Talk:Adi Da

Welcome to the Adi Da 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!

Re: External Links

This is a review of Tao2911's points in relation to External Links, which he requests of me in the above section entitled "David Starr by any other name would smell as..."

With regard to your 4th point about the "cult" thing: I notice that you have removed the words "anti-cult activist" from the description, so there is probably no need to say any more about this.

With regard to your 3rd point about Adidam, Buddhism and Christianity: nothing in my comment suggested that the article should not cover Adidam -as you correctly point out, not covering Adidam in an article about Adi Da would be absurd. The point was only that, since Adi Da is an artist, as is mentioned in the opening sentence of this article about him, an argument for a link to a site dedicated to his art will be a corollary of this fact, and has nothing to do with Adidam. My comment is a response to you 'laying down the law' in answer to Devanagari's query about the removal of the link: "One link to all things Adidam. Period. No reason to have multiple gates to the same organization."

With regard to your second point objecting to the description "tabloid-style" in reference to the articles at the Rick Ross Institute: your own characterization of them as "major newspaper stories covering scandals" does not seem all that far removed from "tabloid-style". The O.E.D. defines 'tabloid' as "a popular newspaper which presents its news and features in a concentrated, easily assimilable form..." i.e. like a kind of news-tablet. In terms of journalistic criticism it has an additional slightly pejorative flavour because articles in popular newspapers are often written with an eye to propagating news for its own sake, and consequently tend to lack depth and impartiality in relation to their subject matter. You seem to partially acknowledge this yourself when referring to the small number of "more neutral" articles on the site. Tabloid or not, perhaps there is nothing wrong with it, and certainly no reason for Wikipedia articles in general to reject it merely because of lack of depth and impartiality. But my own feeling is that this style of research is not compatible with an encyclopedia article about a spiritual teacher like Adi Da. Granted he is controversial, but it even seems to trivialize the controversy -it is so superficial and banal, it is a distraction from more intelligent engagement, pro or contra, with his words, actions, teaching and artwork, all of which are out there in such abundance. 'Old gossip' is an apt description for these articles: they do not provide real information, they provide 'news' from (and for) a scandal-oriented perspective with all the partiality such a perspective implies; they are stale and outdated, no longer even of interest to the agencies that ran the stories 25 years ago. They are not even particularly interesting as 'scandals'.

This is, of course, just my opinion. I'm not removing the link, I'm just argueing against it, so talk about whitewashing, spinning and sockpuppeting is, I would suggest, pre-emptive and disingenuous. I am a new user, I have made no edits to the article, and have commented only on the issue of external links.

With regard to your main points about Da Plastique: you claim that it is "demonstrable" that Adi Da is not a "recognized, highly original artist with a large and complex oeuvre". Since he does in fact have a large and complex oeuvre, presumably you are referring to the description "recognized, highly original". You cannot really demonstrate this either, although you can certainly argue it. However, even if he is only an artist with a large and complex oeuvre, we still have at least the beginnings of a reasonable argument for a link to a site dedicated to his art. Even if one were to object to it, it is hardly something to dismiss as mere propagandising. The reductionist argument that sites like Da Plastique or Adidaupclose are "purely promotional" or so-called advocacy sites, diverts attention from the fact that they provide real information and explanation (not mere advocacy or promotion) on specific matters relating to Adi Da, his artwork in the case of Da Plastique. Among the Adidam websites, Da Plastique is unique in that it is devoted entirely to his art, it provides numerous examples of his work from different periods, explanation of his artistic philosophy and creative approach, information about 7 exhibitions and other events, video of works, artistic process and exhibitions, and lengthy scholarly critical analysis. Someone interested in his art, even if it were from a negative POV, could go there directly rather than through the official Adidam site, which would be an unnecessary distraction -the link is not on the cover page and there is no indication on the cover page (or in the wikipedia article) that a site like this devoted to his art exists.

