool charges back and forth here. While admittedly I am a fan of Adi Da I feel that blanket statements "consistent record of slanting the page strongly, proselytizingly pro-Da" are not useful nor completely true. Everyone including Tao on this page have bias and disagreements I would say that Tao has strong negative feelings about the subject as well and neutrality is not always there as well. I could pull all of that language out of past discussion as examples but let's move on beyond this. When there is consensus building and civil dialog Tao has made some excellent additions to the article. Some I may not like but I do respond to neutrality and lack of bias. What I would ask for is that there be discussion in the discussion section BEFORE posting. It is hard to respond to 75 or so post (some of which was wording & grammar changes etc, but requires checking it at least) in two days when they are already posted in the article. I rarely if ever revert article content and instead prefer to discuss in with others first.I did revert a few this last few days out of frustration that there was literately no dialog possible until after the fact of it being in the article. So if we can agree to post in discussion prior to putting material in the article that would be appreciated. I will be posting in discussion my responses to Tao's article changes. It may take a few days as my work load is heavy right now. Eye Serene is you want to comment on these that would be great and appreciated. Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason, once again, hyper-rational sounding, but this stance is belied by the fact I caught you (not for the first time) fabricating a fictional account of a particularly contentious aspect of the page, and you lost your shizzle. You censored material and manipulated sources, in a few places. I think you should recuse yourself. Of my "75 edits", only maybe 3 were of any real content significance, and all were explained here. And no, I don't have to run them by you for approval first. Especially when you are demonstrably going to battle in favor your own biased concoctions. Still waiting for a response to that, btw. Go ahead, make up a rationalization ("er, uh, "several" sometimes means "one" and, um, "many" sometimes means "none," and "lawsuit" means "vacation" and..." ). Maybe its taking you a couple days to get that one in order.

as for my "bias" I have shown over and over that I can take glowing pro-Da worshipful dreck and turn it into concise, readable, objective prose, and that I can take flaming critique and contextualize it drained of rancor. Not only that, I was finally driven to actually read all the tertiary material on this guy (the first here to do so) and construct a factual biographical timeline - one that Adi Da himself did much to try to hide later. Earlier versions bounced back and forth from mythology to diatribe. I've been fought tooth and nail by his followers every single step of the way - though there have been some periods of relatively benign cooperation for which I have been very grateful. Still, I remain eternally amazed at how forceful and subversive "believers" remain in the face of naked facts, and reasonable argument.Tao2911 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Tao edits last week

Reading through the article I think it is in pretty good shape. Very, very close. Tao has done some very good work in what he has done. There are a few issues still for me but not a lot. Because these issues have been a source of contention between Tao & I, don’t particular want to dialog for ever on them. Eye Serene if you or other official Wikipedia editors want to make a ruling on the few contested issues I will abide with whatever decisions are made.

I would ask that in the future we move more slowly and put all suggested changes in discussion BEFORE posting in the article. This is standard wiki policy. I will make every effort to respond in discussion, be civil and avoid personal attacks etc. If there are contested issues which cannot be resolved, we will have to submit to arbitration. Hopefully after this there are no more major issues to debate and if Tao feels no more need for significant edits we can bring the page to rest. In responding to Tao’s comment about the periods of relative cooperation, I too would appreciate finding a way to do that again.

Changing of title headings in article

Fine. Some of them seem awkward to me, but not worth bickering over.

Changing of order of article and moving of Controversy up higher in article

Ok, don’t think that it was necessary, but see that Tao wants to show a chronological article . Fine

Removal of first two paragraphs of Divine Emergence Section and insertion of re-written version

Ok, it is neutral and works. The reason the extended first paragraph was put there was that the first time it was inserted to the article some of the writing taken from critic Scott Lowe (“he died and came back all the way to his feet” ) was without any further explanation and seemed to me and other editors confusing to the average reader. So I worked with other wikipedia editors, using ALL sourced material to be more descriptive. All that being said, I think the re-worked paragraph by Tao is better, clear & neutral. Avoids all the issues that were there Thank you Tao.

Removal of two lines about “Illuminated Birth" at beginning of Bio

I still feel strongly that it should be there. Not because of a "great proclamation of uniqueness" but;

It is a key theme in Adi Da’s bio and a key element in his early life and in the later development of his philosophy and teaching. (The Knee of Listening)

It is discussed in almost all tertiary sources.

The argument against placing this information at the beginning of the bio, is that it is already mentioned later in bio. The argument I would pose is that since it is an important theme it would be useful to introduce it up front in the bio first and then it would be related to later examples where this is described. We don’t need to have a lot of Adidam language (which Tao rightly pointed out several months ago) as in past insertions. Just a simple statement at the beginning of the bio to introduce it , and that then can be related to a few lines later in the bio where this theme is shown.

Here are two of the cited sources and context in which it is mentioned.

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2, pages 146-147. This pre individuated superconscious condition Adi Da explains began to recede in his second or third year, and he became aware of himself as an individual facing and objective world. It was the loss of the “Bright”… or preconception ecstasy, which motivated him to recapture that paradisiacal state of wholeness. … He was preoccupied with finding a way back to the primal condition he enjoyed from infancy. He desperately wanted to understand the psychic mechanism that blocked the experience of the “Bright.

There is more to cite here to back up the intro statement of this.

Gordon/Baumann. Religions of The World- A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO Ltd. (2002). ISBN 1576072231, page 3. In his autobiography he asserts that he was born in a state of perfect awareness… but sacrificed that reality at the age of two in order to identify completely with human limitation…. Jones spent his college and subsequent years in a spiritual quest, which led him to Swami Muktananda and other gurus in that lineage. He reawakened to his true state in 1970.

Here is the suggested paragraph to include at the beginning of the Bio, with just two lines commenting on this theme.

Adi Da was born Franklin Albert Jones on November 3, 1939, in Queens, New York, and raised on Long Island.[22] In his autobiography he stated that from the time of his birth, he existed in a unique state of spiritual illumination. He stated that he therefore spent his time in college and subsequent years in a spiritual search to discover what obstructed this in human beings and what would be required to realize this state permanently.

It simply reads like crap. it doesn't fit the bio. There has been in the past reams of this sort of back and forth - Da reinterpreted every event in retrospect. You don't bracket a factual bio with the fact that later Da sais he was enlightened the whole time. It is mentioned in his "philosophy." That is the place for it.Tao2911 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Switching another paragraph in lawsuits section back to previous paragraph also written by Tao

From this:

Two weeks later, to a local reporter Adidam threatened to file its own lawsuit against O'Mahoney, as well as five others who had been named in stories and interviews making allegations of abuse. Adidam charged that their allegations were part of conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement. The suit was never brought to court

To this:

Adidam countered with its own threatened lawsuit against the former member for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Adidam charged that their allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement

Certainly details of suits against Adidam are there. No reason why the threatened countersuit should not have some more detail. Again this is a Tao written paragraph, quite neutral, fair, and to the point. Prefer it, more succinct.

