Talk:Adi Da

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

Subpages

/David Starr – Specific issues with Adi Da

To do list

 Done:Post revised draft of "Divine Emergence" and invite comment from editors.
 Done:Open discussion on moving "Legal disputes and media attention" to the bottom of the article.

• Format references to MoS standards.

 Done:Weed stacked references; many of these were placed to prove a WP:Point; although it is not a formal policy, there are usually no more than three refs for any given point.

• Remove comments/quotes after the reference; it is not necessary to include the supporting text in the footnote.

 Done:Routine copy edits for style, punctuation, grammar.
Not sure: No source is available Get a citation for the Saniel Bonder quote

• Improve the section on art career

 DoneRemove POV tag

• Item
• Item

Re-Working" Divine Emergence"

Below is a re-write of Dev's description of Da's "Divine Emergence" paragraph. As I said before it is a challenging piece to write since it is "an esoteric" description of that event. There is a balance with making it succinct and to the point and also have it written in a way that makes sense to the average reader. So... I know that is an issue. The other issue is that the only two source of this are Gallagher & Fuerestein,both are very bias in their writings on Adi Da. However interestingly both of these sources have simple,neutral reporting of this event, that they both agree on. It seems to me that the more neutral reporting is more appropriate to Wikipedia for this section. I am not a writer in the vein of Dev or Tao, but I thought it useful to make a attempt here.

The second section of this section “By the year 2000, Adi Da had publicly predicted that he would be recognized by the entire world for his enlightened status.....” I have not worked on yet. I suspect that this will require some simple quoting from Da’s own words since not a lot of has been written about this. The article, as it is now, has very little primary source so some excepts here seem appropriate.

I apologize for the length(with citations below lines to be included)and format,but I felt it important to see why it was written in this manner.

On January 11, 1986, frustrated by what he perceived as the futility of his teaching work,

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2 "Page 166 - 167 “In a talk given at the end of February 1986, he explained that on that eventful morning he has spoken to his close devotees of his grief sorrow and frustration and the seemingly futility of his teaching work.

Gallagher... "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America," Vol IV, p. 94 "the most loudly trumpeted event since Jones' initial enlightenment was his so-called 'Divine Emergence', the result of an apparent 'near-death' experience Jones had in 1986. As Jones describes it, he was in such despair over the failure of his work that he prayed for an immediate end to the charade”

during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples psyches, Adi Da suffered from a sudden collapse. He described it as a “literal death experience". This was one of many experiences of this kind that he reported occurred since his days in college. However, Adi Da invested special significance with this particular incident, greatly elaborating on it, and calling it his “Divine Emergence"

Gallagher... "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America," Vol IV, p. 94 "the most loudly trumpeted event since Jone's initial enlightenment was his so-called 'Divine Emergence', the result of an apparent 'near-death' experience Jones had in 1986. As Jones describes it, he was in such despair over the failure of his work that he prayed for an immediate end to the charade.

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2 pp. 166 – 167 “….during which he dealt with the shadow of his disciples” psyches Adi Da suffered from a sudden collapse in 1986. On January 11 he underwent what he describes as a “literal death experience” This was of many experiences of this kind that vested him since his days in college. This particular incident, however, was subsequently greatly elaborated and invested with special significance and it continues to shape his relationship with devotees into the present.

He explained that most enlightened beings “incarnate only partially” into the body. Adi Da said that in this event he “descended” fully into the body, becoming “utterly human”. A similar statement was made by Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga, regarding the eastern religious dilemma of the “divine” or spirit combining with the material world. Adi Da described this event as a spiritual transformation of his body that allowed it to become a “perfect vehicle for his spiritual transmission”, so that it was now sufficient for disciples to simply meditate upon him to “participate in his enlightened state”.

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2 "Page 166 - 167 "He explained that most enlightened beings “incarnate only partially” into the body. Adi Da said that in this event he “descended” fully into the body, becoming “utterly human”, a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga. As he sees it, his body became a “perfect vehicle” for his spiritual transmission, so that it was sufficient for disciples to simply meditate upon him to “participate in his enlightened state”.

Adi Da further explained that most adepts are only partially present in the body. In his own case, his consciousness to the death experience event had been associated more closely with the body but still only more like a shroud surrounding it (a statement that contradicts what he has said elsewhere) According to his testimony, the “death event” changed all that. He descended fully into the body, becoming utterly human,yet without foregoing his enlightenment a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo, the founder of Integral Yoga. Adi Da understands this as a great victory, which hold greater importance for him than the event of his enlightenment in 1970. For, as he sees it , his body has become a perfect vehicle for spiritual transmission, so that it is now sufficient to contemplate, or tune into, his bodily state in order to participate in his body’s enlightenment".

Feurstein, George; Hohm Press, 1998,The Yoga Tradition, ISBN 0-934252-83-1, pp. 74,75“By contrast, Integral Yoga which is called purna-yoga in Sanskrit-has the explicit purpose of bringing the “divine consciousness” down into the human body-mind and into ordinary life. It seeks to overcome the traditional paradigm that pits spirit against matter, which according to Sri Aurobindo with Buddhism some 2,500 years ago”

Gallagher... "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America," Vol IV, p. 94 ..Jone's enlightened consciousness now full inhabited his body, 'down to the bottoms of My feet.' Devotees are taught that liberation is only to found through visualizing, thinking about, viewing, and serving Jones's body or its likeness.

Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First, let me try to understand what you've posted here. It looks like the text in italic is what you are proposing go into the article, and underneath each portion of text, you've included the source with an extended quotation. Correct? If so, then this looks good. I don't have any suggestions or comments to add to it. It reads neutrally, and is 100% sourced from third party, I'm impressed. Good work, JR. Appreciate your efforts.

The Lopez event will be harder to cover. There is minimal discussion of it in tertiary sources. I am reluctant to use primary sources, such as Adi Da's own books, etc. Maybe you can hunt around for more sources, and I'll do the same.--Devanagari108 (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines call for reliance mostly on secondary sources, not tertiary. See wp:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Please consider this in your hunt for material. I think it is a good draft also, except I wonder about the inclusion of a comparison with Sri Aurobindo. Is he too obscure a figure to be known by the average reader? Are you planning on including the additional material in your footnotes? You will run into issues with article length. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa, are suggesting that more information about Sri Auribindo who he was etc.be there. I was planning to put a direct link to Sri Aurobindo page on Wikipedia. Would that work? Trying to work the paragraph today more to tighten it up and cut some words.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I am good at that, let me give it a go. Will post shortly (just revising the material in italics, that's what will actually aprear in the article, right?) --Diannaa ^TALK 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes,Dianna just the italics. Thanks I tightened up first part too.

On January 11, 1986, frustrated by what he perceived as the futility of his teaching work, during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples psyches, Adi Da experienced,what he described it as a “literal death experience". This was one of several experiences of this kind that he reported occurred since his days in college. However, Adi Da invested special significance with this particular incident, and calling it his “Divine Emergence. Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On January 11, 1986, frustrated by what he perceived as the futility of his teaching work, during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples' psyches, Adi Da suffered a sudden collapse. He later described it as a "literal death experience", one of several that had occurred since college. However, Adi Da invested special significance in this particular incident, calling it his "Divine Emergence."

The second paragraph is trickier; I feel that instead of referring the reader to Aurobindo's experience, we want to describe more fully Adi Da's experience, using the material in the footnotes. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok let me work with it and post it then. As you can tell I am not a polished writer !Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a new version: Keep working on your version too and we will see how they compare.

Adi Da felt the experience caused the integration of his spirt, body, and mind into a "perfect vehicle" for the transmission of his enlightenment to his disciples, so much so that they need only meditate on Adi Da or his image or body in order to participate in his enlightenment. --Diannaa ^TALK 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, combining a few things still needs some copy editing

He explained that that most enlightened beings are “only partially present in the body.” Adi Da said that the “death event” changed all that. He felt this event was a spiritual transformation of his body that caused the integration of his spirit, body, and mind into a "perfect vehicle" for the transmission of his enlightenment to his disciples, so much so that they need only meditate on Adi Da or his image or body in order to participate in his enlightenment.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He explained that most enlightened beings are "only partially present in the body", and that his experience changed him, causing a spiritual and bodily transformation that led to the integration of his spirit, body, and mind into a "perfect vehicle" for the transmission of his enlightenment to his disciples, so much so that they need only meditate on Adi Da or his image or body in order to participate in his enlightenment. This sentence is kinda long, but otherwise I like it. --Diannaa ^TALK 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So here are the two paragraphs

On January 11, 1986, frustrated by what he perceived as the futility of his teaching work, during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples' psyches, Adi Da suffered a sudden collapse. He later described it as a "literal death experience", one of several that had occurred since college. However, Adi Da invested special significance in this particular incident, calling it his "Divine Emergence."

He explained that most enlightened beings are "only partially present in the body", and that his experience changed him, causing a spiritual and bodily transformation that led to the integration of his spirit, body, and mind into a "perfect vehicle" for the transmission of his enlightenment to his disciples, so much so that they need only meditate on Adi Da or his image or body in order to participate in his enlightenment.

Copy edit appreciated.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

These paragraphs are in my opinion now ready for feedback from other editors with an eye towards inclusion in the article. Good work, Jason. --Diannaa ^TALK 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good new paragraphs. I still find the second paragraph a bit long. I also wonder if it reads too biased, such as presuming his enlightenment? But maybe not.

Diannaa, what do we do about the description of the 2000 event, where hardly any sources except for Adi Da's own teaching describe it?