Whether or not Adi Da is recognized or highly original might be a matter of opinion, but Donald Kuspit aside, Achille Bonito Oliva, Peter Weibel, Peter Frank, Alex Grey, Gary J Coates and Cristina Acidini are some recognized people from the art world who have unequivocally 'recognized' the beauty, complexity and originality of his artistic work. In any case, why is it necessary to deny the validity of the opinion of someone like Donald Kuspit? Even if you are right in your opinion that "he stands alone, as is (if I may say) generally coming to be regarded as 'off the grid' in terms of major art currents" it does not necessarily diminish his stature or artistic insight. If fashion were the only arbiter of these things it would invalidate the work of many great artists and perceptive critics.

One further reason, from my point of view, for including Da Plastique as a link is that there is so little discussion of his art in the article, or on these talk pages. There might be a good reason for this, but considering the incredible amount of attention given to rehashing the tedious details of a few dead court cases, there seems to be an imbalance there that could be at least partly corrected by a link to Da Plastique.

I support Devanagari's proposal to reinstate Da Plastique as an external link. My own opinion is that the Rick Ross Institute should be removed because of its scandal-oriented shallowness, even if it has been there with universal support since time immemorial, as Tao2911 claims. I note, however, that it was not there a few weeks ago when the article was submitted for Good Article status. Norm Declavier (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope no-one minds if I offer some broad guidance regarding links? In general, external links are only useful where they are directly relevant and add value to an article over and above what it would contain if it became a featured article (see WP:ELNO item 1). This criterion is deliberately very restrictive to prevent Wikipedia becoming a link farm. Where possible, it's better to use the link as a reference and write any relevant content into the article. This obviously has the corollary that if a site is used as a content reference, it shouldn't also be listed separately as an external link because the link is already available as a cite in the refs list.

It might not be possible to write linked content into an article for reasons of space, article focus, copyright etc. For example, an article about a document might be unable to reproduce the text of the document for legal reasons or simply because it's too long, so might link to the original document instead. In the interests of remaining neutral and WP:UNINVOLVED I haven't really looked at the links discussed above. However, it seems to me that the artwork site is similar to the example I've used. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep this exceedingly brief: daplastique.com is an "official adidam site" according to their own description. There are roughly a dozen others. They are all linked on the front page of adidam.org - for which a link is provided. If da plastique, why not the dozen others? Hence, the road to "link farm", the threat that Eyeserene has once again helpfully officially clarified for us.Tao2911 (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As for Rick Ross, there is nothing "shallow" about having a link to the bulk of the news stories referenced by many of the tertiary sources used to write this article. If readers wish to know more about Adi Da, they get links to adidam and to the majority of news stories written about him. There is not a blanket editorial criticism of Da at Rick Ross - just transcripts and news articles.

Your ongoing argument about the importance of Da's art is simply not born out by "proportional coverage." Please review this guideline (NPOV). I do not argue that Adidam was able to get a few people to endorse Da's art for their own books and websites (this has never been there greatest difficulty) - which are all, btw, by definition "promotional". There remains absolutely no independently published, reputable critical review of his artwork. Period. Show me one review in a major magazine or serious academic arts journal. Just one.

His exhibition activity spanned all of three years and two shows (one of which moved around). Your list of fans is THE WHOLE LIST - all of whom you found on the da plastique promotional website. His art is mentioned more than once in entry (including menion that he died making it), and is even given its own section, with an image. Enough already. I'm not going to convince you I know - you've had the kool-aid - but here are the simple facts.Tao2911 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia policy on external links and the fact that there is a link to some of the art from the article itself and adidam.org I would say that a separate link to the Da Plastique page is not required.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not required, but it could still be a valuable addition. I can't see how it contradicts Wikipedia policy on external links, but I'll trust your judgement.