I made this point above - find a single source that says this (any details of suit against followers). We have a headline of an article that we can't read, simply saying Adidam threatened to sue. Also, we know this suit was never brought to court, and as far any source says, it went nowhere. I think this is clear. No payments, no case, no nothing. THIS is why we reduce the mention. I could easily argue for removing it altogether, using your own standards, Jason. We have no confirmable source for even the threat of a lawsuit. What I strongly suspect from watching and reading all the coverage of this time, was that with threats of suits against them, Adidam lawyers said to the media that they were going to bring suit against former followers in order to counteract negative media image, and scare at least some of the followers into silence. This is absolutely standard tactics. They would have had little basis for this "extortion conspiracy" allegation, and it never went anywhere - I doubt it was ever considered a real possibility, at least not by lawyers. All this said, it comes down to sources - find something and we can discuss. However, again, a threatened suit without settlement or court filing, no mention, vs. a dozen sources talking about lawsuits and settlements against Adidam? Please do the math re: "proportional coverage" (how many times do I have to go over this one?)Tao2911 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Controversy (Lawsuits)

Ah yes… the dialog and debate on Wikipedia in this area almost as bad as the Adidam lawsuits! If we can reach consensus and agreement on this we will have accomplished a lot.

I think Tao and I would agree that the following source is one we have battled over and interpreting. Here, in its entirety, is that source:

Lynne Duke, “Deep Throat's Daughter, The Kindred Free Spirit", Washington Post, June 12, 2005. Joan Felt is a devotee of an unusual and controversial self-proclaimed guru who,in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago, was accused of sexual abuse. 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

Another newspaper cited source for this is:

The San Francisco Chronicle/June 16th,1986, page 12 by John Widermuth ...a Marin County judge ruled that (Beverly)O'Mahony had no legal basis for bringing the action (lawsuit)

Here, as the contentious issues we have debated and argued about:

1)How many actual lawsuits were there?

2)Distinguishing between actual lawsuits and threatened lawsuits?

3)How long did these lawsuits go on for?

How many lawsuits were there and distinguishing between actual lawsuits and threatened lawsuits?

The Washington Post clearly states upfront in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago.

The two lawsuits was omitted in recent written insertion last week. This was also brought up by another neutral editor

How to interpret Ford Green handling three such cases brought up as suggestion there were at least three or more lawsuits ?

The “three such cases”, is not written or spelled out relative to how many actual lawsuits vs. threatened lawsuits. We can bicker but it is to me, still not clear.

it doesn't have to be. We say it like the sources say it. "Several, suits and threatened suits."Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We do however have at the beginning of the article a definitive statement by a reputable newspaper saying in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago

yeah fine. Only we have other sources too. Not just the ones you want to use.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How long did these lawsuits go on?

Again from the Washington Post, The lawsuits and threatened suits that dogged the group in the mid-1980s...

Just clarifying that this occurred in the 1980s without language that gives the impression of a continued issue.

I would say the Feuerstein was not privy to legal information. So the newspapers are our best source.

who says? You? I think this is an absolutely ludicrous statement.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So…… here is what I propose in change to be used in this section.

Copy inserted last week:

O'Mahoney's suit was dismissed in March, 1986. Other lawsuits and threatened suits against Adi Da and Adidam in subsequent years were kept out of court with confidentiality agreements and cash settlements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.

Suggested copy most of which are from newspaper quotes mentioned above:

Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County in 1986. The other lawsuit and subsequent threatened suits were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements.

I have not included the Georg Fuerstein material negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially. This comment seems out of context and odd here. This whole section is about charges, counter charges, lawsuits, and threatened lawsuits. That is covered quite adequately. Who knows if bleeding the organization financially is true. Seems like they paid for a lot of things in the 80s and 90s, bought land, published books, etc. Certainly Feuerstein was not privy to information about finances of the church. Yeah, I suspect lawsuits and heavy media attention could be disturbing to members of any organization. But… not necessary or pertinent to this section.So I feel that this should not be included.

Ok, that’s it for me. Like I said the rest of the article as it NOW stands is fine with me.Tao you can respond with what your arguments are. Again, anything you and I cannot come to agreement on I personally would appreciate if EyeSerene and or other official editors would rule on these. Again I will abide on their decision on these issues.Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made this abundantly clear, and you just aren't addressing my main points. Re lawsuits, I wrote the sentence to include both "lawsuits and threatened suits" to cover any vagaries. The only question you seem to have is what made it to court and what was reported; you wish to draw conclusions from your own suppositions, theories, original research, and guess work. That is not our standard. Our standard is to reflect sources - like Greene, who says he handled three cases against Adidam (your persistent willful misread of this astounds me.) And (neutral/pro edition, Adi Da confidant/insider) Feuerstein, who says "several suits and threatened over many years" which is in line with all accounts, allows for all news stories - your argument that he "is not a legal expert" is completely irrelevant. He's the most informed first-hand witness and expert on Adidam we have, and you are quite happy to use him in 50 other instances to support the points you want to make. He doesn't hedge here, he doesn't say "I don't know about this its vague." He's unequivocal. He says "several lawsuits over many years."This is not to mention New Religions, which echoes the same points, even more clearly. Having one line saying how suits impacted the church is not only simply good reporting answering an obvious question, it reflects the sources. Your desire to leave it out is just your wish to minimize all this. Which is obvious.Tao2911 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bright" birth mention

With some trepidation, I moved a reconstructed bright birth mention to when he first says it (in a public forum), in Knee. I think it reads well, is clear. Now, let's head off something right now. We all know that there could be a complex theological discussion about how Da renounced the bright by choice to initiate the whole cosmic drama of his enlightenment etc. We do NOT get into this here. it is implied all over the place. Even Diannaa found herself uncomfortable with aspects of the profoundly subjective nature of all this stuff. The mention is succinct, its good in that context, and reads well. Its got all the footnotes and citations it had before. You're welcome.Tao2911 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Citations

Jason Riverdale has added some peculiar citations and sources - for instance, to support his (highly contentious) desire to include "dismissed without legal merit" re: the O'Mahoney case, he cites "The San Francisco Chronicle, June 16th, 1986 page 12 by John Widermuth." Not only formatted unlike anything else on the page (you don't need a page number for a newspaper citation, though it does show it was hardly front page news), there is no writer by this name. Google shows there is a John WiLdermuth, but no article can be found for this date. Where did you get this information? And why, if the case was dismissed in march, is it being reported in the middle of June? What is the name of the article? And what other information is in it, if you have access to it, that you are not volunteering? Riverdale has a proven track record of finding source material, and cherry picking to suit his bias. If support material is not forthcoming, I suggest the citation be removed - we'll have to find another source for this dismissal fact.Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not every citation has to have a web link. Not every news article is online. Do not remove citations just because they 'sound fishy' to you. — goethean ॐ 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

there is just cause to question this editor. He has removed contentious material and (actually verifiable) citations and parts of footnotes to manipulate content and justify bias. It is reasonable to ask for verification of this source, especially as everything else on page is verifiable, and/or footnoted with quotes from source. Plus, I'm not saying get rid of info. I'm saying find better source.Tao2911 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it does not have a web link does not mean that it is not verifiable. It is reasonable for you to verify the source by locating a copy of the newspaper. It is not reasonable to remove a source because you are too lazy to find a copy of the periodical. The appropriate policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS. — goethean ॐ 17:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can keep ignoring my points and being snarky, but the citation in question is irregular, and questionable. Just because its there doesn't make it stick. And, I think laziness re: this page is hardly my issue.Tao2911 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content from cited source relative to lawsuits

