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. Thank you!

No More Bias

Tao, I believe you have a very clear anti-Da bias as well, and although you have made the point my pro-bias has come through too much, I am trying my best to keep it neutral and just to the point. I apologize if it is coming through more than it should, it is difficult to remain unbiased, because the bias comes out unconciously. Similarly, you also carry a bias, and should be aware of it as well.

Adi Da never really claimed Ramana as Guru, he just says he felt a strong link to him, especially because Ramana was the first one who spoke of Amrita Nadi, and that became a huge part of Adi Da's teaching too. But in The Knee Of Listening he mentions all his gurus and he considers his gurus to be Niyananda, Muktananda, Rang Avadhoot, Ramana Maharshi, and the Goddess.

I included Chogyam Trungpa because he had a similar teaching method to Adi Da. But it's not really necessary so I understand your point of view.

Ramakrishna and Vivekananda are important because Adi Da claims they are his "deeper personality". I don't see anything wrong in including that in there, since Adi Da goes to great lengths to make that claim.

Please let us all try to remain unbiased. You seem intent upon casting Adi Da in a negative light, even if you do not notice it, and from your comments it is clear to me that you do not like him at all. All of our biases are irrelevant to this article. This article should simply be neutral. Not an advertisement or place for praise of Adi Da, but not a place to just bash Adi Da and make a wholly negative article, and constant revisions and unnecessary insertions of Lawsuits over and over. Comesincolors seems very intent upon this and has demonstrated a clear intent and negative bias repeatedly, and I don't think it's appropriate. Neither is my positive bias, but I have not made any edits recently, and was happy with how the article was looking.

It is not necessary to include the lawsuits in the beginning paragraph. There is already a Criticisms category, which is the largest category in the article, and everyone can see whatever they want to regarding the lawsuits in that category. You simply have a clear negative bias and want to make this article an "everyone look at all the bad things Adi Da has done" type of article, instead of a simple, direct, fact-based encyclopedia article. The criticims and controversies are fine, but put them in their respective categories. They should be mentioned and made clear and known to anyone who reads this article. But that's all. Let's drop the personal agendas please.Unconditionalight (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Unconditional -- bias results from ignoring WP policies and guidelines, and the article as it stands (sans the '85 stuff in the lead) is highly biased. WP:LEAD is clear that something as salient as the 1985 stuff belongs in the lead section. I quoted the relevant part just above. Please re-read it. The lead section is like an abstract of the article, so all the salient stuff goes in it. What's salient? Stuff from reliable sources. What's reliable? Most reliable, on WP, are secondary sources like mass media. IOW, our best sources discuss the controversy stuff. That's the thing, according to our sources, for which Adi Da is most notable: having been involved in scandals, not being history's first 7th-stager, or any number of other things described in his own works. So... it's gotta stay in the lead. As it is now, the lead is a very unbalanced version of the article, citing one newspaper account for a single fact (date of his passing), and then three self-published works. Per WP:SELFPUB, the article (and therefore the lead, per WP:LEAD) should not be primarily based on such sources. If most of the secondary sources paint a less than flattering picture of Adi Da, there's nothing we can do about that other than report them. (Tongue-in-cheek note to living gurus: strive to live more exemplary life so independent secondary sources result in nicer WP article). --Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

-I do not have a particular bias - except toward independent, non-partisan, factual reporatge for a LAY (I repeat, LAY) audience. All the mentions made above for claimed "guru lineage" (which is how UL labelled original inclusions) are beside the point - this is deatiled, biased esoterica not appropriate for inclusion here. Again, I refer all to other articles on similar figures - I think we start to bloat this thing again. A cursory look online uncovers thousands of reports of abuse. Narrowing it down to one or two descriptions is both too much info, and too little. I simply removed detail info earlier. I will revisit in detail later, and consider those edits. I now think the section is too long, and invites retaliation from pro- factions. The same applies for pro-bias - plenty of supporters, admirers. This guy can be summed up fairly succinctly - and for god's sake, not by himself (leave lengthy quotes out of it). I just don't think precedent warrants all this of this detail - and again, it just causes problems. The lead (edited) said he was controversial, and that abuse accusations were far reaching. Then there is a whole section devoted to it. The lead gives the overview. No detail!!!Tao2911 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