Tao2911: it may just be because I'm a neophyte, but it seems to me that you are interpreting Eyeserene's comments in a very selective way. Isn't he suggesting that Da Plastique could be considered as a link if it is comparable to the example he gives? I think he is referring to the document example, not the link farm. You seem exceedingly agitated at the prospect that including Da Plastique as a link will lead to all other Adidam sites becoming links. An argument for Da Plastique is based on the premise that Adi Da is an artist with a body of work of significant size and variety, much of it large-scale and technically complex. There is no suggestion sites should be listed merely because they are Adidam sites. Adidam is not an artist: Adi Da is an artist, and the article is a biography of Adi Da, not Adidam. If anyone were to actually try to go down the road to Link Farm, your alarm bells would go off so loudly that editors and Admins would come running from everywhere to prevent it, possibly even the police. I think those alarm bells of yours are going off prematurely again. You should be more patient and less exceedingly brief. The mantra that Da Plastique is purely promotional is a reductionistic ploy aimed at obscuring the informative, explanatory and illustrative character of the site. Every website, including Wikipedia, is 'promotional' to one degree or another. It doesn't mean there are not other functions, including some that might make it an appropriate link.

'Shallow' referred to the research style, and thus informative quality, of the articles at Rick Ross, not to the fact of the link being there. It is because of this scandal-oriented shallowness that I am argueing that readers will not learn more about Adi Da by linking to these news stories. If, as you say, much of the article is actually based on tertiary sources that use Rick Ross, then to me this brings that much more of the article into question.

Wouldn't Eyeserene's comment that "if a site is used as a content reference, it shouldn't also be listed separately as an external link" be applicable more to Rick Ross, and not at all to Da Plastique? Although Rick Ross is not listed as a reference, it is linked to a few times in the Notes, as are a number of its articles. There are thus 3 separate links to some of the articles -the news agency, Rick Ross in the Notes, and the External Link. There are no links at all to Da Plastique. Jason's point about the Venice Biennale review is relevant here, but I still think discussion of, and connection to, his art is disproportionately small in comparison to the 'news' and court cases from 1985. Though it is even given its own section, this section is exceedingly brief, and does not go into detail about his artistic philosophy or provide more than a tiny sample of his work.

On the question of the 'fans', as you refer to them, you originally claimed that Donald Kuspit was the only one and he was worthless anyway. Well, I have given you half a dozen more and now you say that is THE WHOLE LIST (it isn't) and that they too are worthless. I did not take the names from Da Plastique, although I cannot see why it would be a problem if I had. They made the comments voluntarily, they are all respected, independent people, and the comments reflect a deep and sincere appreciation of Adi Da's art. I know nothing I add will convince you -you have drunk the bittersweet brew of implacable resentment- but I would again point out that an alleged insufficiency in mainstream recognition does not necessarily invalidate an artist's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.186.109 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Norm Declavier (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this pop up on my watchlist. Perhaps I was being too circumspect in my attempt to avoid giving the impression that I was 'taking a side' :) Norm has understood me correctly. I was suggesting that a gallery of an article subject's artwork - clearly copyrighted so unsuitable for Wikipedia - is the sort of thing that the "External links" section is intended for. I haven't looked at the site being suggested: there may be other policy-based reasons why it might be unsuitable, but as a gallery (assuming that's what it is) it should be fine. EyeSerene^talk 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"daplastique.com" is an "official adidam site". There are roughly a dozen others, all linked (under "official adidam site links") on the splash page of adidam.org - a site for which a link is provided. If da plastique, why not the dozen others? Hence, the road to "link farm", the threat that Eyeserene has helpfully clarified for us. As I also say above, Adi Da is not an artist with demonstrated independent significance. His art does not warrant undue coverage in proportion to its status - status evaluated by actual secondary coverage (in this case, little to none: again, show me one article or review in a major art periodical or journal), it is not based on our personal opinion. A second link to an Adi Da promotional website is not appropriate.Tao2911 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Above:"Based on Wikipedia policy on external links and the fact that there is a link to some of the art from the article itself and adidam.org I would say that a separate link to the Da Plastique page is not required. Jason Riverdale" There is now a consensus of opinion, with editors from differing viewpoints weighing in and agreeing on this question. I think we're done.Tao2911 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just want to remind Norm D. that this is not the place for a general discussion of the topic, based in unsupported personal biases. Please try to keep your comments brief, to the point, with points supported by independent, secondary sources. Avoid primary sources (any Adi Da websites or books in this case) or clearly promotional materials. Also, since you are an admitted "newbie", perhaps reviewing editing guidelines might be helpful. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason's comment was made before my last contribution and before Eyeserene confirmed that Da Plastique could in fact be an appropriate external link.