Seems that some of the information from cited sources has been removed from Reference;

The Marin Superior Court reference with docket # etc for the dismissed O' Mahony case

Content of article that describes time Two lawsuits" and "in the 80's" Joan Felt is a devotee of an unusual and controversial self-proclaimed guru who,in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago, was accused of sexual abuse. 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

Hmmmm where did it go?Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See footnote 107. This quote is right there, never left. I haven't touched 'reference' section. I did go through all the footnotes and removed some material that was irrelevant, redundant, excessive, or not in contention. The case # (plus Greene address etc) you refer to info was an uncited footnote, wasn't wholly necessary (as news articles discuss case) so it was removed. Read talk please. If you have the case info, I agree it could possibly be in reference, but we'll have to look at precedents and guidelines for that. Right now it's all books. Can you add researched legal records to references? I don't know. But I hope that we agree on the two lawsuits thing. The citations are there. There is no question about those two cases. Or about there being others "threatened and settled out of court."Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes footnote # 107 is still there but the beginning part, which we have had disagreement on is edited OUT now. What you were accusing me of. And if there is discussion about a Court Docket #, then put it in discussion first until resolved. This is also something EyeSerene was suggesting in terms of slowing things down. I am trying to work cooperatively with you, but it is hard to have discussion when something is already removed. I am not "asking for you to have my approval" I understand how sometimes you feel your a "only voice." But these kinds of edits don't help develop trust. That's why I felt on this issue we may have to have some help from a wiki editor. There is disagreement. We are polarized here. Some other areas we have been working together. So maybe we need a formal Wikipedia editor on this to decide. Would you be willing and also willing to abide on whatever ruling they made as I stated as well.

Also is it necessary to have a actual playboy bunny page for Julie Anderson.I think the source you initially put in is fine and has never been contested by me or other editors. Seems a bit "sensationalist journalism" on your part here.It is never been a contested issue by me at least. Consider perhaps that it may not be necessary. She is a living person and there also may be some Wikipedia rule about this. Consider how necessary this extra citation is.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Playboy bunny material is minor, is not sensationalistic, and should remain in article. — goethean ॐ 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let it be!Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I only just realized today that the "playmate" (bunny's are the ones in the bars) in question used an alias, so I added it. It linked in WP. Why wouldn't we link it? She's clearly a "notable person" in whatever regard. What - she's alive so she can't be mentioned? (Where do you come up with this stuff?) I think there are a couple other living people referenced on Wikipedia. One or two. And Playboy is hardly sensational anymore, to anyone but the Amish.

Btw, the whole Anderson/Kaine "spread" as it were can be found free online - gotta love mid-70's playboy. Hoo boy. I know you're googling it Jason.

As for removing the case info - as I said before, a few times now, the prob is the source. Or rather, that there isn't one. Cite it, or find a precedent for it to be included. In the meantime, the article isn't altered in any way by it being there or not being there. You say there is a dispute. What dispute? I keep asking, over and over, for you to either acknowledge my points above - in short, that the current version about lawsuits is accurate to sources - or give new reasons why it isn't. Frankly, I know your arguments; I've shown them thus far to be specious, and simply driven by a censorious bias. Is there still a problem? If so - get to the points here. Please.Tao2911 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no prob with the info in the first part of that footnote. Only that "Joan Felt" has nothing to do with entry. If you want to add that, I suppose you can. It doesn't change substance of line in question. It just perpetuates the unprecedented footnote madness on the page. Again - more than two total lawsuits and/or settlements. That's all.Tao2911 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Guess "we are going to have to agree to disagree" and put this up for mediation. Let's see how that happens and goes. Our points and counterpoints are there so...Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

dude - no, they aren't. You haven't responded to any of my points. What?Tao2911 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale needs to make a case

There is only one ongoing specific point of contention here. Riverdale wants to say that there were only two lawsuits and threatened suits against Adi Da. His argument is that he (Riverdale) can only find court records for two cases. He therefore wants to dismiss whole sources, or the parts of sources he doesn't like (while using other parts), that say that there were "several suits over many years," most kept out of court (so clearly there will be no court records.)

Riverdale is willfully not addressing this. And now says he's made his case and we're done, time for "mediation" (it's not, btw). EyeSerene has put a block on the page - though Riverdale did not just engage in edit warring, and I certainly haven't (in fact I've welcomed him re-adding info). I understand the caution. However, Riverdale needs to put up or shut up. There is no dispute if Riverdale simply doesn't like something, but makes no case.Tao2911 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this clear. From above, here is my argument to which Riverdale has yet to respond: "Re lawsuits, I wrote the sentence to include both "lawsuits and threatened suits" to cover any vagaries. The only question you seem to have is what made it to court and what was reported; you wish to draw conclusions from your own suppositions, theories, original research, and guess work. That is not our standard. Our standard is to reflect sources - like Greene, who says he handled three cases against Adidam(which you removed from footnote when you changed entry to read "only two")... And (neutral/pro edition, Adi Da confidant/insider) Feuerstein, who says "several suits and threatened over many years" which is in line with all accounts, allows for all news stories - your argument that he "is not a legal expert" is completely irrelevant. He's the most informed first-hand witness and expert on Adidam we have, and you are quite happy to use him in 50 other instances to support the points you want to make. He doesn't hedge here, he doesn't say "I don't know about this its vague." He's unequivocal. He says "several lawsuits over many years." This is not to mention New Religions, which echoes the same points, even more clearly. Tao2911 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC): "

EyeSerene, you can remain neutral and still evaluate claims, or at least encourage action.Tao2911 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we characterize it as "According to Feuerstein and Greene...there were three such cases" or "According to Feuerstein, ther were several, and according to Greene there were three such cases...", or something like that? That way, the article sticks to only claiming what the sources claim. — goethean ॐ 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the urge to try to placate Jason; however, stylistically that is highly problematic. Also, its completely contradictory. JR wants to use the first half of the ford greene sentence, that says there were two cases in court in CA (one handled by Greene no less), but not the second, where nothing less than the Washington Post says he handled three cases. it doesn't say "he claims to have handled 3 cases." It's the Washington Post, for god's sake. Also - Feuerstein is used throughout this page, mainly the early pro-Da account from 1992 (as in this case). We demonstrably are trusting this source, all editors are, all over the place; we are not bracketing everything he says with "Feuerstein says". That would make no sense (and would be ruinous to page). Also, New Religions says this too, using numbers of sources to support it. These sources are all major - they have multiple editors, reviewed so as not to be libelous, fact checked etc. Our work is done for us. We don't have to couch or hedge. We have three sources saying "several cases over many years." There is no issue here. Only a documented record of whitewashing. This is not a paragraph of contentious material. This is one line, summarizing three sources.Tao2911 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tao, I have made my case and responded several times, you just don't agree with it. Fine. There is a direct most reputable source, a newspaper, required to check their facts , with editorial review, which says of an unusual and controversial self-proclaimed guru who,in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago, was accused of sexual abuse. 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 casesAlso that this took place in the mid 80's and 20 years ago This time period is given by Ford Green himself. How much plainer can it be. Not going on for years and years as you put in. It is plainly stated here, which you have ignored. The article was published in 2005. Certainly Ford Green who made the statement saying 20 years ago and the 80's has the most accurate information. Newspaper checks it's facts and it is saying that there were two actual lawsuits. I am not contesting other threatened lawsuits. Nor am I contesting the settlements out of court. That's why I suggested the following written statement takes into account all the facts