UL, it is factually incorrect to say that Da never considered Ramana his guru. In 1977, in the initial version of Paradox of Instruction, he claimed that Ramana was his Master, quote "...Bubba Free John has not seen his Master, known us Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, in either gross or subtle form during this lifetime..." See: [[1]]. Revisionism is not acceptable, please be more careful in making such unjustified claims. Also, since the subject is most publically notable for the 1985 controversies, please refrain from taking them out of the lead. --Dseer (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone attempted to revert entry to older version, again bloated, pro Da. I encourage everyone to go look at the Muktananda entry - he is inarguably a profoundly more influential figure (and equally controversial), with tens of thousands of followers world wide to Da's few hundred, and his entry is shorter. Or Ram Dass - objectively, culturally a much more important figure than Da, with a thorough article that is pithy and succinct. We have to build from the ground up here - the previous article on Adi Da was a complete disaster. I think there can be more info here, esp filling out his bio and CONCISELY summarizing the philosophy and practice of Adidam. Again, I maintain that we should keep the controversies down to mentions of cases - too much detail is not in keeping with other precedents, and will smack of bias, creating backlash.Tao2911 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, or (WP is not a free for all)

I'm not sure where we got into a situation where we are deciding it's OK to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think it's very important not to pursue agendas either pro Adi Da or against Adi Da. If you can't help yourself and you feel that you have to pursue an agenda one way or the other then you should read WP:COI. The aim of Wikipedia is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced gathering of information on any particular topic. It seems like there is a sentiment among some here that to simply contain reliably sourced information here about what Adi Da actually did with his life is somehow "pro-Adi Da". That is not true. And reliably sourced critical information must also be included. But if your intention is to try and break neutrality and verifiability and create an entry that leaves a negative impression of Adi Da because that is your own opinion about Adi Da, then you probably have a conflict of interest and you should not edit here. I am a fan of Adi Da, but I always try to include the critical information in my edits if it meets Wikipedia content criterion of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I also have a history of removing pro-Adi Da statements as well if they don't meet the criterion. This whole thing works much better if we are straight about WP content criterion and stop pushing agendas,(and attacking other editors). A suggestion; read WP:writing for the enemy. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to carry on in the direction it is going - which is aiming toward a synopsis of salient points for a general audience for a marginal, often willfully controversial religious figure - one who is largely discredited by mainstream society and even the Yogic and alternative religious communities, due to wide reaching, often credible accusations of abuse and misconduct. That is how he is most renowned. To pretend otherwise is to lack any perspective on the matter - and the continued attempts to include in-depth exegesis of the finer points of Adidam doctrine is not in keeping with how similar figures are treated here, famous or infamous. This is not to say that he did not intitially acheive fame due to arguably significant contributions with his books, lectures, etc - which still need to be reapproached for inclusion.

-I will continue to direct attention to entries on similar figures as refered to above. This one is finally beginning to be in line with them.

Sourcing existing information is in some cases needed. More brief, basic facts about his life and actions are warranted. Adi Da should not be the authority on Adi Da. Therefore, long quotes from him that stray from the basic facts of his life or acts should be avoided. Etc. If independent analytical voices are absent, then the information is likely irrelevant here - THIS IS WHAT LINKS ARE FOR. There are many of them, leading straight to pro-Da sites. All of that stuff is just a click away.

We all need to work together here to find the balanced viewpoint. I am not alone in thinking that this article needed the radical reappraisal it is currently undergoing. Reverting back to earlier versions (a tactic you have used regularly, DS) completely ignoring my and others edits is not showing good faith. I for one have in a number of cases "written for the enemy" though I don't perceive one here. No, I don't believe Da to be the most enlightened being to have ever appeared in the universe (as he unequivocally claimed to be; that IS his message/religion/revolution - let's not quibble about this central point)- and in his and his followers view, anything less by nature at odds with reality. To be a "fan" as you claim, would then by logical extension mean you are a believer in his claims. There is no middle ground. Tough to be impartial. I compassionately understand your frustration with the blasphemy here of simple, factual information.

As for the article, I would like to see the addition an abbreviated list of his books (I didn't remove the other section - another admitted "fan" did, who perceived its discontinuity with the article and other examples) and adding some material to the Bio, and the Adidam section, which could lead a better synopsis of his message - the intro sums it up, but a direct quote describing up his perceived unique 7th stage avataric status is necessary (I can think of a number of them, easily found). Tao2911 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are your opinions and I'm sure your sticking to them. But WP isn't about our opinions. As I understand it, editors opinions regarding the subject of the article itself are considered original research and are a violation of WP policies and guidelines. And those policies are the same for article namespace as well as talk pages. If you have a verifiable reliable source that says Adi Da is most known for abuse and misconduct then that can be included as long as it doesn't violate NPOV in terms of how it is used, otherwise it's just an opinion that you have, and you know what they say about opinions. Also an in-depth analysis of the news coverage from the 1980's reveals that most of the information given is rather neutral, in many cases, only basic information about the subject and the facts of the lawsuit against him, which was then thrown out by the judge according to the newspaper article which you keep removing. Most of this has already been gone over. Read the archives. Please stop adding unverified and unsourced allegations of rape and pedophillia, etc. as you did here [[2]]. These are flagrant violations of WP policies.David Starr 1 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape, pedophilia, physical beatings: I was summarizing the quoted text that was once here from the Today show transcript! I thought one line better than a papragraph of lurid description. I thought you'd agree.