Also there seems to be a misunderstanding around the word "tertiary". Books are not tertiary, correct? Magazines, newspapers, encyclopedia articles ARE tertiary, is that right? Correct my understanding if I'm wrong, the Wiki link wasn't totally clear on what "secondary sources" were altogether. I think that means Adi Da's books are primary sources, another book like New Religious Movements Experience in America is secondary. Right?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Adi Da actually attained enlightenment is unascertainable. We have to write this as neutrally as possible, as no source can verify. Does the paragraph need more work?

Well, it should be clear enough, not great claims are being made. This is all from the point of view of "reporting". So maybe it is alright.

I think you are on the right track with that definition of "secondary.". The articles Secondary source and Tertiary source give good info on the difference. Primary sources are items, whether books or photos etc, where the creator has a direct first-hand experience of the subject matter. Secondary sources recount events usually without the author actually having been there. Tertiary sources are things like encyclopedia articles that draw on numerous secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to draw mostly from secondary sources; scholarly works are preferred. Magazine articles and newspapers if used as sources should be from the higher end of the spectrum.

i.e. no Jet, no Ebony, no jigaboo mags of any kind. No National Enquirer even if writing about John Edwards dipping his bad thing.

By the way, some encyclopedias do draw on primary sources, notably the 1913 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the gold standard for encyclopaeiae, in spite of the hubris of the Asperger's riddled Wikipedia cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.92 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this makes sense. We still have a lot of tertiary sources, and hardly any primary. Not sure what to do about that, the entire controversies section is basically tertiary.

The article as it presently appears draws on Gallagher as a source for the 2000 events. Gallagher is one of the sources mentioned as a good one in the GA review, but it would be nice to get another source to confirm. Is there more in other works? --Diannaa ^TALK 01:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there aren't many, to be honest. There is "Gurus In America", and that's all I can think of aside from Gallagher. Another issue is that Gallagher's reporting on Adi Da is highly biased in "New Religions", but in "The New Religious Movements Experience In America" there is some real neutral reporting. There is one line in that second book, but it contains no description of the event at all. It is so bare. No other sources discuss it. And the sources that are supporting material in the article right now are rather biased. The current text on Lopez is biased and incomprehensible to the common reader, in my opinion, and as such should not remain in the article. The dilemma is in finding material in secondary sources. EIther way, I'm okay with the changes to the '86 passage.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of sources is an obstacle. How can we improve that part with no sources? No way to do it. As for that second paragraph in our latest draft, perhaps we need to make it clearer that it is Adi Da saying he attained enlightenment; what about this version?

He explained that most enlightened beings are "only partially present in the body", and that his experience changed him, causing a spiritual and bodily transformation that led to the integration of his spirit, body, and mind into a "perfect vehicle" for the transmission of his enlightenment to his disciples. From this point forward, he claimed, one need only meditate on his image or body in order to participate in his enlightenment. --Diannaa ^TALK 07:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to say "he said", instead of "he claimed", as per WP:Words to avoid. Would you like to go ahead and make this edit?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted the paragraph worked on with other editor on "Divine Emergence." I want to again stress that the paragraph was extended primarily because it required a more detailed description to make sense to a reader of that event. Simply saying he died and came back "down to his feet" did not accomplish that.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Biography

The Biography needs some work. The first thing I want to point out is that the use of "Jones" is un-encyclopedic. Although Adi Da did change his name, in looking at other articles, the Biography uses the changed name, as opposed to the birth name. For example, in Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), it states his birth name, but the Biography uses "Osho" in reference to him. So I would like to go ahead and make this change, if other editors agree?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to propose the removal of the word "notoriety" in the Lead, as per WP:Words to avoid. The dictionary definition for "notoriety" is: famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed. It is, therefore, a biased term. I suggest using "well-known" instead. In general, I am going to look through the article and make sure we don't have any weasel words (WP:weasel words), or words that we should be avoiding (WP:Words to avoid). Maybe it will be easier if I just remove such words when I see them, post something about it here, and if an editor disagrees then they can raise a point?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: names - - I have seen both methods; some articles even use the birth name up until the point the name was changed. I have no preference. Weasel word hunt: excellent idea. My opinion is to proceed as routine clean-up. Do you want to wait for input from others before starting? Oh, I see you already have. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of religious leaders, I think it's easier to go by the changed name, because that is what they are known as. I just feel this article would read more profressionally and encyclopedically going by "Adi Da", rather than "Jones". Maybe I'll make the edit, and then we can see how it looks, and editors can offer feedback? It is a bit hard to know until we are able to see it. So this will be a kind of experiment.

Yes, I did not wait for input before starting, but I will be posting about the word changes I make, and if its one that could be seen as controversial, then I will ask first. Otherwise, it will take too long for something which is just, as you say, a "routine clean-up". So editors should pay attention to the History, look at my edits, and see my rationale.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do any editors here feel that this is questionable as per WP:weasel words, "Others were more critical,[12] pointing out Adi Da's isolation,[13][14] controversial behavior, and cult-like community". I know David Starr used to point this out quite a bit, and I could never understand what he was talking about. I don't particularly see the advantage of just listing the names, but maybe that is more encyclopedic, and just saying "others" is "weasel". Look at the "Examples" table on WP:weasel words, that's what makes me question it. Input from others?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC

Look at the whole paragraph. One minute we are talking about the reception of the books, and next we are talking about people who are criticising Adi Da or the community.

Adi Da wrote many books about his spiritual philosophy and related matters, founding a publishing house to print them.[9] His books gained praise for their breadth of knowledge and insight from respected authorities in spirituality and philosophy.[10][11] Now suddenly we are not talking about books any more: Others were more critical,[12] pointing out Adi Da's isolation,[13][14] controversial behavior, and cult-like community.[15][16][17][18].

Also, David was concerned with the one nice thing followed by three negative things. The thread can be found at this here place. The lead does not read the same way any more. But yeah, this needs work for sure. How about

Adi Da was criticised for his isolation, etc. This gets rid of the weaselly stuff and puts it in a factual tone: Adi Da was criticised. Any other opinions? --Diannaa ^TALK 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is better, but I think we have to take it a step further. To state "his isolation" is still presumptuous and non-encyclopedic, so I think we have to say "Adi Da was criticized for what was perceived as his isolation". What do you think, sound good?--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better; I will amend the article. --Diannaa ^TALK 15:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Routine Clean-up

So I have basically stripped this article of words that should be avoided (WP:Words to avoid), makes a big difference in terms of NPOV. However, most of these words still occur in the footnotes, so that will be fixed soon. There were some outstanding words that should be avoided that I needed further opinion on.

Here, the use of the word "alleged" (which is one the words listed in that policy link) should be removed, but it is part of a quotation:

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

How do we solve this without removing the quotation? Maybe we have to remove the quotation?

Then there is this:

Despite ambitious and prolific dissemination of Adi Da's books and teachings, the church is estimated to have remained more or less constant at approximately 1,000 members worldwide since 1974.

The word "despite" (also on the policy link of words to avoid) introduces bias, but is a big part of the sentence. Any ideas for how to re-arrange this.

Also, I think it would be useful to study WP:Quotations, since many quotations are used in this article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotation has to be left intact if it remains in the article. He said what he said. In my opinion it is not necessary or desirable to remove the quotation, as we want a mix of positive and negative reactions in this section. Other opinions?

The second problematic sentence could be split into two sentences, and the reader could then draw their own conclusions about cause and effect. Followers of Adidam have been ambitious and prolific in their dissemination of Adi Da's books and teachings. The church is estimated to have remained more or less constant at approximately 1,000 members worldwide since 1974. Feedback?

Good idea to read up about quotations; I will do this also. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the quotation in the article mentioned by Dev should stay as is.It is straight forward and is verifiable. The same applies to Elwood quote. Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool about quotations remaining in the article. Diannaa, I like your edit of those lines, and suggest making that edit.

Also, is it inappropriate to remove words like "claim" from the footnotes? Or do footnotes stay as they are, since they are direct quotations? Meaning, the wiki policies only apply to the article content itself?--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think footnotes have to remain as is ... right Dianna? Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's a direct quotation we cannot tamper with it. They said what they said. This is true for material in the body of the article, and for supporting quotes in the footnotes. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear - did you morons try to go through quoted footnotes and remove words you found offensive using WP writing guidelines? Holy crap. Unbelievable...Tao2911 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception

While this routine clean-up continues (I don't think there is much left), I want to suggest some edits with the Biography and Reception. I would like to expand the Reception section to include sub-sections for Legal disputes, Praise, and Criticisms (this is where the connection to Lead with details of "isolation, controversial behavior, and cult-like community could go with direct quotations). This includes moving Legal Disputes out of the Biography and into the first sub-section of Reception. I am basically modeling this after Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), who is a good example because he was a 1.) Controversial religious leader who created a new religious movement, 2.) Criticized for being a cult leader, 3.) Had legal issues as well. So I think the Legal Disputes doesn't work at all in the Biography, and I don't see this in other articles, and think it really should be in Reception. The exact text I am suggesting should move begins with the paragraph "Accusations...", the Garbage and the Goddess stuff is appropriate for Biography.

If other editors agree, then I would like to begin making this edit.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Most similar articles are structured that way. The Adi Da article was also structured that way until Feb 4, 2010.

Further examples from religion:

• Elijah Muhammad
• Chögyam Trungpa
• 14th Dalai Lama

from public office:

• J. Edgar Hoover

Showbiz:

• Oliver Stone
• Roman Polanski
• John Lennon

The John Lennon article is a particularily telling example, with a three-section layout separating his musical, personal, and political lives. Strict chronological order need not be maintained if another method of organisation makes the material clearer or more readily understandable. I am in favor of this change. --Diannaa ^TALK 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I went ahead and experimented with this. I moved "Media Attention" out of the Biography, and originally placed it in "Reception", but found that it still didn't seem to work there, and wanted to see if it was better as its own section. This is something I wanted other editors to weigh in on. Currently, I have it as a separate section--is that better than having it as the first sub-section of "Reception"?