There is no disagreement. I understand you perfectly. You just keep ignoring my arguments. Greene says those dates, in one source, in half of the whole sentence - the rest of it says that he handled three such cases against Adidam. New Religions and Feuerstein (that you want to ignore) say "several" suits were threatened for "many years". Who says that Greene was the only lawyer who ever handled a suit against Adidam? This is what you assume, and it's crazy (I feel like I'm dealing with a child here). I'm not disputing your one source - I'm saying there are two others. We know there were suits in the mid 80's. We have two other sources saying they went beyond that time. I keep phrasing to include all sources. You do not. You can't cherry pick for your bias, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County in 1986. The other lawsuit and subsequent threatened suits were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.Tao2911 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

sources discuss at length how these suits impacted Adidam. This is important info - your persistent removal of it is whitewashing. You want to downplay all this. We get it. Just own it, and stop.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to above inclusion! Thank you. Consensus here. I have a few other language things I would like to discuss with you. Please keep the language between us civil, free of irony and attack. I am trying to work with you here Tao so. Goethean if you want to pipe in from time to time that might be useful. You do comment on both sides here so that is useful. Tao I have a client to go see so I will try to simply address a few other language issues later. Not a lot.Your patience would be appreciated.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to attempt civility. You can help this effort by actually addressing my specific, reasoned points instead of just playing old busted records over and over. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is civility, I'd hate to see incivility. Please take it easy. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

talk about pots and kettles! ha!Tao2911 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Edit

{{Editrequest}} consensus on adding this line "Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially." last line of "public controversy" section in Biography.Tao2911 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just between clients...so a quick response. I would prefer that we not put ANY changes in till all disputes are resolved. I have no intention of revoking consensus on this. But, given the history of battling here I think working through any other disputed language etc. without changes in the article would benefit us all. We have a week to work through all this and I for one appreciate it. Let's see if we can continue this cooperation!Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with lock on page, welcome it. However - let's move on points agreed upon. I don't want to see backsliding, or negotiating this point for that, or any of the possibilities - that your latest statement raises a concern toward. We agreed on this point. Let's get it changed. Bring up others, and let's keep it locked. I trust Eyeserene to monitor objectively. Tao2911 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

for clarity: "Agreed to above inclusion! Thank you. Consensus here... Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"

Above comment is a cut and paste extract of an edit by Jason Riverdale from the "Riverdale needs to make a case" section. It was added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC), comment was struck by Rambo's Revenge (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) in a misunderstanding (see below) and later changed back by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Please check that I have woven the references into the above sentence change correctly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes reverted in light of more recent revelations. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

note: Rambo here falsely accused of un-Wiki activity, for which I was blocked for five minutes until another admin stepped in. See below for the record of my supposedly "dastardly" deed.Tao2911 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - only the first citation I still have questions about. For one, at best, the writer is misspelled. Two, my list of issues I outlined above about this source hasn't been addressed. But then, they never are by Riverdale. oh well. I'll bring it up again later.Tao2911 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording disagreement

Tao please review the wording I actually agreed to. Here is the content from the Discussion that shows what I agreed to

Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.Tao2911 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to above inclusion! Thank you. Consensus here....Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) The above means the above.

You, BELOW all this part of the discussion added language NOT there in the agreement. Changed it to this "Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986.....

Very dishonest here. Very disappointing. Not a way to build consensus. We are close here Tao,don't blow it like this. It would be nice to bring this to a close.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The only change I made was to say "adi da and the church" instead of adidam. The suits were against both him as individual and the org., not just the church. So sources say. I caught this and fixed it before your mistake was added to article (which happened very fast, just after I caught this), and I said as much in the history record tag line - nothing was hidden. This is completely minor, changes nothing of substance, and its accurate to sources. In fact, it is how the mention once accurately read, before you gutted the facts in favor of your whitewash version (that Eyeserene has called you out on). I'm hardly defaming your god man here. As my grammy'd say, don't get your panties in a twist.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, we had an agreement, consensus, on specific wording,you changed it and snuke a few more words in there without further discussion. Your points you make below about why you changed the wording is not the point. We had consensus and agreement you changed things without discussion. Not necessary nor helpful in building consensus and cooperation. Too bad we are so close. This kind of thing does not help. Discuss things first and make changes by consensus.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you are confused. I didn't "snuke" anything. You make more defamatory complaints, but again don't deal with the issue at hand. Do you have a problem with this text? Do you think that the suits were only against Adidam, and not Adi Da? Please go review sources. I think you will see my TWO WORD change is totally innocent and benign. Tao2911 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source 1 (Marin Independent Journal): "A $5 million lawsuit has been filed charging a San Rafael-based international sect and its leader with false imprisonment, fraud, involuntary servitude and physical and sexual abuse. The suit, filed in Marin Superior Court, was brought by a former member of the Johannine Daist Communion against the group and its leader, known as "Da Free John"."Tao2911 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source 2 (SF Examiner): "the suit accuses Da Free John, a native of New York and former student of the late Swami Muktananda Paramhansa, of "clergy malpractice...Also named in the suit are Vincent Goddard, Larry Hastings and John Andrews, who along with Brian O'Mahony are named as members of the JDC board of directors. They are accused of breach of directors fiduciary duty."Tao2911 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source 3 (actual suit doc): "M. MILLER, an individual vs. FRANKLIN A. JONES, an individual"Tao2911 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That do it for you? Was this really necessary? When you cry wolf, shit hits the fan. Maybe you get off on it, it gives you a sense of control, I don't know. But my correction is clearly harmless.Tao2911 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change content of what I posted in Discussion as you just did.

from Tao Changed wording after agreement and consensus was reached to Disagreement over wordingJason Riverdale (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all just ridiculous. I removed some of the cut/pasted info from above thread here that didn't pertain to your issue (you failing to replace it shows it didn't matter) - you chopped a whole passage and put the whole thing here, leading I felt to confusion by newbie admins to page (it was certainly confusing, maybe even for you). Plus, your headline was simply defaming me for a minor misunderstanding on your part that is discussed in this thread - the issue of which was masked by this smoke-screen defamation. I must ask you to spend less time defaming me here and on other admin pages (of which you are leaving a lengthy somewhat pathetic trail) and simply just get to the point. Once again, you are spending a lot more time (misguidedly) pointing fingers, dithering and calling me names, while continuing to not deal with issues - this is an ongoing problem. So - respond to the above point, concerning adi da being a plaintiff in lawsuits, and my completely innocent inclusion of that fact, so we can just...move...on. Sheesh.Tao2911 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Ok, so let's try to move forward here. Let's get some agreements as well between us.

No change in any language after agreements on copy without consensus

When the article is unlocked any changes in the article (outside of grammar, sentence structured etc) that either one of us wants to make is posted in Discussion (as is wiki policy) for discussion and consensus BEFORE put into article. Slowing it all down helps a lot and has been suggested by EyeSerene.This is a good way to do it.