The article isn't just about his abuses - its about the whole enchilada. I know you'd like to see any mention of them gone, but that is how he is indeed most famous. And yes, I did see a good quote about that - I'll try to dig it up.

Few of my opinions are anywhere expressed in this article. I'm not interested in them - what I want are facts. I once came here looking for them, and was SHOCKED at how bad this article was. I am attempting to help, with others, to get it into some kind of line with similar entries on other figures. Da is not so special as you might think, despite his claims.Tao2911 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, where exactly are you seeing allegations of rape, pedophillia, forced drug use, and physical beatings? Such claims have never been reliably sourced in the entire history of this article. The only place you find them as far as I know are in anonymous chat room postings at Adi Da attack sites. Find a RS and it's in, no problemo. David Starr 1 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It was necessary to wait a short time after Adi Da's death before making significant changes so that objective evidence of how he would be assessed would be confirmed and not be a matter of editor opinion. Prior to his death, it was possible he would become more notable or that his writing and art would become more notable. There is sufficient evidence now, several weeks after the death of Adi Da, to neutrally assess that his notability was not what his followers and fans had hoped, and that it will remain so outside of narrow circles of interest. There is an article on his death in the Fiji Times, and an article in the LA times only mentioning him as an artist rather than guru, but no significant national level media interest. Otherwise, the only discussion of his death is found in narrow interest blog and forum type media, and pro and con Adi Da sites. Thus Adi Da's only act of true notability of national interest in neutral, reliable sources was the controversy surrounding the allegations in 1985, and with his death the reaction or lack thereof proves that as a public spiritual figure, an author, and more particularly as an artist of little notability as of his death, his life and work would not rate such a long article. Additionally, since BLP no longer applies, more critical allegations are permissable than before. So I now support the concept of a more concise but balanced article that reflects the proven, mainstream view of Adi Da's notability, and taking into account that the controversy was by far the most notable thing about him at the end of his life. If readers have more interest, they can refer to the links and suggested readings. If in the future Adi Da somehow becomes more notable or the allegations are proven false, this can be changed, but now, Wikipedia can only assess what the evidence shows about what was notable about him and give weight accordingly, while keeping NPOV and RS in mind. --Dseer (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If NPOV is not to be violated then more positive claims will have to be allowed as well. Everything that you are expressing above regarding Adi Da's notabilty are your opinion, they are your point of veiw. You should know that that is not what we are here for - our opinions. Where is your source for the claim that Adi Da is most known for a few articles in newspapers and a Today show piece from 1985? I would counter that Adi Da is mostly known for his writing, and more recently his art. Your opinions about how well known he is or isn't can easily be countered by relevant well sourced material which is being sytematically removed via edit-warring in this article. Content is being removed witout care for WP policies. Is this how you wish to proceed? This kind of activity is harmful to the process. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

-Bravo, Dseer. Absolutely correct on all points, in my opinion. Well said. And I know that you have ALSO (like me) posted clearly "pro-Da" info in places where it warrants mention. This is absloutely not about opinions - at least, in so far as objectivity is possible. We are striving for it. What is not objective is the PREVIOUS VERSION STARR KEEPS REVERTING TO. This cannot be allowed to stand. Other editors, please weigh in. Your opinions haven't mattered to DS before - but maybe persistance will win out. If each element of AD's ouevre and legacy is given equal weight, and kept to minimum, these issue are not disputable. And DStarr, please indicate what aspects of this article are untrue, opinion, or conjecture. I think we are very close to a completely cited, balanced appraisal of this all too human individual. Tao2911 (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dseer - I can find no reference to an LA Times article on Adi Da or his art. In fact, the only mainstream mention of his death I've found is in the Fiji Times. There were possibly no other major media acknowledgments of Da's death. Perspective-indicating, indeed.24.242.229.238 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was either a Da fan or devotee writing freelance in the LA Art Examiner, which proves my point. The death of Adi Da was, from the lack of interest in mainstream attributable sources, a virtual non event of no notability in life whose only national fame was the 1985 controversy. The Fiji Times cared because he lived in Fiji. The Lake County paper has finally come out with an obituary weeks after the event, and counters the claims of devotees with the point that he was widely known for the controversies. David, you are too involved with how important you think Da should be to face the reality of his lack of notability except in a narrow band of interest, based on actual interest in his death and Wikipedia criteria. Da would not rate being listed here as an artist based on his output. He would rate mention as an author but he is most notable as the guru who received national press for charges that the ex-followers still stand by as mentioned in the Lake County obituary. That does not mean all positive material should be purged, as you know, I have tried to keep this article accurate and balanced. It means that he is dead and can accomplish no more in the way of notability, and he has been for almost a month now which if anything would be a time when notability can be measured objectively. Do the search yourself, David. I did not just jump to this conclusion, I waited for objective evidence, and the lack of interest is telling proof, not opinion. Unless his art suddenly becomes very popular and his upcoming book sells hundreds of thousands of copies and gets lots of independent reviews, the article size needs to be kept appropriate to his notability. --Dseer (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute

Hi. I am simply adding well-sourced relevant material to the Adi da article. I am also removing un-sourced controversial allegations of rape, pedophillia, forced drug-use, and physical beatings. What Wikipedia policies are the basis of removing this content please? David Starr 1 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:SELFPUB is a good place to start as a basis for removing all the Adidam-published bloat. WP:PRESERVE has exceptions, and WP:SELFPUB is a good example of why. The "controversial allegations" you refer to are, as Tao pointed out, summaries of the Today Show, though if you want the blow-by-blow (no pun intended), that's fine too. David, you're at 3RR -- seems several editors are in disagreement with you here -- what are you going to do, keep reverting and says it's all because of "NPOV"? Be careful of WP:TE and WP:OWN issues. Might be a good idea to disengage a little bit. We can go to article RfC or reliable sources noticeboard, etc.; there's time for that. If you keep pushing, you might end up blocked for disruptive editing, and then what good will you be able to do? --Comesincolors2 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for policing, CinC. Again, I think this article is close to a balanced, fact-based, succinct overview. Looks like we might have to be diligent to keep it so.Tao2911 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's Tao that's over 3RR, and I am not reverting now, I am only attempting to add relevant, well-sourced material, and remove controversial, unsubstaniated claims of "rape, pedophillia, forced drug-use, and physical beatings", which is so out of line it's actually quite interesting to me that you would stand up for this inclusion in the article CnC. Including this kind of false allegation is harmful to Wikipedia. Yes, lets please do an Rfc. I would welcome and appreciate that greatly. In the meantime I will tag the article as being totally disputed in it's current form for violating WP:NPOV and WP:V. I am also being content blocked. Please do not remove these tags until this dispute is settled. Thanks.David Starr 1 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only reinstated the version that it took weeks for a few of us to create, that Starr three+ times negated with one push of a button, to a version now widely discredited. Regarding the list of allegations (pedophilia, rape, etc) - once again, it is stated they are just allegations, and they are not a random compilation: I merely summarized the quotes from the transcript from the today show that had formerly dominated that section - I thought slanting the entire article too negative. I reduced multiple paragraphs to one line. If my summary is inacurate, let's correct it. I will reread the transcript - I remember mentions being made of each of these things. Again, they are the allegations from Today interviews - not from random websites, as Starr states. Which in any case are included in "other media." There are websites devoted to Da's abuses. This deserves brief mention (and at this stage it is only that). Duh! We are not just making this stuff up. It is what it is. Starr, you are at odds with numbers of other editors. You need to stop. Tao2911 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And what on earth is in dispute in the art section? I would characterize it as generous, given Adi Da's actual impact, reputation, and exhibition history. No, we won't allow Starr to reinsert glowing tributes from the promotional (ie not and independent source) Daplastique website. What else is the problem?Tao2911 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed David Starr's dispute flags on this article. He has not proposed reasonable alternatives - like a different synopsis of the more serious Today show allegations. He flagged 'art', without discussing points of dispute in Talk (against WP guidelines.) The article in its current form is the result of the work of a number of editors, with differing viewpoints, working toward consensus over weeks. Starr attempted to in one day completely sabotage these efforts, and foiled, to discredit the article as a whole. This editor has been blocked, with good reason. Until specific, agreed upon alternatives are reached, I am removing the dispute tags.Tao2911 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Art" edits

So I refined the confusing relationship of Adi Da to the Venice Biennale. The Biennale is pretty easily considered the most prestigious art event in the world. As the name implies, it happens every two years. A few dozen selected countries submit their nominations of single representative artists for inclusion - also, a famous curator is selected to direct, and curate an int'l survey of significant contemporary art around a theme. To be selected and included is a major honor, and reserved for the cream of the proverbial crop. Next time (2009) the US selection is Bruce Nauman for instance, arguably the most important American artist of the past 30 years.