Secondly, I organized "Reception" in a very simple manner, after reading WP:Reception. This policy advised not using the word "criticism", but using "critique" and other words instead. I found "critique" to be good, so I used it. This policy also suggests other section titles: Alternatives to "Reception" or "Reception history" as a section title are possible, for instance "Reviews and reactions". I was considering "Reviews and reactions", and wanted to see what others thought. Is "Reception" better, or do we think "Reviews and reactions" is more accurate?

I would also like some feedback on the "Endorsements" sub-section. Is it over the top? Is it appropriate? In Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) this is all written in nice paragraphs. Unfortunately, I don't think there are sources that contain an analysis that would allow a general overview or summary to be written in that manner. So feedback is welcome, this is still in an experimental phase, but if others like it, then it could stay this way.--Devanagari108 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Relative to endorsements... it is overly weighty. I would include Kripal (scholar),Watts ( leader in bringing eastern philosophy to west)Kubler Ross, Mishlove and/or Tweedie. Perhaps some elaboration on their endorsements if that can be cited.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is well organised now; the section titles are fine by me the way they stand. I think "media attention" should be stand-alone. Whatever Wiki guidelines recommend, whatever the majority of editors approve form amongst those choices, would be appropriate. I have one problem: We have a section called "crazy wisdom" and down below there is another section called "crazy wisdom". (under teachings and philosophy). I am combining the lower section in with the main section on this topic. The material is no longer in chronological order, quite; but I think it is better organised. Comments?

I agree with Jason, that the endorsements section is too big. I would keep Kripal, Finch, Cousens, and Kubler-Ross. --Diannaa ^TALK 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My gut feeling was that it was overly long and weighty. So I cut out a few, keeping a mixture of Diannaa and JR's suggestions. Do we want to keep Alex Grey? Also, I kept Mishlove because his comment seemed to touch upon something the other ones didn't, and I felt it related well to the article. Do you guys agree to keep him?

Glad we are settled on Media Attention. And yes, I noticed the Crazy Wisdom repeat, but did not know what to do, I agree with your edit of just combining the sections.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would still take out Alex GrayJason Riverdale (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some small changes to information about number of lawsuits

Just a few changes to number of lawsuits and clarifying that there were no charges or media stories on this since 1986. Putting in discussion for review before posting in article.

1) The Washington Post, which already is a 3rd party source indicates two lawsuits so we can assume they are going to be more specific and accurate.

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…

2) One case was filed in Marin County, Calif i.e. Beverley O' Mahony, is the case dismissed by Marin Superior Court Judge. This is the initial lawsuits that created the media blitz, "sex slave" headlines etc. Ford Green did not handle this one.

San Francisco Examiner/April 3, 1985by Don Lattin The lawsuit, filed by Sausalito attorney David Cunningham, alleges that JDC's non-profit corporate status is "a mere sham and shell organized as the alter ego of the individual defendant, Franklin Jones, for his personal benefit and advantage."

3) It seems that Ford Green, who specializes in lawsuits against "cults" (i.e. he has handled a number of cases against several other groups.) handled second lawsuit for Mark Miller against Adidam case which was the one settled out of court.

Ford Greene, Attorney at Law 558 San Anselmo Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE Case No. 22177, filed May 21, 1986

M. MILLER, an individual, vs.FRANKLIN A. JONES, an individual; DOES 1 to 250.

Deep Throat's Daughter, The Kindred Free Spirit", Washington Post, June 12, 2005. "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."

Summary: There were the only two lawsuits filed and contrary to what is in the article now there were NO other lawsuits, or media coverage after 1986.

ttp://yawiki.org/proc/Adi+Da#5, Allegations that Adi Da and members of his group engaged in financial, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse were widely reported in American news media in 1985*Adidam disputed these allegations. No new reports of such abuse have appeared in the news media since that time.

So paragraph proposed is

There were in total two lawsuits against Adidam in 1986, both filed in California.The lawsuit detailed in news stories was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County in March of 1986.The second lawsuit was settled settled with payments and confidentiality agreements. There have been no new reports of abuse or coverage of such accusations in the media since 1986. Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this seems fine.

I uploaded a new pic for the Teachings section, so that the Lopez pic could go with its section. I had to enlarge it because it turned out too small. Feedback is welcome, I think it looks ok. But maybe too big? Or maybe its ok.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it down a bit; I think you will agree that it now seems correctly sized as it fills the white space beside the point format information. We need a citation for the Kubler-Ross quote. Was it on the dust jacket, or what is the source?  Done

I will add the source. Good catch.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph: I would leave out the words "in total" ; otherwise looks ok. You could also get specific about the two lawsuits that acually reached the courts: Name names, etc. Where does the new paragraph fit in to the article? The current article talks about threatened lawsuits and out-of-court settlements. You do not remove that, do you?, or does it get re-worded, or what? Please elaborate --Diannaa ^TALK 03:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay now I see how the edit works, but the question remains, were there only two threatened lawsuits? "Feuerstein, "Holy Madness," Arkana, 1992, p.267-268 "Over the years, [Jones] has been sued several times by disaffected students, although institutional representatives have so far succeeded in keeping him out of court. Cases were settled by arbitration, which bled the [church] financially" seems to imply more threatened lawsuits which were settled out of court. "Over the years" implies more than the one year of 1986 and "several" means at least three. I am not in favor of this being removed. What am I missing here? --Diannaa ^TALK 06:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok changed "in total" ...good one. This is a case (no pun intended!) of separating the accusations from the actual number of lawsuits. Fuerestein, a critic and writing from his bias of Adi Da, simply made a statement without reviewing or being reviewed. The more reliable sources of two newspapers ( both neutral and with editorial review required for wikipedia)indicate what actually happened. When the story broke in 1986 ( Beverly O' Mahoney one which started the "sex slave" headlines) there were many accusations and the media interviewed a bunch of individuals. This is not being contested and the article has plenty about this now. But, in actuality there were ONLY two lawsuits filed. The Washington Post a much more reliable source states simply that there were only "two lawsuits." In the North Coast Journal article it says Both of the lawsuits were eventually dropped, said Michael Wood, Adidam's attorney and a member since 1973. It is also of note that both of these papers had these citations and facts in the last several years, WELL after (30 years ago) the 1980's lawsuits. They do not say anything about additional lawsuits or threats to Adidam.The two lawsuits that were actually filed: one in Marin County by Beverley O'Mahoney. This was handled by a lawyer named Cunningham.This is versified by the SF paper article on this case The second was filed by Mark Miller in Lake County that was the one handled by Ford.This is verified via the actual detail of the lawsuit. The comment that Ford Greene has handled "a number of "such lawsuits" is in reference to the fact that he specializes in lawsuits like this (ie Scientology etc.) against other groups not only Adidam.The only case he worked on against Adidam was the Miller lawsuit.Complex stuff, but the several reliable sources(newspapers with editorial review) state 2 lawsuits and no other lawsuits and accusations after the 1980's. Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, in total was the in the version I just edited a few days ago...Tao2911 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks Jason, I had a feeling that would be your response. Unfortunately the whole article is peppered with references to Fuerestein. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Fuerestein references when they are more reporting (even if they are not flattering to Adi Da) can sourced, as long as bias is not overly slanted.In this case of the lawsuits the factual information simply was not true. The New Religions on America book has both useful non bias information but what has to be taken into account is that one of the main writers is Scott Lowe who has written a very negative book on Adi Da. Lowe crosses into strong personal feelings sometime which in my opinion are not merely scholarly investigations . That is a creative thin line here.Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What a confederacy of, well, willful obtuseness. The Feuerstein material and source used here is from the first edition in 1996 when GF was an admitted admirer if not active follower and is on the whole glowingly positive. The latter edition (including more critical reportage supposedly, but largely the same text) is not cited. Riverdale has it, but has made sure not to include anything negative from it (in a pattern of refusing to cooperate with alternate viewpoints.)

Riverdale's whole case here is wildly interpretive and subjective, and manipulative of sources. Ford Greene is clearly said in Washington Post article to have handled three cases AGAINST ADIDAM. GF and New Religions both discuss "several" and "numbers" of threatened suits and settlements that dog the group for years. We are not here to do "original research" and come up with our own conclusions (Jason, go publish your own book if you want to do this - then maybe someone else can quote it here). If suits were threatened but settled out of court, you will not find records. DUH. And it is not up to you to find them. We reflect SOURCES, people. Three say "several lawsuits over several years." Unbelievable...Tao2911 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

More clean-up

I'm reading the Religion subsection of WP:Words to avoid where use of the word "cult" is discussed. I think using "cult-like community" in the Lead is still a bit "weasely", and I have not been able to locate a direct quote. The Feursten quotation in Reception just talks about the "community surrounding him in Fiji". So I am thinking maybe it is better to say Adi Da was criticized for what was perceived as his isolation, and the controversial behavior of him and the community surrounding him.

What I don't like about this edit is the use of the pronouns "his" and "him" so frequently in a single sentence. It doesn't read very well. But this is along the lines of what I think conforms more to WP:Words to avoid and WP:weasel words. It is okay to say things about a new religious movement being a cult, but as the policy states:

Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources.

Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references."

At the end of the Biography there is this line: While neither Adi Da nor Adidam denied his practice of polygamy,[103] a spokesman stated that he spent later years living a life of solitude and contemplation.