Civil language. We both get frustrated with each other. You feel my responses sometimes are not answering you points and I feel that I have answered them. There is disagreement. But no caustic language. Let's try to keep discussing till consensus. I am trying to avoid mediation and would rather work things out between us, but on some issues we may come to that.

ok... so if agreed we can settle this lawsuits things quicklyJason Riverdale (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add to your list:

Stick to the points. Quit negotiating to allay your emotional sensitivity. You could just answer the points, instead of OVER AND OVER laying out your case against me personally. Once again, you seem to want to hold the page hostage until you get verbal foreplay. I don't want to play these games. You overreacted to a minor correction, and we now have three thousand more words describing a completely inconsequential issue - it's no wonder admins come in and get confused (especially after you go to their talk pages and say what a monster I am - over and over and over and over. Maybe question this tactic. It's not really helping the page get resolved).

So, don't hold the page hostage. Stick to the points. Deal with them as they arise, point by point. Read more carefully. Consider whether you are overreacting. Now lets get on with it.Tao2911 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ps I don't want any response to this: an apology, a counter, more complaints, an agreement, nothing. I just want you to deal with points in the article, in this case, saying that phrasing is fine below.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da separate Defendant from Adidam organization

So, can we agree on this? "Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially."

Source 1 (Marin Independent Journal): "A $5 million lawsuit has been filed charging a San Rafael-based international sect and its leader with false imprisonment, fraud, involuntary servitude and physical and sexual abuse. The suit, filed in Marin Superior Court, was brought by a former member of the Johannine Daist Communion against the group and its leader, known as "Da Free John"."Tao2911 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source 2 (SF Examiner): "the suit accuses Da Free John, a native of New York and former student of the late Swami Muktananda Paramhansa, of "clergy malpractice...Also named in the suit are Vincent Goddard, Larry Hastings and John Andrews, who along with Brian O'Mahony are named as members of the JDC board of directors. They are accused of breach of directors fiduciary duty."Tao2911 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source 3 (actual suit doc): "M. MILLER, an individual vs. FRANKLIN A. JONES, an individual"Tao2911 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The only difference from version Riverdale already signed off on is in italics (previous version inaccurately said just "adidam"). Three sources for this phrasing are above. Clear?

If this is fine, Riverdale, you should post an edit request (see above for formatting.)Tao2911 (talk)

Ok on wording of entry. Let's not stack references. Just use Source 1. That will be sufficient.Jason Riverdale (talk)

there is no need to add any citations to entry. They are already there. These are just here to prove to you accuracy. However - you need to fix and standardize the "widermuth' citation. it needs a title, correct the name spelling (wildermuth), and since you didn't address my questions about that source before when I asked maybe do that: where did you find this, what is the substance of the article, what is its title, why if it is ref'ing March suit was it printed in June etc?Tao2911 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am out of town for about a week for work. When I return I will again have access to info of the SF Chronicle article above and will give requested information.Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The following paragraph has consensus and can be inserted into the article

Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially

It should replace the current paragraph in the article which reads

O'Mahoney's suit was dismissed in March, 1986.[103] Other lawsuits and threatened suits against Adi Da and Adidam occurred for years, but were kept out of court with confidentiality agreements and cash settlements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the agreement of just 2 editors a consensus. I'd like to see a few more people express an opinion before I action this request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are only two editors active, esp. re: this passage. I'm actually fine with the passage the way it reads now, and don't care about this change - it was hashed out merely for Jason Riverdale, who battled hard for a short sentence addition. But no other editor is active now (save Goethean, sort of). Especially on this passage. I suggest reviewing talk, and seeing if you can grasp the point (which is really actually quite simple despite reams of idiotic dispute.) Or just read the sentence, current and proposed. I think you'll see it's not a big deal, we agree on it, and we represent the poles of opinion (he's a devotee of profiled figure, I am not). I think holding off does the process here a disservice.Tao2911 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jason Riverdale's suggested edit here and feel it is much more balanced.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Summary

Hi everyone. I have not been following this discussion terribly closely, but I certainly want to weigh in and give some feedback on the current state of the article. I will do this section by section.

Lead The Lead looks completely fine to me. I have no suggested edits here.

Biography Suggested edits:

"For over a year, Adi Da (then still Franklin Jones) lived with his girlfriend Nina Davis in the hills of Palo Alto. While she worked to support them, he wrote intensively and meditated informally." I think that more could be said about this then "he wrote", since in The Knee of Listening (even the first edition) he describes this "yoga of writing", and the process of self-observation that he was engaging at the time. This is a very minor point, so not a big deal if other editors disagree. Just something to consider.

I don't want to see this expanded. The original Knee (as even quoted by a SF Chronicle article I just read) also said he smoked weed daily, along with ongoing use of other drugs in Palo Alto, while Nina "did all the work, both in the house and out of it" (Bubba's words). I imagine you don't want to include that, and I'm not arguing for it though I think it paints a vivid picture. He wrote. That's enough mention.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think its fine, it's not a big point for me really. Just a suggestion that came up as I was reading it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Having studied a number of spiritual traditions, including "The Work" of G.I. Gurdjieff and Subud, Rudolph was then a follower change "follower" to "disciple" of Siddha Yoga founder Swami Muktananda...". I am suggesting changing "follower" to "disciple" here because it is a more accurate term, whereas "follower" while also accurate can carry unnecessary connotations that could be seen as negative. Again, minor point.

I changed 'disciple' to 'follower' as former is specialized, credulous terminology, and has been removed in every other instance in entry (even following Adidam wishes regarding their "followers.") Term is excessive, interpretive, and too particular. 'Follower' is more neutral and dry, and in tone with entry now.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your logic.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"As a student at Philadelphia's Lutheran Theological Seminary in 1967, Adi Da described undergoing a terrifying breakdown. Taken to a hospital emergency room, a psychiatrist diagnosed it as an anxiety attack." I do not believe this is an entirely accurate characterization, and no contextualization is provided.

it is straight form the horse's mouth, Knee early edition account. Read the source.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da describes this as the "death of narcissus" in the original Knee of Listening, and that theme has been stripped in this biography. I think it would be good to describe more of what was happening here than just a "terrifying breakdown", and what the psychiatrist said. He did see a psychiatrist, and it was diagnosed as an anxiety attack, that is fine to stay in this paragraph, but it should also be mentioned that Adi Da felt this was the "death of narcissus" or the death of separate self, and described it in those terms, albeit in conflict with medical diagnosis. The following sentence is good, but I feel there needs to be some "meat" in between.

much of this interp. came later. Again, this is deeply credulous interpretation, not in keeping with current tone of entry. It alludes to esoterica that then demands more material, and it simply is helpful or necessary - it quickly leads back to Adidam pamphelteering hagiography. It says in entry he found it insightful, and it led to further events. Enough.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good enough logic for me.-Devanagari108 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For "Public Controversy", I think as it currently stands is fine, with the change that Jason suggested above incorporated.