Jason, there is no indication either in the article or on the front page of Adidam.org that a site devoted to explanation and illustration of Adi Da's art exists. Why shouldn't it be listed as an external link? Rick Ross is listed though it is linked to several times in the Notes, as are several of its articles via the news agencies. Discussion of, and connection to, his artwork is very small in comparison to the tabloid trivia from 1985.

Tao2911, you seem to be ignoring my comments in relation to 'link farm' and 'promotional' materials, also in relation to my query about multiple links to Rick Ross articles. In fact, you are not engaging with anything I have said, or with anything Eyeserene has said, you are simply parroting your previous remarks and indulging in self-serving, inappropriate advice-giving. Norm Declavier (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seventh Stage

My only disagreement with the current state of the article is in this line: "Relative to this spectrum, Adi Da stated that while some "yogis, saints, and sages" had occasionally indicated some awareness of a "seventh stage", only he as a unique avatar had ever been born fully invested with the capability to fully realize or embody it; furthermore, only he would ever do so."

The source for this line is one of Adi Da's books. Adi Da did not say that no one would ever realize the seventh stage of life. He said that the only way to realize the seventh stage of life is by becoming his devotee and worshipping him. So the common misinterpretation that only Adi Da realized the seventh stage, and thats it for all time is not true. Devotee can realize the seventh stage, only through devotion to Him however. That is the point to emphasize. So this will require a small edit. I will try to find the page that this source is referring to and see how it corresponds. That's my only input for this recent discussion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But Dev, he said again and again that while others could provisionally "participate in His enlightenment" no one would ever, could ever, or ever even have to, achieve full 7th stage realization. It was unique to him, for those coming before or after- he stressed this. Hence why you have to worship him and not someone or something else. you know this. I don't have the quote at hand, but it used to be quoted in this section. This current version is an apt summary of his final message - you left out the "participate in His enlightenment" aspect of the section and page, present in more than one instance.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, this is precisely the point that is not true. Adi Da stated the he was the first seventh stage adept, meaning the first (and thus last) one to reveal that there even is a seventh stage of life, and the first one to realize it or embody it fully. But the entire Way of Adidam is about awakening to the seventh stage of life, through the devotional relationship to Adi Da. That is the premise. If you read about the practice of the Way, you will see that the "Perfect Practice" becomes seventh stage awakening, and then the devotee goes through the four phases of the seventh stage of life (Divine Transfiguration, Divine Transformation, Divine Indifference, and Divine Translation).

Adi Da describes this entire process of his devotees maturing practice, awakening signs, and everything in detail all the way through seventh stage realization. The crux of the matter here is that it is only possible through devotion to Adi Da. No one who is not a devotee could realize the seventh stage, since only Adi Da has realized it, and is the one who forever grants this realization. So that's really the point to bring forth. It is not accurate to say that Adi Da put forth that no one would ever realize the seventh stage of life. There is extensive discussion in The Dawn Horse Testament of devotees entering the Perfect Practice, and then awakening to the seventh stage of life (by his grace of course).

So I will have to insist that this remain accurate. It is very easy to misunderstand, so I am not blaming you or anything.