According to WP:Words_to_avoid#Admit.2C_confess.2C_deny advises against use of the word "deny". I am not sure how to rephrase this sentence properly, and would like to hear suggestions from other editors.

I also want to bring up the use of quotations within this article. Sometimes words are put in quotations, making them "suggestive", introducing a specific connotation that is not necessarily NPOV. I could not find anything about this in WP:Quotations, but think it is worth considering with other editors what the appropriate usage of quotation marks around a certain word is. Full quotations from someone is fine, and to quote a single word from the source also seems okay, but in some places seems to verge on the side of being too suggestive. Thoughts?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are refs where the word "cult" is used. Fiji Sun quoted at rickross.com; Washington Post, quoted at rickross.com; Today Show transcripts as quoted at rickross.com. I could go on. We could select the most reliable sources and use them to back up the choice of the word "cult", which should definitely stay, in my humble opinion.

 Done Okay, great. Would you like to work on this?--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your point about the polygamy, it reads like "When did you stop beating your wife?" And the bit about leading a peaceful quiet life in later years does nothing much to neutralise it, though I suspect that is why it was tacked on. How are these two things related, anyway? Why are they tied together in one sentence? I think this whole sentence should be chopped. The polygamy business does not have to be mentioned twice; it is covered in "crazy wisdom."

Single-word quotation marks. Here are a few examples from the article: He wrote a "spiritual autobiography". directing his followers in "sexual theater". reached these stages as "saints," "yogis", and "sages". Some of these could be paraphrased, and some could be eliminated. for example, Spiritual autobiography has a specific meaning in literature. Is this the meaning that is intended for Adi Da's book? If not the phrase should be modified. This particular example does not necessarily have POV connotations, though. I think we are getting quite close to a neutral article, thanks to all of Dev's research and hard work. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point about removing polygamy line, since it is mentioned in Crazy Wisdom, and fairly obvious with the mention of 4 daughters with 3 different women.

Regarding "spiritual autobiography", that is what Adi Da describes "The Knee of Listening" to be, and I don't believe it fits the definition of the wikipedia article. It is better to just say "autobiography" in my opinion. "Sexual theater" is Adi Da's description, I believe, so that may be why that is quoted, in which case it seems okay. "Saints, yogis, and sages" are all Adi Da's own terms with specific meaning, so maybe it is good to keep them in quotes.

"Shock" and "surrender" seem a bit odd in Crazy Wisdom. When I read the "surrender" quote it almost seems to have a mocking tone. Also in Crazy Wisdom, "Hermitage" doesn't seem to require quotes. In the Adidam section, I'm not sure "sanctuaries" needs quotes, and I'm not sure if "empowered" does either, but I could see an argument for it.

I agree that we are getting close to a neutral article! Thanks to everyone's persistence and cooperation here.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Teachings and Philosophy

This part needs some help: This assertion of exclusivity contradicts Adi Da's earlier teachings that state enlightenment is the natural, original condition for all, rejecting the absolute necessity for any religious authority or belief, as in statements like "People want the Guru to be the Avatar. In fact he doesn't exist as God in any exclusive sense whatsoever. So there is no Avatar except the whole, if it makes any sense to use such words at all."

The first issue is in its presumption that it is a contradiction, rather than a presentation of facts, or a Y states Z structure. To insert "Some people believe" or "Critics say" before this sentence would help cut the biased interpretation, but it would make the sentence "weaselly".

So what to do? Who has suggestions?--Devanagari108 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just a fancy way of saying that his teachings and focus changed over the years, isn't it? so you might go with something like:

Early in his career, Adi Da taught that enlightenment is the natural, original condition for all, and rejected the necessity for any religious authority or belief. Later he contradicted this, saying that "people want the Guru to be the Avatar. In fact he doesn't exist as God in any exclusive sense whatsoever. So there is no Avatar except the whole, if it makes any sense to use such words at all." --Diannaa ^TALK 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa, you'll see that I moved this out of the Teachings section and into Critique. I phrased it so that it removed any weasely connotations, citing the critic (Scott Lowe), and his statement about this. See if you think that works.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Teachings Section changes

I made major edits to the Teachings section today. I decided it would be better if I went ahead and made the edits, and then editors could offer feedback here.

The main issue was that the teachings section read like a kind of forced compression of Adi Da's philosophy, such that I began to question its comprehensibility for anyone reading this article. I myself could not get much out of the garbled compacted form that was there before. I decided to expand it such that the philosophy was clearly stated, and was at least comprehensible to people. I also expanded the Stages of Life section making it clear what the stages are, and so on, rather than just having that list, and then Adi Da's statements of exclusivity.

I did all of this from the same source that was already used there, which is Gallagher's "Introduction to New Religions" book, a favorite source for this article. There turned out to be quite a bit of information in there that was not included for some reason, so I put it in. I did not add anything from a different source. It can all be seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ClaySHbUEogC&pg=RA3-PA98&lpg=RA3-PA98&dq=the+contraction+and+self-consciousness+symbolized+by+Narcissus&source=bl&ots=p73bevhSGa&sig=Z1X3A8Tc-oLOu0PgMVlY8_dSf-M&hl=en&ei=m3KXS7WRGYuYsgOdyNXBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20contraction%20and%20self-consciousness%20symbolized%20by%20Narcissus&f=false

Let me know what you guys think of this edit. I personally think its a huge improvement!--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is much more comprehensive and clear. By the way I have been looking and looking at the wee description in the lead paragraphs, and feel the description there needs a going-over as well. Since you are more versed in this perhaps you could have a look at the lead, and see if you can make it clearer for the average reader? The part I don't like is He expressed a teaching similar to Indian non-dualism, that seeing oneself as an individual separate from a divine unitive reality is an illusion and the cause of unhappiness. He taught that the quest for liberation from suffering only creates suffering, and must be transcended.[5][6][7] Distinguishing his teaching from other religious traditions, Adi Da stated that he was an avatar embodying a uniquely liberated state beyond all dualism, and as such was the sole source of this realization for humanity.[8]

ok Most of it is good. But: Should be be comparing to Indian non-dualism at this point? (The average reader will not know what it means.) Should we define avatar at this point? (the average reader may not know what it means; at present it isn't even linked). And the phrase at the end, sole source of this realization for humanity I take this to mean the sole source of enlightenment for humanity. If that's what it means, shouldn't it just say so? The way it's worded is too esoteric. IMHO. If it means something else, I have no idea what. If I sound confused, its because I am. --Diannaa ^TALK 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is great feedback. If you think the average reader will not know what Indian non-dualism is, then I agree, it should not be mentioned. It is a bit cryptic, perhaps something more of a definition than philosophical category should be stated.

I agree with changing "realization" to "enlightenment".

And yes, avatar should be defined and linked. I will take a look at the wording here. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It was credulous glowing worshipful pro-Da pamphleteering, and I replaced the earlier version, so hard won and consensual with Dev and all. I left, and back it went to adidam.org. Citations were completely irrelevant to new entry.Tao2911 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Major Edits to Biography

Okay, I also made major edits to the Biography, drawing from sources that were already used. The main issue with the Bio as it stood before, is that it doesn't mention anything about Adi Da's claims of being enlightened from birth, and paints a particular picture, that suddenly ends up at "self-proclaimed avatar", cutting out Adi Da's own description of his life.

I have included that aspect of Adi Da's life into the Biography, so that readers can make up their own mind, rather than be presented with a one-sided stripped down Biography. I have thus expanded the Bio, included details where they needed to be, clarified chronology where it used to be choppy, and made new section headers for clear flow.

I would recommend editors read through and point out anything they would like to.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try to look at it the next two days and make suggestions. My initial look is that Adi Da's description of what he perceived as his realization at birth is such a "theme" in his autobiography and runs through all his descriptions of his early years, and... is mentioned in many 3rd party sources... it at least bears mention. I think that most of where you have added it makes sense. The initial mention of it in the first paragraph of the bio however feels to much like an Adidam comment. Using some of the sources I think better language can be used.Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will articulate a more detailed rationale of the changes in each section very soon. The line you must be speaking of is this, "Adi Da said that he was "uniquely enlightened from birth, an avatar, the unique descent of the divine into a human body, God in our midst." This is a quote from Gallagher's "Introduction to New Religions", written by Scott Lowe, it is not a quote from Adi Da or Adidam. It initially appeared at the beginning of the Teachings Section, but I could not link that sentence to the next one, and decided there must be a better place for it in the article somewhere, since its one of the only sentences that straightforwardly communicates what Adi Da said of himself. So I placed in the beginning of Bio. This could change, I see what you are saying, but that was my rationale for it. In fact, this sentence could potentially work better in the Lead, following "Distinguishing..."--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Edits

I have made major edits to the article, in the Biography, Teachings, and Adidam sections. I don't want editors to feel that I have gone on an editing rampage, or ravaged the page with a lot of edits. I don't know if it is worth my explaining each one, many are self-evident, but if anyone has questions about an edit I have made, please ask about it here. If you disagree, please voice your concern.

Diannaa, I made edits to the Lead after your comments. Is it more comprehensible now? The last line about cult-like community is still a bit weaselly in my opinion. We should consider edits to that.