I think the bright birth mention is in a very good place now, and works better there than in the beginning of the Biography. This is an encyclopedia entry after all. So very good edit, Tao. Also, the Divine Emergence section is SIGNIFICANTLY improved, I am very pleased with how this section turned out. Very good edits again, Tao. So that's all from me on the Biography.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. Happy you approve. I thought it was a good compromise too.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy

"Self-contraction" seems fine. However, I am not sure about this pseudo-chart in "Seventh Stage Realization". What does it really communicate? It seems that it would be better to use some of Scott Lowe's description of the stages of life, rather than this non-descriptive chart. Also, there is no real source for this chart other than Adi Da Up Close, and I have seen descriptions of the stages of life in some third party sources. I think we should use them. That is my only suggestion for this section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I came in here totally unfamiliar with this stage model. While current form raises questions, I find it clear, comprehensible; it indicates the model, and i really don't think the entry is the place to get into it more. There is a link to adidam, and a massive bibliography. That last version with all the esoterica was an attention killer, and killed the rhythm of the page. As I say below, let's keep it bare. I think the whole picture is there, quite clearly. The most important feature of his teaching was or at least became his 7th stage realization. That is what is rightfully emphasized. I think that section is pretty good as is.Tao2911 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree this entry isn't the place to get into it. Perhaps another article focusing on this is more apt, leaving this summary and concise.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate entry is a good idea, very much in keeping with WP precedents (see Leary's 8 Circuit Model).Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Everything else looks fine until Reception. Under "Others" there is mention of criticism of Adi Da's writing being difficult, because of puncutation and capitalization, etc. I think there should also be mention of how others such as Kripal found this to be the uniquely positive aspect of Adi Da's writings, so I suggest adding this from the Knee of Listening Foreword: "What sets the twenty-three Source-Texts apart is the fact that they were written in English, and that this English idiom has been enriched by a kind of hybridized English-Sanskrit, and that a new type of mystical grammar has been created, embodied most dramatically (and, to the ego, jarringly) in Adi Da's anti-ego capitalization practice, in which just about every grammatical move is nondualistically endowed with the status once imperially preserved in English for the non-existent "I "."

well, basically we have been seeming to move toward limiting a quote per person. This proposal is really wordy, awkward. I can work on a capsule line version to add to Kripal maybe. But I'd be more likely to agree to removing the negative mention than add anything at this point. I was just reading the entry on iPhone, and it still is a bit too long really, which becomes even more apparent there. I've been working at just paring it down to the most pithy and succinct version we can get to. Bone-y. Anorexic even. No dressing it up, few quotes, everything rephrased from sources and even a bit terse. it makes for much more convincing reading - you start to trust that the opinions have been drained out.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to removal of negative mention.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So those are all my comments. I think this article is really good now, and these are just minor edits that I am suggesting. I am otherwise quite pleased with how things turned out.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildermuth citation

Jason Riverdale has added the following footnote/citation: "Wildermuth, John ,"Sex Guru Touts Celibacy", The San Francisco Chronicle, June 16th, 1986, "Jones won the opening round in November when a Marin County judge ruled that O'Mahony had no legal basis for bringing the action (lawsuit)..."

First, thanks for cleaning that up - the previous citation had problems (discussed above.) I'm streamlining it slightly. Second, though, I still wonder what the rest of this article says. I can only find a single dead-link mention online to this article. I'd like to read it. Can you provide a live link? Thanks.

Also, I just caught a discrepancy. We have a court record saying the O'Mahoney case was dismissed in March of 1986. This article says November 1985. I removed the date from entry, but it makes me wish to see this article even more.Tao2911 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Polygamy"

"po·lyg·a·my (p-lg-m): n. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time." For some reason, this word really bothers Riverdale and Dev. However, the passage wasn't clear that Jones/Da's partners (during G&G period mention) were not sequential, but simultaneous. This practice, in English, is called 'polygamy.' I used the adjective form "polygamous". No value judgment is implied. Please do not censor due to preemptive interpretation.Tao2911 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The added language constitutes original writing. No where in the ANY source is that language or wording used WP:OR It should therefore be removed. The following more than adequately paraphrases the source citation.

He had nine or more partners during this time that he called his "wives", including Playboy centerfold Julie Anderson, aka "Whitney Kaine".[86]Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale says "The added language constitutes original writing." There is a rule against original RESEARCH - there is also instruction to REPHRASE and summarize sources. There is not, nor could there be, a rule against "original writing". Would be funny if not so infuriatingly stupid. This entry, as in every other, is often, if not mainly, "original writing." Argue your point against use of this particular English adjective, please. What is the problem? Reread the definition I've provided for you, control your involuntary knee movements, and make a case. Mine is that he practiced polygamy, ie he had multiple simultaneous wives. Did he not? Are you saying he didn't? And New Religions and others use the term in any case - please reread.Tao2911 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the word "polygamy", because I think it is beyond clear that it was simultaneous as it read before. "Nine or more wives during this time" is very clear that they were all at the same time. I think the addition of "polygamy" is mostly just unnecessary. It's not necessarily a negative term or anything, that is not my objection to it, but I can see why Jason might feel that it has negative connotations. I think its just better avoided, especially since the passage is clear as is. I would suggest not monkeying with this level of things that is already agreed upon. Would be good to reach some sort of consensus about the whole article relatively soon.

Relative to Tao changing the year, I think that is fine. I have not reviewed the changes made to lawsuits in any detail, so I won't comment on that yet.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"the passage wasn't clear that Jones/Da's partners (during G&G period mention) were not sequential, but simultaneous." Now it is, due to one useful word, that you admit is not in itself defaming or controversial.Tao2911 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale confusion resolved

Tao we just went through and long and extended discussion about this lawsuits paragraph. Agreement was reached and AGAIN you choose to ignore this. Number of lawsuits and time (dates) were what was being contested between us. So we agreed on a way to include two sources. Not really interested in your "so called- logic" or "it is a minor word change" on this as clearly you are unable to maintain even consensus agreements.

Agreed consensus Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986

Changed without consensus today Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed.

We also had an agreement that we would work via consensus BEFORE posting changes. Putting changes in and "reasoning" it out at same time IS NOT consensus. I really have tried to work with you here. But .... Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I simply took out "1986" because we have two sources conflicting. Read talk above, PLEASE. YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS "1985". Why do you insist on having these fits over completely inconsequential edits? When we figure this out we can reinsert the RIGHT date if necessary (it matters little either way in context). Speaking of which, please address my questions above re: the source you cite.Tao2911 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a live link, but I was able to get a copy of the article. You are welcome to do the same.Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

simply took out "1986" because we have two sources conflicting.