Initially, the art section here was called "Image Art" which is the term that Adi Da used to refer to his own work, not a term in common use. As with most other aspects of the entire Adi Da article, most of the material was a straight cut and paste job from Adi Da websites, in this case Da Plastique, the one devoted to his art. The Biennale connection is played for all its worth there, but this creates a confusion. Adi Da was NOT one of the official, national selections. He was included in a "collateral" exhibition. This is still very cool for those who are included - they get broad exposure to the crowds who gather (though Da was not independently reviewed by any serious art source). But they are on the whole new and emerging artists, with often marginal import, but with some serious backers. These exhibitions are independently sponsored - meaning, if you have a connection, a venue, the money to pay for it (and the production values are high dollar for Da's work), and you pass muster (ie it looks like real art), you're in (this is a major avenue of fund-raising for the "real" shows). There were 34 of them in 2007. Adi Da seems to have had the connection - Kuspit had written about his photos of nude women in the past. Kuspit has connections with Achille Oliva, who is a former Biennale director. And there it is. One of the sponsors is a Pacific Center for Photographic Arts, who hail from Northern California, and don't have a website. I suspect an Adi Da connection there. The other is also somewhat hazy. You can see them using the link in the ref. section.

In any case, Adi Da was really emphasizing art making at the end there (reports from Adidam as his death was announced, when they were still hoping he was coming back, say that he was making art when he keeled over.) There are quotes where he states how he hoped to use art to get his message out, disillusioned with writing more books. This could get touched on in the entry. or not. Other artists would not be quoted on their intentions for their work - usually WP entries are just an abbreviated list of significant museum and gallery shows. Adi Da simply doesn't have this, so I find the inclusion of an art section questionable, at best. But if we're going to have one, lets have it be accurate and independently referenced.

The only gallery exhibition I can find reference to was one at LA Contemporary - but now references to it have been removed from the website. So let that stand for now, until better INDEPENDENT sources can be found. Again, we went through the ringer on this months back, leading me to abandon this article, because David Starr simply reverted everything I tried to do. I came back, and was happy to meet with others ready to reclaim the entry in the name of balance, brevity, and facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Online Pro/Con

As has been briefly discussed periodically here, there needed to be a reference in the article to the proliferation of online info, both pro and con about Adi Da. There are strong opinions either way (as if we needed reminding here.) Its not about them being verifiable, "real" media. its about the fact they exist - period. Since his death, as has also been discussed, the rules get loosened as to what can be included in the article. I added one-liners in the controversies and adidam sections referring to this online profusion - links are of course already present. Now they have more of a context. I kept it short, briefly summarizing the polar factions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I am having to revert the lead, art, and controversies sections

Firstly, I apologize for having to revert your material as I am sure that it took a lot of effort and time to do your editing. However I feel that I have no choice for the following reasons:

I’m reverting content in the lead section because the previous version violates WP:EP (Editing Policy) and WP:NPOV. The previous version violates WP:EP, specifically WP:PRESERVE, by removing a summary, well-sourced relevant paragraph on Adi Da’s teaching. It also removes a well-sourced relevant statement regarding a published claim of extortion which was countering claims of abuse. The previous version also violates WP:NPOV by only allowing a statement that there were allegations of abuse without allowing well-sourced, published counter-claims of extortion. WP:NPOV says: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.”

Why I’m reverting the Art section: The previous version violates WP:EP (Editing Policy), specifically WP:Preserve which says : “Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information.” The 8 well-sourced published statements being removed do not meet any of the WP:Preserve exceptions. Also the previous version states without citation: “American art historian Donald Kuspit wrote an essay for the Adi Da exhibition catalog.” So this statement cannot be verified.

Why I’m reverting the Controversies section: The previous version violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The previous version violates WP:V and WP:NOR by adding controversial claims of “pedophilia, rape, forced drug use, and corporal punishment” without a verifiable source for said claims. These claims are not a summary of statements made on the Today Show. It also violates WP:V by using an anti-Adi Da site consisting of anonymously posted chat-room messages re-posted and made to look like statements of fact as a source.

The previous version violates WP:NOR by stating that there are “widespread reports on various websites by people claiming to be former devotees…” and then goes on to state several controversial claims. WP:NOR says: “Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.”