I am also considering removing the POV tag, seeing as how there is no dispute happening. The only section that needs work is the second part of "Divine Emergence", which has NPOV issues, alongside its general incomprehensibility.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is clearer now. Thanks for figuring out a better wording. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So there are a lot of new entries and I understand Dev that you are trying to put all new aspects of all this in the article and then do refining. It needs refining. Some sections , although they are quotes from 3rd party sources do not read easy for the Wikipedia readers. Some areas like the Garbage and The Goddess section have to be honed down and made much more summary. I noticed you took out the external links to sites not favorable to Adi da. I wonder about that. I have to work through Sunday with limited time and then will try to help go through some of the areas I notice need work and make specific suggestions.Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your feedback, JR. If you can point out specifics then we can make the according edits. Regarding the removal of External Links, according to the policy WP:External Links, the two links appearing at the end are already cited in the article, and so should not appear there. I asked Diannaa if she agreed with my understanding of the policy, and she confirmed that it was a correct understanding, so I removed them.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did suggest removing these links, but I did not realise that would leave the two positive links and remove the two negative links. Now I am not so sure. --Diannaa ^TALK 15:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well maybe it is necessary to have some of the other two links for balance?--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favor of these massive changes and additions to the article. I thought we were almost done, and reaching a point where the article would be stable and neutral. I have already gone over the material three times for copy edits and do not have the time or inclination to pursue editing all this new material. My recommendation would be to revert to the version of 19:02, March 10, 2010 and work from there. So sorry. --Diannaa ^TALK 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Dianna. Let's go small sections at a time and then get consensus, change etc. We can put the changes in the discussion.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I am going out of town in four hours and will not be back till Sunday. Since this move requires a certain amount of technical expertise I am going ahead with it now. Dev, your material might be suitable for a future article: Teachings of Adi Da. Unfortunately we will lose some good edits the way I am reverting, but we will spend the next few days locating and restoring the best of them. I have also archived the Talk page. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Something got messed up with the pictures, so I'll fix that. We can take it slower for sure. I think your suggestion of a separate article for Teachings is a great idea, and would allow the Teachings section here to be much more compressed. Your revert has left the Teachings section pretty much as it is, are we okay with that?--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think having the teaching section there the way it was is actually helpful. Looking at it I think we should consider shortening the "7th Stages" down to summary. Just a thought. I also thing the section on "ego" might be written in some more easily understood terms. Monday I have some time off work to be more specific in suggestions.Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest removing this:

First Stage—individuation / physical development Second Stage—socialization Third Stage—integration / mental development Fourth Stage—spiritualization / Divine Communion Fifth Stage—Spiritual Ascent Sixth Stage—Abiding in Consciousness Seventh Stage—Divine Enlightenment (awakening from all egoic limitations).

The paragraphs summarizing the 7 stages are important, I think, but the two after it could be removed/condensed/or we could choose one instead of the other since they both make the same statement of Adi Da being the only seventh stage realizer. That is where I think we could cut something. Suggestions?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Stages of Life

I suggest cutting the chart of "First Stage--Individuation / physical development", etc. In addition to that, the last two paragraphs of this section effectively state the same thing. This statement could be combined with the paragraph on the seventh stage: stated that the seventh stage of life has nothing to do with development or evolution, and does not come after the sixth stage in a sequential manner. We could remove the discussion of "yogis, saints, and sages", and the quote that follows.

Then, in the final paragraph we could do some cutting and pasting so that it reads: Relative to this spectrum, Adi Da declared, "I Am the First (and the Only One) to Realize and to Demonstrate seventh stage Realization, which (now, and forever hereafter) I Alone, and Uniquely, Reveal and Transmit to all my formally practicing true devotees and thus potentially to all beings."

How about that?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

BetterJason Riverdale (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made this edit, take a look.--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Insertion into first section of biography

There is mention in almost all 3rd party sources and significant mention in Adi Da's biography of his description of his state of consciousness at birth. So I have suggested some mention of it in the intro to the bio In an effort of not having the first part of the bio too long I have suggested eliminating some of the facts of his mom,dad and sister. Dianna maybe if you can look over the below.

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 , conscious of a divine state of being. At the age of two, he explained that being dismayed that others did not exits in this state he” consciously” choose to relinquish this awareness to discover what would be required for human beings to realize this state permanently. He stated that he therefore spent his time in college and subsequent years in a spiritual search to discover this.

THIS ALREADY IN THE BIO

He served as an acolyte in the Lutheran church during his adolescence and aspired to be a minister, though after leaving for college in the autumn of 1957[23] he expressed doubts about the religion to his Lutheran pastor. He graduated in 1961 with a Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy from Columbia University and went on to complete a Master's Degree in English Literature at Stanford University in 1963.[23][24][25

Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedia of American Religions (2009), page 971 “As a baby he says he recollects being conscious of a divine state, which he now calls “The Bright” at the age of two he decide to relinquish the bliss of his original state and enter into the world

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 lead him to Swami Muktanada and other gurus in that lineage . he reawakened to his true state in 1970

Gallagher/Ashcraft.(2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America [Five Volumes] .Greenwood Press. ISBN 0275987124.page87-88“Even before his birth Jones was conscious of himself simply as “The Bright” , a blissful flow of divine energy

Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if I would include this or not. It's easy enough to say now what he was thinking and feeling at the age of two, or before birth. But we have no empirical way to confirm it. It's like we will never know for sure whether he (or anyone else) attained enlightenment. How much of this kind of unsubstantiable material should be included? Let's get more feedback. Anyone else want to comment? --Diannaa ^TALK 01:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Dianna. I guess what I noticed is that every third party source feels it is worth mentioned this. Then we go to his "re-awakening" in the Vedanta Temple (Becoming the Guru) where this is brought up again. We could say he claimed this. Point being that it seems to be a significant incident in his life, that kind of has a thread throughout his early life and is mentioned in all third party sources that write about him. Hmmmmm Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have been without internet for quite some time, and just got it back. I agree this is worth mentioning, because Adi Da and other 3rd party sources give it a lot of importance. it is not necessary to mention the "age of two" or anything like that which is clearly not verifiable, but we could mention what Adi Da has said in his autobiography about his experiences as a child, and the state of consciousness he said he was aware of.--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dianna that this article is now neutral and we should come to completion on it. I do feel that something about his statement about Da's early life consciousness should be mentioned... in very simple terms... taking in to account Dianna's comments. There are like four 3rd party sources mentioning this. This is even mentioned in Feurestein's book, a critic of Adi Da. So I suggest the following addition to the first paragraph. Dianna maybe your copy edit would be helpful since you have such plain language. I also include Fuerstein's comments below the paragraph. Then I think we should finish the article.

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 further stated that he spent his time in college and subsequent years in a spiritual search to discover what obstructed this state in human beings and what would be required to be able realize this illumination permanently.

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2, Pages 146-147 “Even as a baby I remember only crawling around inquisitively with an incredible sense of joy, light and freedom in the middle of my head that was bathed in energies moving freely from above, up, around and down through my body and my heart. It was an expanding sphere of joy from the heart. And I was a radiant form, a source of energy, bliss an light in the midst of what is entirely energy, bliss and light.”

This pre-individuated super conscious 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 paradisaical state of wholeness. … he was preoccupied with finding a way back to that primal condition, he enjoyed from infancy. He desperately wanted to understand the psychic mechanism that blocked the experience of the “Bright.--Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jason, could you please clarify for me which sections you intend for the article, and which bits will be seen only in the footnotes? Thanks --Diannaa ^TALK 00:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dianna, I was suggesting adding this in the first paragraph of bio under "Youth". As far as the footnotes just simple ones below.

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 further stated that he spent his time in college and subsequent years in a spiritual search to discover what obstructed this state in human beings and what would be required to be able realize this illumination permanently.

Footnotes:

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…. Jones spent his college and subsequent years in a spiritual quest...

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2, Pages 146-147 “It was the loss of ... preconception ecstasy, which motivated him to recapture that paradisaical state of wholeness. … he was preoccupied with finding a way back to that primal condition he enjoyed from infancy. He desperately wanted to understand the psychic mechanism that blocked the experience of the “Bright.---Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this looks good, Jason. In terms of the overall plan for this article, I would like to come to a point of completion very soon. Lots of good work has been done, especially in the Biography and Teachings section, and Jason cleaned up the second paragraph of Divine Emergence, which was a previous issue.

One thing I would like to point out is the paragraph about Lenz in Divine Emergence. It seems odd, awkward, and out of place and I am questioning its inclusion. Previous arguments were made for its inclusion, but Lenz is hardly known at all outside of a small circle of followers, so it is not like a merging of traditions, or anything like that. It seems like a strange juxtaposition to include this after the Divine Emergence events, and then right afterwards to conclude the Bio with "Adi Da had four daughters". Something doesn't work here in terms of flow.

Anyways, I think the article is nearly done, and no major issues remain outstanding. So good move on removing POV tag, Diannaa. I am also wondering if it would now be appropriate to propose this article for GA Status. It was proposed twice before, and did not pass, but it has come a very long way since then, especially with hardly any primary sources remaining in the article. What do you think?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The text is pretty good as it stands. When I see a phrase like "he further stated" I try to re-phrase to make it go away. How about this:

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 relates how he spent his time in college and subsequent years on a spiritual quest to discover what obstructs this state in human beings and what would be required to be able realize this illumination permanently.

Dianna, I think your edit is better. Thanks again for practical copy editing. I will add this into the article.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dev, so much of the stuff that doesn't work in terms of flow was added as negativity to place in the article to balance out the positive things the article was saying about the subject. Now that the article is stable we can make impartial decisions on what to include or omit as to their overall importance to the subject matter at hand whilst trying to maintain the NPOV. You and the other editors with the specific topic knowledge will have to make that kind of decision since I am not knowledgeable.