I see what your what your saying. The article was written in 1986 the case was dismissed November 1985. Then let's change date to reflect that. My mistake, sorry. If you could , as agreed simply bring things to Discussion first before changing things in article that would make things less complicated.[User:Jason Riverdale|Jason Riverdale]] (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly right (but you'll get there)- your June 86 source says case dismissed Nov 1985 - another source says it was tossed out in March 1986. This is all above, explained simply and carefully in talk - please read this stuff first. This is like the 20th time this has happened. I make it as clear as I can, and you fly off the handle without reading talk (or something). I keep asking...and I edited this (yet another) talk section headline defaming me to reflect your acknowledgment of your mistake. You see a pattern here?Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I added 1985 simply to previous line, as in when the lawsuits were filed. So there's a date, and no conflict in citations. There's usually a simple, non-hysterical solution somewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please allow for discussion of edits

Tao, I would like to suggest that you please allow for discussion of edits to take place. You are making many small changes within the article and they are not reflected here in discussion. I agree it is tedious to post something about every small change, but I think it will be useful if you can give some overview of your changes afterwards. I do check the History, so it does not bother me so much, but you often edit very fast making very many changes, and I think it will help everyone here if you said more here every now and then, especially regarding what may be a controversial edit. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dev, I have no expectation that when you change some caps, or add the word "simply" as you just did, that you have to come to me here in talk to ask for permission. If I don't like your changes, I will come here and say why, or just adjust to split any difference I can discern. I carefully label each of my edits in the tag line. I always read 'history' tag lines to see what others have done, then check talk, then consider the edits and how they hold up. I expect the same from others. Riverdale has again and again shown himself to be, I feel, unreasonable and a poor, sloppy, biased, weasel-y editor, and I am simply not going to discuss grammar and punctuation to get his approval. I know how to craft a sentence. I haven't been making any significant edits that warrant consensus. I have come here over and over and over and made requests to JR, and given explanations of my edits that seemingly go completely unread or acknowledged. If you review 'talk' carefully, you will see this, and how we ended up having two blocks over issues that made very little sense or difference to the page. See the section just previous for a classic example.Tao2911 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this seems fine and reasonable enough to me.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also Dev you will see that Afterwriting came and (once again) corrected most of your edits for WP style. I didn't want to do so for fear of setting either you or JR off. You might want to be careful before you start wading in again.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this. I thought I was doing the right thing, I had no idea that it was already correct per wiki style! You should feel free to point that out. I honestly just didn't know. I also don't plan to be "wading in again". I am ready to finish up this article. You are the one making daily edits, so I am just waiting for some kind of grand consensus to be reached. I don't have any points to make.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

and if you, Tao would simply put word changes in Discussion before you make the edits in the article... as several editors, both non-wiki and official wiki editors have requested then that would make this process easier and trustable. Removing or adding some word changes are not always "minor" This is not caps or punctuation.Putting it in discussion BEFORE making edit would avoid some of these issues. Not AFTER the change in the article either as occurred. That too has been requested over and over again. You even agreed to itJason Riverdale (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

blah blah blah. any actual substantive issues to bring up - like yet another single word choice we can belabor with a 10,000 word debate before you realize you're "confused"? Again? As far as I'm concerned, I don't see anything else to deal with in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

JR, the best thing would be for you to carefully watch the History, since you often find Tao's word changes to be controversial. If you notice something in History that you disagree with, feel free to bring it up here in Discussion, and challenge the point further. It is not reasonable to ask Tao to articulate every single change he makes here--that is the function of History. It is true, Tao can often make numerous edits, and it can take some time to glance through History, but I think it is not so complicated if you want to review his changes.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to propose adding the Da Plastique website back under "External Links". This is an "Official Website", and I am not sure why it was removed. Is there is a reason why this shouldn't be listed? I glanced over WP:External Links and didn't find anything that contradicts this addition. Any thoughts from you Tao?--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason it was removed is because it is an official Adidam website and is a subpage link on the adidam.org front page (for which a link is provided). One link to all things Adidam. Period. No reason to have multiple gates to the same organization (and they have numbers of sites, all linked at adidam.org). It was a very questionable inclusion in the first place.Tao2911 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is a biography of Adi Da, not Adidam. Since Adi Da is a recognized, highly original artist with a large and complex oeuvre, it makes sense to link to a site dedicated to his art. It has nothing to do with "multiple gates to the same organization". The questionable inclusion is the Rick Ross Institute. This page does not provide any real information about Adi Da at all. It is little more than a collection of shallow, tabloid-style news articles, most of them written over twenty years ago by people with no real knowledge of the person they are writing about. Also, the wording of the link as it stands implies that Adi Da is pro-cult, when in fact he frequently argued, in the most uncompromising fashion, against cultism in all its forms, at times being particularly critical of cultic tendencies within Adidam itself. Norm Declavier (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Since Adi Da is a recognized, highly original artist with a large and complex oeuvre." No, he demonstrably is not. There is one book published of his work, and essentially one exhibition (that moved; once), that has no independent serious critical appraisal (meaning art magazines, major newspapers, academic publications, etc.) Kuspit wrote an endorsement in the book - he stands alone, as is (if I may say) generally coming to be regarded as "off the grid" in terms of major art currents. The art website is "an official Adidam" website; so says Adidam. It is not an independent thing. They have a list of over a dozen sites, and links to them, at Adidam. Da Plastique is not different in style or use of language from any of the others. It is a purely promotional website, which does not meet NPOV standards for biographies (see 'promotional materials').

The articles at the Rick Ross link are not in any way "tabloid articles." They are the major (and regional) newspaper stories that covered the scandals surrounding him, and some more neutral stories simply covering his church in later years. There is also a transcript of the Today Show feature on him. It would be more ideal if the the repository of this info were more "neutral" in title, but in substance it is completely NPOV.

It has been deemed appropriate in years of editing here that Adidam be covered in a profile of Adi Da. There could conceivably in addition be a separate page on Adidam, but I hardly see it necessary. To not have a brief overview of Adidam here would be absurd - as a discussion of Jesus without mentioning Christianity, or Buddha and Buddhism (since Adi Da declared himself superior to these figures, it begs the comparison.) You clearly are a fan, who has not reviewed the materials in question, and who doesn't have a neutral or particularly informed view. Your opinions are duly noted. And fairly discounted on merit.

As for the "cult" thing, this has been discussed ad nauseum (as have all your other points). No where in entry does it say adidam "is a cult." It is acknowledged that this allegation has been made (and it has many times, as cited), and qualified as such. Your comments and "profile" beg serious sock puppet questions. It all sounds all too familiar, in tone and substance.Tao2911 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After review of sources, fixed a few problems

There were some holes in the story - namely, jones' visits to Muktananda in 1970, and then in 72, both hoping to getting the thumbs up as "mahasiddha". A non-starter (surprise) for Swami Muk. Also, I moved the book burning from critique to its rightful (original) place in the G&G section. It is a fact in all accounts, including fan Kripal, who is cited. As is Feuerstein. Also, there is much emphasis in sources on G&G book's critique of marriage - makes the polygamy more explicable in context. Devotees won't like it, but its all sourced, factual, and helpful. As were reworkings of drug use and time with Rudi. Numbers of sources, including various editions of Knee (ie Jones himself), say he took a lot of drugs for 3-4 years. This was tippy-toed around to placate terrifically non-neutral sensitivities. We have the sources. So we just say what they say.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

.Gurdjieff Journal is self-published without editorial review

Regarding the citation from the Gurdjieff Journal, it is a magazine self-published by the owner and without editorial review. Therefore it should not be used as a source for Wikipedia. This was discussed about six months agoJason Riverdale (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This was/is disputed, and never reached consensus - I simply found better sources that said the same things, and still this didn't satisfy critics. I believe it was Goethean who sided with me saying it was a valid source - only David Starr discounted it, and he was a completely biased and uncooperative editor who had arbitrary notions of what he wanted to see included in this article. This source is cited by other valid pub. references, including Scribd. Your standard does not hold water. Journal is respected in field, cited in other journals, and author/editor in chief is recognized authority in field. It's a glossy, illustrated magazine that publishes other writers, on various topics, and is carried by university libraries. Not only this, but the article in question is balanced, well written, well researched, and footnoted using many of the same sources used in this entry. No whole events or facts in entry rely solely on this source. It's a good article, one of the most thorough on the topic and one of the best researched, and it should stay. Your choice to discount it reflects your ongoing bias on the subject, and wish to remove any mention of what you perceive as controversial or potentially "negative."