The entire article in it’s previous version inherently violates WP:NPOV by systematically removing well-sourced relevant material regarding Adi Da’s life and achievements in order to minimize those achievements and then adding and expanding un-verified controversial negative claims in order to advance the views of individual editors. Furthermore, the expansion of negative material is being done without care for WP core content policies as outlined above.

WP:PROVEIT says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."

WP:REDFLAG says: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." Thanks, David Starr 1 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

All of these points have been discussed. I and others have made arguments refuting your claims above. I will not repeat them here. You can be courteous while obtusely refusing to deal with the specific reasons we all list for removing the info you are reverting to, once again. However, you are not dealing with the specific issues. You are simply repeating the same arguments that you've made in the past, without answering responses (ie list of allegations is summation of Today show; provide another one if you don't like it.) Art section should be short - he is not an artist with an exhibition history to warrant unprecentedly long esoterica (from his own backers and lit.) And until you deal with these issues, I am sorry I will have to deny your reversions.

You were blocked once for this behavior. Once again, I alert you to breaking of WP guidelines.

I will work on finding citations for the Adidam section. Some quotes came from the Adidam website; others from Beezone and other Da lit resources, who quote to book and page number. I am unsure every single fact in a bio needs an independent citation - I somehow doubt it. Will look into guidelines, other examples.Tao2911 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just caught that Starr had reverted Controversies section to early, pre-edited version. Which includes a quote from Saniel Bonder (from when he was still a follower) saying that all allegations of abuse were "sheerly preposterous." This, in a controversies section - there is an Adidam section, with ref's to supporters. Bold attempt, Starr! I'm reporting this as an edit war.

I'm all for refinements of this article. But it cannot revert to Adi Da propaganda.Tao2911 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I have never been blocked from editing at Wikipedia. Second, I can't get any more specific than what I have written above. I am citing WP policies in my challenge to both your removals and your inclusions. In order to revert me you should address these issues specifically. Since you aren't doing so I feel I have no choice but to correct these issues that you are not actually addressing using WP policies and guidelines. Thanks David Starr 1 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I am removing links from the Links section.

There has been a clean-up tag over the links section for some time placed by someone. I used the following policy guidelines:

WP:LINKS says in Important points to remember,

“ (3.) Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.”

It also says in Restrictions on linking,

“ (1.) Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.”

It also says in What should be linked,

“ (1.) Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.”

It also says in Links normally to be avoided:

“ (2.) (Normally avoid) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

It also says:

“ (11.) (Normally avoid) Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

So based on these criterion I removed the following links for the following reasons:

Advocacy

Beezone : Not an official Adidam site, Violates #1 of Restrictions on linking by posting entire books by Adi Da and claiming fair use. Fair use only allows for brief quotes from books.

Adi Da Up Close: Not an official Adidam site, violates #2 of Links normally to be avoided by containing un-verified research.

Adi Da and the Case of Ken Wilber: Not an official Adidam site, violates #2 of Links normally to be avoided by containing un-verified research.

Tacit Glimpses: violates #11 of Links normally to be avoided. It appears to be a collection of blogs.

Criticism

The Daism Seminar violates #2 of Links normally to be avoided by containing un-verified research.

A Room With a Guru violates #2 of Links normally to be avoided by containing un-verified research.

Da Da: Promised God Man makes Art violates #11 of Links normally to be avoided. It is a blog by someone who does not meet WP notability guidelines and it appears to be a collection of blogs.

Enlightened Spirituality: Da and his cult violates #2 of Links normally to be avoided by containing un-verified research.

Adi Da/Adidam violates #2 of Links normally to be avoided by containing un-verified research.

Please do not re-insert these links until you address these issues. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

YOU are the one who is not responding to the specific issues of a number of other editors, despite repeaetd requests to do so. You are acting directly against the expressed consensus opinions of a majority of other editors. You have no perspective on this article. You are an admitted supporter of Adi Da are are determined to spin this article in unwarranted and unprecedented directions. Please respond to the series of points brought up above. Other editors, please continue to voice your opinions. Tao2911 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't be the judge of website content, and determine their worth. All of the websites you list have varied information and can't be dropped due to your cherry picking things you happen to disagree with. They are representative sources. Let users determine their questionable legality in instances, or whatnot. you are completely out of line and out of control. Tao2911 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Call to All Editors