I don't actually think it IS that complicated. I don't see how the passage now acutally reads differently than what you are saying here...Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is one quote for example: "When the Spiritual, Transcendental, and Divine Process of the only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of the Heart has developed to the seventh stage degree of Full and UNconditional COnscious Realization of the Divine COnscious Light, the Truth of the apparent Cosmos is Divinely Self-Revealed. Thereafter, the the Divinely Self-Realized exercise of the third stage of the Perfect Practice (in the context of the only-by-Me Revealed and Given seventh stage of life) must demonstate the Power and Freedom of the Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Divien Conscious Light--Even (at last) to the degree of Divine Translation." (pg. 1105, The Dawn Horse Testament, 2004 Edition)--Devanagari108 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. Can you try to adjust the passage to make it more accurate - while NOT greatly increasing length or complexity? Bring it here, I'll make my suggestions, and then you can edit the passage?Tao2911 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I am thinking a simple line change would be sufficient. I will propose an edit for you to review soon.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the section as it currently stands, and my suggested edits. The removal of "yogis, and saints" is due to the fact that Adi Da actually only recognizes certain "sages" (i.e., sixth stage realizers) as showing signs of intuiting the seventh stage realization. On The Basket of Tolerance, Adi Da has a category titled "Premonitorily 'Seventh Stage' Literature (Or Texts Which, From The Characteristic Sixth Stage 'Point Of View", Express Philosophical, Or Insightful, But Yet Limited And Incomplete, Intuitions That Sympathetically Foreshadow Some Of The Basic Characteristics Of The Only-By-Me Revealed And Demonstrated And Given Seventh Stage Realization, And Which Texts Also Otherwise Include Only Critical, Or Otherwise, Minimal, Address To The Point Of View, Or The Necessary Progressive Disciplines, Of The First Six Stages Of Life", where he designates specific texts that demonstrate premonitory intuitions of the seventh stage of life. So he does not really recognize any "yogis" or "saints" (i.e., fourth-to-fifth stage realizers) as showing such partial intuitions.

Also, I changed the language to "premonitory intuition of the seventh stage realization" because it is not entirely accurate to say that these sages demonstrated an awareness that there is a seventh stage so much as they demonstrate a philosophical disposition that seems to agree with what Adi Da describes, from his point of view. The stages paradigm is Adi Da's paradigm, not something anyone traditional is working within, so I removed that implication, as if any of the sages were aware of the stages of life, and thus felt that perhaps there "a stage beyond this one" or something.

The passage now reads ""yogis, saints, and sages" had occasionally indicated some awareness of a "seventh stage"" call it intuitive or whathaveyou, they indicated an awareness of it. I got that phrasing right from a secondary source. This is no substantive change! Mere quibbling over nothing.Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also changed "culminating awareness" because it is more accurate to say that "Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi" is what characterizes the realization or state of one who has awakened to the seventh stage, rather than being a "culminating awareness". I additionally expounded upon the meaning of the compound term. The phrase "Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi" is used traditionally (and also by Adi Da) to refer to a sixth stage samadhi as well, so when Adi Da is referring to what he describes as the unique seventh stage samadhi, he places "seventh stage" before it, and often also places "non-conditional" in paranthesis. For that reason, I also added "seventh stage" before the phrase, and gave a translation, since it otherwise just reads like Greek to someone browsing this page.

Again, not a substantive change. In essence, the meaning is the same - plus, this line is from New Religions. We use secondary sources and their analysis. Not yours.Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The final change relates more to the point I brought forth. I think it sufficiently summarizes Adi Da's claims as the seventh stage realizer, and also makes clear that it is in worship of him that others would also realize the seventh stage, and that being the sole means for it to happen. I do not want to make this cumbersome, just accurate, so feel free to suggest some edits, I am not going to post this into the article yet. My intention is to (at some point) create a separate article on the seven stages of life, where this can be explained more fully, and thus linked within this article, leaving this as just a succinct summary.