It is time to review what caused the GA to fail on its other nominations and look for loose ends to tie up. The material can be found here December 2009 and here October 2009. I would agree the article is GA or very close to it. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good analysis, Diannaa. It's true, a lot of the awkward content is there for critical balance, and that is what makes it difficult. I don't want to remove it, because the balance should remain in this article. However, the Lenz paragraph is unique, and your mentioning of possibly omitting things in relation to their overall importance to the subject matter is significant. The Lenz thing is very insignificant in my opinion, and hardly worth mentioning in it's minuteness. It is probably the most insignificant part of the article, and doesn't seem to add anything about Adi Da or his teaching for the raw reader of this article. So I am proposing removing it, that is my feel of it according to what you wrote here. I don't really see any other awkward passages that were put for critical balance that I want to remove.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that not much else in the article should be change for the sake of keeping the article balanced etc. The Lenz thing I have said in the past is kind of insignificant in the life of Adi Da. I would take it out. The only other thing I would add is under the "Divine Emergence" there is a picture with "Lopez Island" mentioned. I would suggest that WA be added to the picture text and in the text "Lopez, Washington" be added in the appropriate place. Then let's look at cleaning up whatever else was addressed in the last GA review.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

making sense of second paragraph in Divine Emergence

The following paragraph in the Divine Emergence section, even though it was taken from Scott Lowe's writing in Gallagher NR, does not make much sense to the average reader.It would seem that Lowe in a kind of cynical tone just put bits and pieces down without any effort to explain or describe. I suggest the following edit. We could get into all that "down the feet and up the head" and all the issues around that (we would have to compare and get more detail from primary sources), but I suggest here we keep it simple We can also talk about being prescribed tranquilizers for anxiety attacks. But, it would seem that this does not fit with this paragraph. The final sourced several lines seems to summarize this whole section.

Adi Da had publicly predicted that by the year 2000 his enlightenment would be recognized world-wide. When this failed to occur, Adi Da experienced another death-like event similar to the one he experienced 1986. He stated that this initiated another significant period in his work which he shifted from teaching to “spiritual blessing work.”

York, Michael. (2004). Historical Dictionary of New Age Movements. The Rowman Litterfield Publishing Group. ISBN 9780810848733, page 12 Since his “emergence” Adi da has shifted his focus from teaching to blessing …. He preforms “Spiritual Blessing Work” to diminish the world’s negative forces. Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks good, Jason. I made some small edits to help the wording, see if you think it looks okay.--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tying up loose ends for GA Review

1)There are problems with synthesis from primary sources.I would like to encourage editors to revise the article using such scholarly sources as are listed here for example, and by drastically reducing the use of primary sources (books by the subject or movement websites) DONE

2)The biography section has an off-topic paragraph that should be in a section about his organization. The isolated single sentence paragraphs should also be better incorporated here.DONE

3)This article has many sections but not much use of subsections. To improve readability and appearance, some small sections should be combined. eg: Books and Art are could be made into subsections under a broader title like "Works".

For the most part done. Some of the heading still look awkward to me. "Becoming the Guru" hmmm seems odd language still. What do others feel?

4)Many sections would be improved by addition of introductory sentences or paragraphs. One example (there are others like this) is the controversies and influence sections, which just launch into a list of controversies, without even a "Adi Da's spiritual teachings and activities undertaken by his organization have attracted controversy for...."

Think this is much better now.

5)Splitting the external links into Advocacy and Criticism seems designed to inflame confrontations. I would chose less opposed titles (Is the page on his art really "advocating" something rather than selling it? Or, as there are only 4 links, simply no subtitles. Is there are reason the critical links cannot be used as references and their information put in the article?

If one looks at the critical external link ie "Rick Ross" is is almost all about the 1986 lawsuits etc. I would say that this is well covered in the article now.Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are doing good. I want to suggest changing some of the headers for the Biography. I suggest keeping "Youth", but changing "Becoming the Guru" to "Teaching Years and Establishment of Adidam", or "Teaching Years and Adidam". I am suggesting removing quotes around "Crazy Wisdom", and having the final header name be simply "Divine Emergence". What do you guys think?--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Becoming the Guru" but the suggestion " Teaching Years and Establishment of Adidam" is also good. The other suggestions are good ones Diannaa ^TALK 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the headers Dev is suggesting.Dianna & Dev anything else we need to address before re-submitting the article for GA review?Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence in the lead section of the article seems odd to me

He was considered to be "one of the most interesting and outrageous sixties-generation American gurus.

It is taken from a book reviewer's comments of Scott Lowes book “Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones." It does not seem to fit in with an otherwise succinct, factual Lead Section. The information of this sentence is also more than adequately covered in the rest of the Lead Section. Opinions? Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I agree with you on the strange sourcing of that statement. I am fine with its removal, but am open to hearing other opinions. I don't know if this line particularly adds anything that is not covered in the article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Submitted for GA Review

I have submitted this article for GA Review, and listed it as a "joint nomination" between Jason and I. Diannaa, I did not want to include your name before asking you. Would you like to be included as part of this nomination?

Not sure how fast or slow this review will happen, but I feel confident about it this time around. We can continue small clean-ups that we notice.

Thank you to everyone for your hard work on this article. It has been through a lot, and this is the most stable I've ever seen it. The content is significantly improved and the article is conformed to wikipedia standards. Very happy to see this.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but most of my contributions were to the talk page. Go ahead with the two nominators. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

extensive weasel wording, awkward organization to diminish controversy, extensive removed sourced material, etc. Only editors are credulous followers of profiled figure, bias throughout. I will maintain the POV tag until another neutral editor comes in to address the page.Tao2911 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be both advocacy and critical information in the article as written, despite the fact that the primary editors are followers, indicating significant efforts by followers to meet editorial responsibilities. Lots of hard work and attempts to provide balance. But I must weigh in. When the primary editing is done by followers and internal Adidam sources are taken at face value, issues of bias in interpretation and text selection are almost inevitable. Given that even internal Adidam sources have acknowledged, even here, that a vast majority of one time members are no longer active proponents, when they assert information regarding the period prior to their involvment, naturally all newer devotees will find left to ask is those who stayed involved, and they will naturally assert the current Adidam dogma as well as assurances those who departed are not credible, even though that is actually a minority opinion. The most significant NPOV concerns which do create a misleading impression and need to be addressed in order to qualify for GA status that I see are:

• In the "Media Attention" Section, where the lawsuits are mentioned, note that Adidam's primary lawyer Wood is also a devotee who has a record of providing misleading information on advocacy sites like adidaupclose, such as claiming a bitter divorce was the primary cause of the legal actions, when that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Miller lawsuit based on fraud, which Wood did not address. Devotee editors presumably believe they are accurate, but have no personal knowledge of the situation or those involved, and are simply speculating and repeating internal Adidam dogma when they state: "...The comment that Ford Greene has handled "a number of "such lawsuits" is in reference to the fact that he specializes in lawsuits like this (ie Scientology etc.) against other groups not only Adidam..." It is true that at the time of the main media attention only two lawsuits were actually filed, and one was dismissed but the matter was then settled out of court for payment and confidentiality agreement (Mahoney), which is not acknowledged in the devotee editor statement, and the other was settled out of court for payment and a confidentiality agreement (Miller). Logically it is clear this does not disprove by any means, as a devotee editor states, Green's published direct statement that he handled 3 Adidam cases including threats of lawsuits as he stated, because Adidam's pattern was to settle such threats with payments and confidentiality agreements, especially noting the date of the more recent WP article which IS a reliable source. Thus, Green's actual comments, as published, need to be restored for NPOV rather than simply accepting Adidam's claims as fact. If editors want to say that Adidam now claims only two lawsuits (Mahoney, Miller) while Green claims three incidents including the threats that he handled (note that Mahoney had another lawyer) that Adidam settled by making payments and confidentiality agreements that will work, but the article make it clear Adidam's position is disputed, not fact.

Yes, I agree about Adidam position not being presented as fact. You are welcome to make this edit.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Critique" Section, opinions aside, follower editors were not there at the time when Scott (who has a relevant PhD) and the others he mentions were, nor were they there in person when Fuerstein accounted in writing even back in his more sypathetic days with the earlier edition Adi Da's troubling seduction of a wife in the 1980s that he personally witnessed. Given that both critics and internal Adidam sources have acknowledged, even here, that a vast majority of one time members are no longer active proponents for whatever reason, when advocates assert information regarding the period prior to their involvment, naturally all newer devotees will find left to ask is those who stayed involved, and they will naturally assert a revisionist, current Adidam dogma as well as assurances those who departed are not credible, even though that is actually a minority opinion of all involved. Since quotes are provided for others, Fuerstein should be directly quoted too. This portion cited from Fuerstein's book is relevant to this phenomena of internal Adidam bias, and is taken from earlier versions of this article that devotee editors later edited out: "...For a period of time, (Adi Da) was a member of Scientology; this fact was mentioned in early editions of The Knee of Listening but was later on downplayed or dropped altogether. In the course of several decades, this autobiography and other biographical accounts of Adi Da have been cleaned up and to a growing degree even mythologized, undoubtedly under his instigation. This "revisionist" trend became obvious by 1985, with the publication of the "biblical" Dawn Horse Testament..." "In any case, later autobiographical presentations regrettably tend toward mytholization, as does indeed Adi Da's entire self-portrayal certainly since the mid-1980s... Unless we dismiss Adi Da's claims to avatarhood as the whimsical playfulness of a crazy-wisdom adept, we are left with a rather unsavory alternative explanation: that of a less-than-enlightened adept with a God-complex..." It is important for NPOV that this reasoned assessment from someone recognized as a respected author and an expert on Yoga who was once that close to Adi Da needs to be restored to the article to provide a more balanced, NPOV context for the claims made about Adi Da, rather than just vague statements that he changed his opinion. --Dseer (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dseer, that is fine what you are bringing up about Feurstein. If you would like to suggest and/or make this specific edit, then that would be great. Then we can all see what it looks like. Your argument makes sense to me, in relation to NPOV.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dseer thanks for your comments and concerns. Here is what I would say in response.