David Starr is attempting to once again ignore all rational objective consensus-derived information about Adi Da. I ask that other editors step in and be persistent in monitoring this article. I do not want to be involved in an edit war - but I am determined that this article reflect Adi Da's actual reputation, stature, and cultural impact. Which is in all ways really quite modest, despite his literal claims to be the cosmic messiah. Dseer and others and have spoken eloquently to this point. This article reached what I feel was a much more representative, simple, fair, empirical version. I would like to see it remain so. But Starr is plugging away, slowly reverting it to the previous slanted pro-Da version, that actual in large part consisted of sections directly cut from Adidam websites - right down to the order of headings, their titles, and texts. He misconstrues and manipulates WP guidelines to suit his purposes. This is the longest, most controversial talk page I've seen on WP - largely because Starr seems incapable of containing himself. Tao2911 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For best results, please try to keep comments focused on the content and not on the contributors. See also WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks, --Elonka 04:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

True enough, Elonka, but at the same time, see WP:SPADE. Tao is correct, imo, that David's Starr's edits have lately leaned in a tendentious direction. thanks, Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Note re: above comments and my latest reversion.) There's been endless discussion here about how much weight to give to Adidam-affiliated sources, and an article RfC (see archives) concluded the answer was less -- quite a bit less, per WP:SELFPUB and WP:WEIGHT. And that was never really implemented, because a few strongly-opinionated, generally pro-Adidam editors blocked significant change. At the moment, DavidStarr is the editor playing that role; he prefers the expanded version with heavy citation of Adidam-published material (the art section is especially over the top). Several other editors (myself, Dseer, Tao, Unconditional) prefer the briefer version. In my view, DavidStarr is taking WP:PRESERVE way further than intended; it does not mean that unencyclopedic, self-published material should dominate an article.

So, what to do?

• We can (continue to) have a low-level edit war (lame! lame!);
• DavidStarr can either finally convince us all, or if that fails, drop the issue (in light of the RfC and the unlikelihood of gaining consensus);
• We can go back for another article RfC, which, now that this is no longer a BLP, is likely to result in a "harsher" (relative to the Adidam "mellow") outcome than the previous one.

Those are the options I see. Thoughts? --Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy tags

Since you are not addressing the key points that I have outlined here: [3] I am placing the neutrality and factual accuracy tags into the Adi Da article. I do not want to edit war with you. Please do not remove the tags until the dispute is settled. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Any comment on the earlier RfC and its implication for your preferred version which, with 14 of 31 notes straight from Adidam-published sources, already pushes up against WP policy on self-pub sources? -- Comesincolors2 (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are only 6 Adidam references by my count, and only 1 of them in the material that I have been trying to include. (1 of the Knee of Listening refs is actually from the first edition, which was published by CSA press, an independent publisher.) All of the art refs attached to content that you are removing are fron non-Adidam published sources, (which is all the more reason to inlcude them!) Everything that you are reverting from the controversies section except for 1 is from non-adidam refs. So Self-pub is not an issue relating to your reversion as far as I can tell. What I want to know is how do you get 14? Why be misleading about it? And what about my specific objections relative to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR? I see you put all of that stuff that violates these policies back in again. On what basis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Starr 1 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Staff Meeting

I appreciate the recent posts made by all the editors and simply want to add a few comments. Regarding the lead paragraph, ComesinColors is right, I was fine with the briefer version, and thought it was a good succinct summary. David Starr's addition of a paragraph with a Teaching summary was not something I had a problem with, but it is not entirely necessary. I do feel that the Teaching summary that has been plugged into the lead paragraph repeatedly is something we should all discuss. Perhaps it could go somewhere else, given that there is no summary of Adi Da's teaching in this article. But I would like to suggest that instead of reverting constantly that we all as editors could discuss changes and reach a consensus before any changes are made. We should run through each section, discuss what we would like to change and why, and not make any changes until all of us reach a consensus about it. This may sound impossible, but I think it can be done. We will all have to make some compromises. In some sense, our editing staff here is really good, because we have two pro-Adi Da editors and two who aren't. This provides for a good balance and lets us each catch the other's unconscious bias, allowing great potential for making this a truly neutral wikipedia article, and that being all that it is.

So I feel our first "meeting" should be about the lead paragraph. I don't know if the lawsuit part is necessary, although I know that ComesinColors really feels that it is. I respect his opinion and it is not a big deal, but if we are going to include things like that, which move away from the simple brevity of the main paragraph, then I don't see why we could not include David Starr's teaching summary. Perhaps that summary could be shortened to a length similar of the other paragraphs in the lead. Otherwise, I propose for simplicity and harmonious solution, that both sides compromise their view, and we remove the lawsuits part, and don't include Starr's teaching summary either, but simply leave the paragraph that we all agree on, which is really sufficient I believe. This article need not be that detailed. It should be a quick overview.

The Biography section looks perfect to me. It seems everyone else agrees on it too. So let's just leave it that way and avoid all reverts on it, if we can all agree on that?