oh god. Da help us. Frankly, your prose verges on the incomprehensible, I think at least partly due to the influence of Adi Da's books. After months of reading your versions of Da info here, I hate to imagine what an entire page will look like. I say this only for honesty's sake - just please try to always simplify and colloquialize.Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Relative to this spectrum, Adi Da stated that while some "sages" had occasionally indicated some premonitory intuition of the "seventh stage" realization, but that he as a unique avatar had been born in order to reveal and give seventh stage realization to those who would become his devotees.[129] He stated that the seventh stage has nothing to do with development and does not come after the sixth stage in a sequential manner. The realization of the seventh stage is a permanent, natural state of “open-eyed ecstasy", which Adi Da described in traditional terms as "seventh stage Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi", literally meaning "the innate formless samadhi of the seventh stage of life".[130] Adi Da's teaching emphasizes that only he embodies this seventh stage realization, and for that reason is the sole means for others to realize the seventh stage, going beyond the "self-contraction" in devotional worship of him.--Devanagari108 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to find where your actual edited passage was. As usual, your version is awkward and sounds overly esoterically Da-ist. Frankly, I can't see any real improvements, but do notice the awkwardness and over reliance on insider understanding and primary sources, for which we are trying to steer clear (per WP guidelines.) Lines like "which Adi Da described in traditional terms as "seventh stage Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi" are just awkward elaborations of what is already there with no improvement or difference (the description here you describe as "traditional" simply isn't; in fact, it is clearly non-traditional in the very way you use it here)- the current reads simply: "The culminating awareness of this seventh stage is a permanent, natural state of “open-eyed ecstasy", for which Adi Da employed the Sanskrit term Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi". I think the version as it stands is fine, and is certainly much better than this. You once argued that "yogis saints and sages" did not correspond neatly to levels of awareness, so how can only sages intuit the 7th stage? This is not what I think our secondary source said. I say due to this doubt we leave that too. Likewise, your phrasing about them intuiting the 7th stage is in essence not different than what this says already - they indicate, by whatever means, a 7th stage, said Da. As passage now reads. again, I could do this with each point. But I see no necessary improvements here.Tao2911 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In hopes of just heading off a couple of your issues, it was easiest for me to just make a couple tweaks to the passage in question rather than go over them here - please review them, and also carefully read the footnotes from secondary sources used to craft that passage. I think they more than support the version as it now reads, and not your proposed changes. Also, I want to suggest you go back a review your lengthy explications how "yogis saints and sages" do not correspond to specific levels of awareness, which led directly to how the passage now reads. You are now contradicting this. In any case, the passage is clear enough now.Tao2911 (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adi Da/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Y This is not just a good article, it is a very good article. I did read the prior two GA reviews, and with those in mind, I examined the use of sources more carefully than I normally would. Primary sources seem to be carefully used only for statements and beliefs, while secondary sources are used for analysis. I see no Original Research. No other problems are evident. After a few minor fixes, this is an easy pass. Aaron north (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks Aaron for your balanced review, and to all who have worked to get this page into shape over the last couple years. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks much for your review Aaron, and it is good to see the article reach GA after this long haul.. Cheers too Jason Riverdale (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Very happy to see this review from Aaron north. Cheers to Tao and everyone else who worked on this article. It has come a long way, and reading through it just now, it feels more balanced and straightforward than it ever has before.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See also link to "All the world's a stage"?

I was thinking of adding a "See also" link to All the world's a stage, since Jones's "Seven stages of life" may be a reference to Shakespeare's Seven ages of man, which are delineated in the "All the world's a stage" speech. Thoughts? — goethean ॐ 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"...may be a reference..." You answered your own question. This is as simple as simple gets: find a suitable secondary source that makes this connection, and we consider it. If it's just a notion you're having, well, "that dog don't hunt" as they say. Sounds like a bit of a stretch in any case, if possibly an intriguing hypothesis.Tao2911 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

even a quick perusal of the Bard's "7 Ages" (that was not his but a well-known schema of the time) shows little in common other than the # 7. It'd take some acrobatic feats of interp. to extrapolate parallels - which again, possibly no one but you has ever done?Tao2911 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While an interesting conversation Goethean, I do agree with Tao that to find a reference to support this would difficult. The two "systems" also seem more different than similar.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kemper Museum

I don't want to create a big fuss about this, but... I know the Museum well; was even there recently. I recognized the place in a photo of one of Adi Da's pieces months ago. So I called them and asked three different staff members, including a curator. No one knew who the heck he was, nor could anyone find a record of him having exhibited (there are only two rooms in the place, mind you. The Adi Da pic was in the lobby. No one who works there had heard of him? Questions...)