Lawsuits: The Washington Post newspaper says, “Lyynne 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...

That is the non-bias statement that says two lawsuits.

The Adidam lawyer, Wood, says there were two lawsuits. However obviously as the lawyer for Adidam some of the explanation of the cause of the lawsuits has to be carefully taken into account. Obviously, Miller lawsuits was not about the divorce, although it is public knowledge and all over the internet, not just in pro-Adidam sites, that Beverly O’Mahony and her husband in Adidam were in a bitter divorce. So removal of Wood statement from the article, as sole citation for saying only two lawsuits is ok. Having Wood citation and Washington Post both in citations, however, back up the number of lawsuits as being two.

Green definitely handled Miller lawsuits for sure and this is cited in the copy of the lawsuit online. The other lawsuit, which is the O’Mahony one, was handled by a lawyer named Cunnigham. This is cited via SF Examiner paper. The Green statement “who has handled three such cases” is hard to asses as to whether that means Adidam lawsuits or since Ford Green has specialized in lawsuit against fringe religious groups, and thus includes other groups in the statement “three such cases” . On his website http://www.fordgreene.com/about.html Green list “two such lawsuits” , Scientology and another against the Unification Church or Moonies. So only two cases Green cites, and the third mentioned in The Washington POst article probably is Adidam lawsuit.

Now the lawsuit Green handled for Miller was settled “with payments and confidentiality agreements” and that is included and cited in the article. The other lawsuit (‘O Mahoney) was dismissed by the Marin Superior Court is also cited. Who knows if there were further agreements reached by O’Mahony and her husband in Adidam in their divorce. The legal issues and ways in which lawsuits get handled are complicated to say the least :). Trying to get into technicalities and fine print here is murky. Facts with citations are 1) two lawsuits 2) One settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, other dismissed by Marin Superior Court. 3) No further lawsuits were reported or charges brought against Adidam after these initial cases. The rest is not clear. May never be.

Relative to Georg Fuerestein quote. Why don’t you make a suggestion as to the actual statement to be included in the article. Then we can discuss more and consider it all. DSeer I continue to appreciate your dialog and the sincere attempt at balance. Thanks again.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indented your post here JR, so that it would be easier to read.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming to read the entry on this person - knowing nothing about him and therefore wanting to read a basic introduction, I was struck by the degree to which the article was written from a position which largely accepts his 'teaching' as authoritative. It comes across as a text written solely by followers and amended slightly so as to acknowledge external and critical points of view. It seems, in other words, to be a long way from being a 'neutral' piece by any definition. RPTOwen (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting, RPTOwen, that for your first and only edit to Wikipedia that you choose to comment on this talk page. Diannaa ^TALK 04:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes VERY curious :-) Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the "Critique" section University of Southern California religions professor Robert Ellwood wrote, "Accounts of life with [Adi Da] in his close-knit spiritual community [describe] extremes of asceticism and indulgence, of authoritarianism and antinomianism... This is his review of Scott Lowe's book. In effect he is saying what Scott Lowe is writing about in his book. It seems a bit odd since Scott Lowe is already given significant amount coverage of his critique of Adi Da in this section. I would suggest that the addition of this book review is therefore not necessary. A book review does not really add much?Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I do want to be careful about removing critical statements from the article. There should be a strong reason to do so, as opposed to removing it haphazardly, or on the basis of some impulse. I see your rationale about this being a review about the book, as opposed to something from the book itself, which is a bit odd. Perhaps there is a way to corroborate this statement using Lowe's book itself? If its in a book review, then the content must exist in the book to some extent. Jason, could you research this? Obviously, if there is no way to corroborate it, then we could consider further its removal. My only point is that there should be a strong basis for doing such.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This comment ("This is his review of Scott Lowe's book. In effect he is saying what Scott Lowe is writing about in his book") is not true. He reviews the book, but references and analyses the Adidam phenomena as a whole, citing other research outside of Lowe and Lane's book, and revealing a familiarity with Adi Da beyond this one text.Tao2911 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Integrated ostracized section

Devotee editors had moved mention of lawsuits and media coverage to bottom of page, clearly to diminish importance. It was written to fit in chronology, and I replaced it as such. I adjusted it to make it an even more clear fit there.

the events of that time relate to events directly previous and subsequent. Don't move it. Judging purely by tertiary source coverage and discussion, that single year is the most pivotal in Da's life, at least as how he came to be regarded. Leave it, please.

Also, I reduced what I felt was not NPOV tone/phrasing in a few places. In particular, DO NOT reinsert the list of allegations from supposed Adidam suit against OMahoney and others. The source cited does NOT have or describe that list. The case never was actually filed, and there is no other record or even mention of it in any sources listed. Attempts to phrase as if there were only two lawsuits against Adidam are refuted by multiple sources, in particular New Religions and Feuerstein, that mentions "several" lawsuits settled out of court, and discuss their devastating impact on the church, both financially and psychologically among its members (and on Adi Da himself). This was here previously; its removal demonstrates yet another instance of bias. Its mention here is I still feel underwritten, but I can tolerate it if left alone.Tao2911 (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Crazy Wisdom"

This section had to be retitled. Most critics point out (including GF and SL) that what Da practiced differed in fundamental respects from this tradition, and should not be considered as such (often using closed quotes around it for Da's version - those had been removed here). Even Da said his employment of the term and its relation to the tradition was radical and unique. The period is referred to in all sources as "G & G." I reworked as such.

Also, I removed line about no longer using 'crazy wisdom' after 1986. Adidam arguably said this to diminish controversy during media coverage/lawsuits. Sources (including pro, like early GF) emphatically point out that it continued - as subsequent bio indicates. Read the sources.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Philosophy" Section

Previously called "teaching and philosophy." Changed to more neutral philosophy. I replaced an edited version of previous version. it had been rewritten by I assume Devanagari, in a credulous devotional tone with extensive redundancies and excessive esoterica. However, the sources had not changed. I had written and sourced it previously. the new version departed completely from sources, and was clearly just written from personal understanding, un-researched or sourced. This version is clear and succinct - and sourced.Tao2911 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention of "Bright since birth" in "Youth"

This section is a chronology of his early life. The fact that he said later that he was uniquely enlightened at birth, is not only highly irregular in the first line of a NEUTRAL bio, it is mentioned in his "philosophy". It also jumps ahead, saying the purpose of "the rest of his life." Straight up hagiography - ridiculous. It shouldn't be there, and was added by devotee editors when I went quiet.Tao2911 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The mentioned of the "Bright" at the beginning of the article is a key element of the wiki bio. It is significantly sourced in about every book pro and con written about Adi Da. It is also a key theme in his autobiography "The Knee of Listening" and whatever one believes or not believes is stated as a "search ' to re-unite with that state of birth. Again you "chronological obsession" should not remove well sourced information and again shows your extreme bias here.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny he mentioned it everywhere. And therefor it gets discussed. But it is already mentioned in his 'philosophy'. its inclusion in the first line of the bio smacks of rank bias.Tao2911 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well,the mention at beginning of bio is simply that it sets up several events in his bio where the search for the reconciling with his perceived state at birth is explored and tested. Very logical and simple here Tao. Again the significances of it was made by Lowe, and GF and the reasons they included it in their source was to also set up this particular event as a precedent to other events in Adi Da life like drug experimentation, college years, etc. GF and Lowe, who basically wrote the chapter on Adidam in Gallaghers book, acknowledge this .. so its not bias it's'an agreed fact and information to his bio even by his detractors. Logically it belongs as a simple statement at beginning , sourced properly, to simply introduce a theme that both GF and Lowe feel is worth discussing as a aspect of Adi Da's Work. The statement there was pretty neutral simply saying what Adi Da perceived it as. I will go ahead and put it backJason Riverdale (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree Jones said it. It was significant to him, and his followers. It is neither "logical and simple" however. In fact, its unusual. All the more so intro-ing his biography such. We've been over it before, I've rejected it before, its clear in 'philosophy.' Its hagiography, self-mythology. You do not preface a factual timeline bio with it. Logical! Simple!Tao2911 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles on saints and such allow such myths to enter the official biography when well-sourced. Like Ramakrishna#Birth_and_childhood:

According to traditional accounts, Ramakrishna's parents experienced supernatural incidents, visions before his birth. His father Khudiram had a dream in Gaya in which Lord Gadadhara (a form of god Vishnu), said that he would be born as his son. Chandramani Devi is said to have had a vision of light entering her womb from Shiva's temple.[16][17]

The text that you are removing is relatively benign in comparison. I tried to bring an academic perspective to that biography and I was chased away by villagers holding pitchforks and torches. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, relatively speaking it could be worse - as in your example. However, we don't have to use crap entries to defend crap editing here. Devotees always want the "holy at birth" ref in the intro - always. It is their sacred mythology - and it read as such previously, which was weird. it gets mentioned later in the bio, when he says it for the first time (as it should); and then in philosophy (the point is veritably bludgeoned). Nothing is being left unsaid here. Its about where and how and when. We have been down this road many times - Jones said every event in his life had scared and hidden importance. He wrote, and wrote, and amended, and wrote some more about every single thing that happened to him. Every line in this bio could have appendices galore (and many do actually.) No third 'bright at birth' mention in bio lead.Tao2911 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tao continues to remove sourced material without any discussion or consensus

Tao, while some word or phrase changes are fine, you continue your aggressive and uncivil behaviors in changing sourced material to reflect your bias. You have a pattern which you have been cited and even temporarily band from wikipedia for. Several area you have removed are properly sourced. I will revert them. You personal quirks about how you would like to see the article phrased and having this be your "personal" English composition are not appropriate here in wikipedia. Work with others rather than remove source material without ANY discussion. Your statements in discussion are not consensus.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not removing sourced material. I am adjusting your weasel wording and transparent hagiography. And will continue to do so.Tao2911 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

stop 'undoing'. You are edit warring. Take it to talk.