The Adidam section could use some changes. Tao, I do not mind the quotations you have inserted, but I feel it is not fluid with the rest of the content in the category. I understand you want to include Adi Da's statement about him being the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept-Realizer, etc., but it doesn't seem to fit the flow of this category. Maybe a different place? It also needs to be cited. I think the Adidam category is fine with just the short paragraph "In the practice of Adidam...". I am not seeing the need for the first two paragraphs, which could be relevant somewhere else, or the paragraph with quotation that closes the category content. That also seems out of place. Perhaps there is a way to make the content more organized and well-written. I feel the "Adidam" section should be about the practice of the community, which is a devotional relationship to Adi Da. If we could keep it brief like that, then that would be great. That's why I think that small paragraph is really good enough and nothing more needs to be said. The other paragraphs and quotations belong somewhere else perhaps, or could be removed altogether, depending on Tao's feeling about it, and whatever other editors may have to say about it. These are my thoughts on it. Let me know what you all think.

The Art section looks fine now. So let's avoid reverting on this section too, if we can all agree on this as well?

Let's leave Controversies as is right now, no reverting. We will have a separate discussion regarding that after we handle these categories first. What does everyone think? We can work together on this and make a good article that presents a balanced view from both sides.Unconditionalight (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Question of Style and Word-choice

Not to be a punk or anything (I see that in some ways this is a hotly contested article), but I have a question that I'd like clarified before I go editing willy-nilly. I'm no Wikipro, but drawing on my experience from other wikipedia articles I would say this article is described "in a mostly in-universe style". For instance, I'm aware that followers of Adidam refer to themselves as devotees. However the terminology "follower" is a more generic and possibly clearer descriptive term of Adidam's members that's also used in other articles on religious leaders. Is there a rationale I should be aware of in this?

Also the article seems to have some language that portrays Da in his own terms without additional sourcing in a highly un-encyclopedic style:

"Again, quoting Adi Da: "Those who do not Heart-Recogognize ..." Highly, highly un-encyclopedic?

"In the practice of Adidam, all the traditional means of religious life are employed as a means ..." According to whom and consistent with which religions? Maybe this would be the right place for religious comparisons/history of Adidam's development?—Probably should have its own article...

"Online, numbers of advocacy websites have been created for positive discussion, testimonials, and dissemination of Adi Da's teaching and influence (see 'Advocacy')." Relevance? This doesn't even seem like a complete thought. As long as we're going to make (subtlely endorsing?) statements without context of importance or impact, it seems like we might as well reference that the letters D and A frequently appear on the internet...

It seems like mostly valid content that could be phrased with less of a gush? Thanks for answers in advance. (not wanting to step into an edit war) Rodomontade (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment RE: pro-daist gush, highly un-encyclopedic, etc. Please edit at will. My only beef will be with highly un-encyclopedic anti-daist rhetoric, (un-verified claims of rape and incest from anonymous anti-daist chat-room sources). Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

teachings

Is it fair to basically boil his teachings down to worshiping the man Adi Da? I haven't read much by this guy, but what I've read has been VEHEMENTLY anti-cultic and has advocated personal exploration of esoteric religion and experiential knowledge rather than achieving an exoteric and vicarious religious experience through hero worship. (Source: Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced By The White House)

Well read on... his later works are splendidly clear that there only one Authentic Presence – guess who! :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[yes, Geronimo, and the "authentic presence" is you, too, if you only knew who you are!]

Howdy,

I corrected and expanded the section on Adi Da's teachings, which contained several inaccuracies. For example, the "seven stages" was incorrectly addressed as an evolutionary process. Also Adi Da's claim that he is not essentially an "enlightened human", which was the perspective of the article, needed to be addressed.

I don't think the teachings can even be summarized without at least these three sub-headings:

- Cosmology                       - what's all this, then?
- Adi Da's personal "testimonial" - necessary to clarify...
- Method of practice              - devotee of Adi Da as ("Divine") guru

FYI, I am a 10-year devotee, well-informed about Adi Da's teachings and also having lead educational meetings for many years. I have taken pains to clarify these teachings and related "testimonials" without asserting their objective "truth" and also acknowledging their controversial character.

Regarding citations: unfortunately, my knowledge is so "steeped" that I cannot cite chapter and verse, and many of these attributions come from verbal talks of which I have no record. However, nothing I cite here is "controversial" or even striking, but all is consistent with Adi Da's general writings.

Thus, I hope you find the clarifications worth the non-citations.

Thanks for your time, Karl Kaiser 63.237.25.221 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)