Once again, I request that you bring up the points that you have issue with, so that these can be shown to have sufficient representation in sources. I think you will find that they all have more than enough, and represent tertiary coverage more than proportionally and fairly.Tao2911 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So while I do not wish to belabor this issue too much... the reason I brought it up is that I did see several copies of this journal and all the key articles in them were written by one editor. Are there any other links to other issues of the magazine that show other editors writing articles?Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how this is an issue. How is the material biased or in some other way unsuitable? I have given a list of why I find the source fine. I was backed up in the past by another editor (Starr contested it because he didn't want any mention of Scientology, drugs, scandals, court cases et al; he fought newspapers too - calling them, in fact, "tabloids"). What's the problem? The article is excellent - (again) fair, neutral, and well researched. It's a useful source/citation.Tao2911 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussions: [1][2][3] — goethean ॐ 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

David Starr by any other name would smell as...

Before this goes too far...

Norm DeClavier's user page: "Hi. I have an academic background in philosophy, religious studies and music, so will probably gravitate toward those areas when editing. I was motivated to join Wikipedia by disappointment at the biographical article on the spiritual teacher Adi Da Samraj. Though I have had a long-term interest in his work, I am not affiliated with the Adidam organization. The name Norm Declavier is similar to a nom de plume."

David Starr's: "David Starr is a pseudonym I made up referring to the Star of David. I contribute to Wikipedia by editing at Adi Da as it is a subject I am familiar with. I am a fan of Adi Da, but I am not an active member of his community. I agree that all points of view should be heard, and that balance and fairness are key. I am not an employee of Adi Da's church."

I expect to start hearing some very familiar (ill informed and biased) arguments (as we already have, above) - in other words, attempts to whitewash the entry. I hope to not have a return to past behaviors. EyeSerene, can you keep a serene eye on this, please?Tao2911 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the comment on my user discussion page aswell. I'm not quite sure how a "watch your activity in terms of whitewashing and sockpuppetry" works, but it sounds pretty scary. Honestly, how can there be any proper discussion on this article when someone is operating in this belligerent, bullying way? I can assure you, Tao2911, I have no connection whatsoever to David Starr and I am not a sockpuppet. This is my first foray into editing at Wikipedia, but with a welcome like that I'm not sure if it will last very long. There is no need to get over-excited, I have no intention of changing anything in your article unless there is a proper consensus. Norm Declavier (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith until proved wrong :) Norm Declavier, there has been a history of partisan editing on this article that causes new accounts - especially those that might appear to be single purpose accounts - to be viewed with some suspicion. This is an unfortunate consequence of advocacy across many areas on Wikipedia and no slur on you or your motives. As long as your edits are balanced, neutrally stated and reliably sourced, there won't be a problem. With controversial articles like this, talk page discussion is generally the best way forward; your acknowledgement of our practice of editing by consensus is very welcome and does you credit. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good faith assumed; good point. Sorry if my alarm bells went off. It's just that Starr used to hammer these exact preferred points, with almost the exact same wording, with the same mistakes and the same bias. Then the profile descriptions sounds like one was simply re-written from the other. My apologies if I'm wrong. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were a devious enough person to use a sockpuppet, why would you re-write your profile description from the profile you were pretending not to be? Aren't you trying to whitewash your own over-reaction? Norm Declavier (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to drop this; Tao has acknowledged the point and further accusations will lead nowhere good. Norm, you'll have to accept that the advocacy of some former editors has poisoned the well somewhat. Your declaration of a possible conflict of interest was obviously enough to set Tao's alarm bells ringing. We can't let Adi Da become an attack piece, but neither will we permit it to be 'spun' or whitewashed. WP:BLP states that contentious material is perfectly acceptable as long as it's sourced to the highest standards and it's written in a neutral way. Discuss this by all means, but you'll need to be careful about appearing to rehash dead discussions and will have to make a particularly compelling case to overturn the current hard-won consensus. EyeSerene^talk 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made one brief comment supporting one proposition by Devanagari and opposing a link to "anti-cult activist" Rick Ross. This is described by Tao2911, in his 'acknowledgement', as "Starr used to hammer these exact preferred points, with almost the exact same wording, with the same mistakes and the same bias." This was preceded by threats of administrative intervention for whitewashing. Perhaps other editors would like to comment on whether the removal of Da Plastique and the inclusion of the Rick Ross Institute is merely rehashing a dead discussion and part of a current hard-won consensus. Since Tao2911 has made very loud accusations of sockpuppetry on the basis of a superficial similarity between my profile description and that of David Starr (rehashing this point in his acknowledgement), the question inevitably arises: if you wanted to sockpuppet, why would you base your profile description on the profile you were pretending not to be? Thank-you for granting me the assumption of good faith, but I still have a problem with the excessive and somewhat irrational aggressiveness of the reaction, and wonder how meaningful discussion is possible if this modus operandi is somehow acceptable. Norm Declavier (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Probably best to drop this; Tao has acknowledged the point and further accusations will lead nowhere good. Norm, you'll have to accept that the advocacy of some former editors has poisoned the well somewhat. Your declaration of a possible conflict of interest was obviously enough to set Tao's alarm bells ringing. We can't let Adi Da become an attack piece, but neither will we permit it to be 'spun' or whitewashed. WP:BLP states that contentious material is perfectly acceptable as long as it's sourced to the highest standards and it's written in a neutral way. Discuss this by all means, but you'll need to be careful about appearing to rehash dead discussions and will have to make a particularly compelling case to overturn the current hard-won consensus. EyeSerenetalk 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)" However, it was very like David Starr to obsessively repeat these kinds of whining complaints. No offense.Tao2911 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

and by the way, Rick Ross has remained more or less constant link since creation of page, through many cycles of editors pro, con, and otherwise. That is consensus. Adidam.org has all Da site links, including plastique, as discussed. Review points above.Tao2911 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Language of Lowe's involvement in Adidam

Tao,I feel that the language on Lowe's involvement should stay as I put it. It was simple, accurate via two sources,and seems odd that you would change it. Both sources say "briefly" and "a few months". Rather than make that complicated,as far as adding lot's of verbiage, I kept the language pretty much as you wrote it. Just added "briefly" and "1974" to account for cited sources.No change to any content of commentary. Your edit:

Asian religious scholar Scott Lowe was a follower of Adi Da in the 1970's

My edit based on two sourced citations:

Asian religions scholar Scott Lowe was briefly a follower of Adi Da in 1974

Seems pretty straight forward. Thanks. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)