Actually you are edit warring removing specific cited material, changing language AND WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR TALK. You sense of discussion or talk , as in the past, is TO make changes and then aggressively state that it is RIGHT. That is not consensus or talk. In many cases what you call weasel words are direct quotes from legitimate sources. I would like to suggest that you revert the many changes you made the last few days. YOU put them up on talk as you suggest to otheres and let's go through them one by one. You may be surprised on agreement on some of those "suggested" changes you want. Or maybe that is not what you want or are about?Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

just because something is phrased a certain way in a certain context in a source does not automatically make it suitable for a page. DUH. Any phrase imaginable can be abused. And you are doing so. Editing guidelines say "be bold." I made a few edits curtailing some of your more egregious abuses here. I made the edits - if you dispute them, discuss them. Don't just hysterically hit "undo".Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

.. Sounds like your the one that is hysterical Tao. All that is being asked for is that any edits, besides grammar etc, be put in talk and agreed BEFORE inserted into the article. Something you ask off others but do not seem to be able to do yourself. Consensus is also part of wikipedia. Is that something you can do or.... You reverted a lot in the last 24 hours without any discussion or dialog. So.... Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert. I edited.Tao2911 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok you removed cited material in the "your" form of edits without discussion.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove any whole events or facts. Only redundancies, and weasel phrasing. As I've explained, for each one.Tao2911 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Sources, even as quoted in footnotes (Ford Greene), reference numbers of threatened lawsuits and settlements. GF mentions them, as does New Religions. JR doesn't like this - keeps editing to two, clearly minimizing. And then saying one of those two "had no legal merit" further weasel-y diminishing (its in the footnote; that's fine). Don't fight the sources, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"had no legal merit" actually is a direct quote and important fact from a reputable newspaper.Don't fight the sources, dude.Jason Riverdale (talk)

replaced censored sourced fact; need page number for citation (JR apparently has source, but won't find)

Tao if you could point out which page number for which citation. Not sure which line in the article you are referring to. Thanks!Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a source says that - but its in the bloody footnote, and the inclusion in the article is clearly included to slant. ie its weasel-y. Admit that is your intent. Civil cases are dismissed exactly because they "lack legal merit" in the eyes of the judge. Its redundant to say it. It doesn't read well here. If you want it, ok, lets add another list from a footnote about allegations. I'm trying to streamline the read, and take out clear slant. Which is how your inclusion of this reads. If we are going to quote every word of every source, well, that wouldn't be very good editing now would it? Again, guidelines say "rephrase it"!Tao2911 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

...... Again, this is a sourced quote. The fact that this is the only lawsuit to be brought in front of a Superior Court and was dismissed for no legal case basis is a significant fact. Yes that is what happens in a civil case is given that language but most readers will not know that. I had to actually talk to a lawyer to clarify this. This is not slant but bias on your part. Its a fact, a significant fact and all of your edits done the last 24 hours have been done WITHOUT any dialog before. This is what numerous editors have asked you in a long history of not cooperating. You have repeatably refused. You have a history of this and abusive language and even several sock puppets. . 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Riverdale (talk • contribs)

quit flirting. stick to the points. I've made small edits. Granted they are against the sort of pro-Da hoo ha you would see dominate the article if you were editor. But they are reasonable. "Yes that is what happens in a civil case is given that language but most readers will not know that." So you agree that the info is redundant, but you think everyone else are simply more ignorant than you? I disagree. I don't like the phrase, or your reasons for its inclusion. You are diminishing the one side to favor the other. That is what you did to the whole passage. I'm correcting your bias. The quote is in the footnote.Tao2911 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, guidelines say "rephrase it"!

What guideline? If it's in the source, it can be included in the article per WP:V. — goethean ॐ 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

you seriously don't know that you are supposed to rephrase sources to suit voice of page, using your own language? Then I suggest you go reread the guidelines. Please address my points. I've given clear reasons for this edit.Tao2911 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Above you appear to agree with Jason that you removed sourced content from the article. Please don't do that. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. "Changing phrasing" is not "removing sourced info". The facts are all still there.Tao2911 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

removing NPOV tag

I have made the changes to the parts of the article that I found problematic. I would be willing to see flag removed if my edits could be left alone.Tao2911 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what consensus is. Clearly my request is asking for this. I put the flag on. I'm willing to see it gone, if the changes I've made can be left. I have addressed the areas I found problematic.Tao2911 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

...How about we actually have dialog to reach consensus. That is the definition of it. Not "it is Tao's way or no-way" I am willing to discuss various aspects of what we have disagreement on but not as a blackmail (" I will remove tag if you do ...") as you are purposing. This is not your article or your personal English composition. This is what a number of editors try to point out to you over a long time. You try to control everything here. I really only have a few issues. But you need to start with several reverts back to materials that was sourced well and also did have for the most part consensus. I am not in an "all or nothing" mood here myself. Some things will just have to stay even if I don't agree with statements. But others have to be done in consensus and not through "sock puppets" or false accounts. So what are you willing to do cooperatively, in good faith, without un civil behavior etc. Your history is not good here. But... we have worked together before and maybe we can resolve some of this.

So grammar etc fine. But no major editing, changes, leaving out information without dialog and done in discussion BEFORE changes are made. Are you up to this? Willing? Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I made my edits. They are small. Not a single fact or event has been removed. Make your arguments. So far, they haven't been convincing, and I have tried to show you why. Simply revert, and edit war accusations will fly.Tao2911 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Counteracting censorship of "Over the Years, Sued Several Times"

Pro Da/Jones editors had relegated the current "public controversy" section to the bottom of the page - a literal and metaphoric reflection of where they'd like it to stay. They had also diminished allegations by removing sourced material, and changing phrasing to lessen seeming importance.

At least three accepted sources (Feuerstein, New Religions, and the article quoting Ford Greene) say that there were multiple lawsuits and threatened suits that were settled out of court, and two of these sources say it negatively impacted the church financially, and its members psychologically. This information used to be there cited and footnoted. It all was removed in recent weeks, instead being edited to say that there were only two suits, one of which "was thrown out without legal merit." The intent is transparent: to lessen any negative appearance.

Also, in a new footnote, original research was clearly reflected in including the address of "Ford Greene, lawyer" with the name of some legal case, with no source cited. Absolutely ridiculous.

This is exactly what I am counteracting in my edits, throughout the page. And it has occurred throughout, along with bad punctuation and grammar that signify the work of certain editors. I have replaced this section in its original chronology, and replaced censored material.Tao2911 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you really not see the reference to the Washington Post article next to the material that you removed here? — goethean ॐ 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. I know that there are at least two suits - one tossed out, one settled. But there were not ONLY two suits, say two other sources. The attempt here by others was to remove mention that there was more than one suit threatened, and settled out of court. This is what I am replacing. I didn't remove anything (save the lawyer's address footnote.)Tao2911 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at this version from a few days ago: "There were two lawsuits against Adidam in 1986, both filed in California. [147][148]The lawsuit detailed in news stories was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County in March of 1986. [149][150]The second lawsuit was settled with payments and confidentiality agreements.[151] [152] There have been no new reports of abuse or coverage of such accusations in the media since 1986. [153]"

Completely biased, and not accurate to sources. There is no source saying "there have been no allegations since 1986" In fact, Feuerstein and New Religions say quite the opposite. This is purely fabricated, wishful thinking - FICTION. It says with no other implication that there were two, and only two lawsuits. Sources say (again) there were more.

Here is the current version: "O'Mahoney's suit was dismissed in March, 1986.[101][102] Other lawsuits and threatened suits in subsequent years were kept out of court with confidentiality agreements and cash settlements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.[100][103][104][105][106]" So, all the ref's for the "second" suit mentioned in previous version are there, added to the citations saying that there were "multiple" suits and threatened suits. Done.Tao2911 (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

From Feuerstein, in footnote: "Over the years, [Jones] has been sued several times by disaffected students, although institutional representatives have so far succeeded in keeping him out of court. Cases were settled by arbitration, which bled the [church] financially." New Religions likewise talks about ongoing allegations and suits, and their impact. Not just two dude. Sources say. No source gives a cut off date of 1986 - save Adidam.Tao2911 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason says: "Language of "subsequent years of lawsuits" is not true, No lawsuits after 1986 Misleading bias"

Please passengers, look to the quote directly above, from Feuerstein '96 footnote. "Over the years...sued several times" "Over the years...sued several times" "Over the years...sued several times" My new mantra. First suit: brought 1985. Therefore - there were subsequent years that saw other suits or threats of them, as entry now states. Please reread New Religions, since JR you claim to have a copy now. Please show me a source that says "no lawsuits threatened after 1986". We have 3 (three) that say otherwise.Tao2911 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just found this little tidbit, that I remembering arguing with Riverdale about months ago. From Washington Post: "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." Well, conveniently, that last part had been edited ('three such cases') to be replaced with "..." And after that, Riverdale edited the section to read only two cases total, likewise removing material from GF and NR discussed above. Nice work, dude. Tsk tsk. I hope this point is over.Tao2911 (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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 maybe you can edit yet another defaming talk section headline to reflect 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)

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)

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. That too has been requested over and over again. You even agreed to itJason Riverdale (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)