With Adi Da's track record, I assumed his work hung for one night for some sort of fund raiser or something - they rent the place out for such events.

But beyond such conjecture, a gallery press release by nature is unacceptable as a source - especially with Adi Da/Adidam's record of intense self-promotion and this commercial gallery's interest in exaggerating Da's modest exhibition history. Press releases are pure hype by definition (I have written many). I simply ask that you find a better source for this information. Too many questions.Tao2911 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The testimony of an anonymous Wikipedia editor is also unacceptable as a source. — goethean ॐ 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the Tagore Gallery catalog has that picture of the exhibition of the piece (page 7) and it says the exhibition was from "September 2009 - March 2010." That is more than for one night for some sort of fund raiser or something - they rent the place out for such event! And... your calling the Kemper does not constitute a 3rd party source. This is similar to when we had the debate relative to Lowe's book and whether it was self-published.I called the San Antonio College to find out if San Antonio Philosophy Group was a publisher associated with that school. Nobody had heard of that press .... and I talked to several people in various departments and admin. You at that time questioned the validity of that research. So...this looks like a legitimated showing of Adi Da's Work with a reliable source.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@goethean: I'm not saying in any way I am a source. As editors we can check sources and verify their validity. As others, including JR, have done. If questions exist, we ask them. @ JR: again, a press release is not a valid source. If he had a legitimate show at a museum in the last decade, there will be a record on the museum/gallery website, and/or elsewhere. The lack of such mention before caused me to call Kemper. The point here is the question raised. It's a big one. Find a better source, or no way to mention this. (And per your comparison, the difference between a college with thousands of employees and dozens of departments vs. a museum with two rooms and a staff of about 10 is significant. The listing or not of that text did not hinge on your phone call, but on finding listings for it elsewhere. So do that.)Tao2911 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the complete list of the 2009 exhibitions at the Kemper Museum, including those that extended into 2010. Not one mention of Adi Da. Not any show that matches the dates you state (Sept 2009-March 2010). I called before to ask if he was in their permanent collection, and therefore possibly in the "perm. collection" show listed during part of the time you state. He isn't - nor is he in the catalog for that show (staffer checked). Contemporary curator had never heard his name. Nor is he apparently on staff, therefore in the "staff exhibition", the only other show listed during that time. Again, two rooms, two shows. No room for the Da man to have a show too...I'm not calling Tagore a liar, but...something ain't kosher...Tao2911 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia policy goes, your research really doesn't have any bearing on whether the press release is valid as a source. — goethean ॐ 02:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if Tagore is not lying, as you feel he is not... and he is an international gallery owner with three galleries, it looks like, and he states in his catalog,and in his press release, that a piece of Da's work was shown at the Kemper,and also has a picture of that piece shown in the Kemper,in the and says what that piece is, and that it was on display from Sept 2009-March 2010, and as you say he ain't lying, then we have to assume that this is real. I am holding the catalog which I sent away for, looking at page 7 and this is what it says ... original research I know I know, but it really does say all this.

So we can change the language to say "a piece of Adi Da's art was on display" etc etc But clearly it was there.And... a catalog from a reputable gallery owner say this IS a legitimate sourceJason Riverdale (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since you didn't get my sarcasm - Tagore may be lying. Or at least potentially misinformed or misled. WP guidelines state we don't use self-promotional materials. A press release (or gallery promo cat.) is not a secondary source. It is a commercial for a product, no different than a TV advertisement. Advertisements are not acceptable source material. If a source is clearly false or inaccurate, we don't use it. Until you find another independent source confirming that Adi Da showed ANYTHING at that museum, you don't include the mention. A gallery who wishes to increase the artist stature in order to sell his work says it was in a show from such date to such date. There is no evidence that such a show ever occurred! In fact, the opposite - we have the museum refuting any connection. The museum is known to rent space for private events. The museum presents a complete list of exhibitions since they opened, and no show fits the dates Tagore material states. It is entirely too sketchy. "So we can change the language to say "a piece of Adi Da's art was on display"...uh, no, we can't. That is pointedly NOT notable, and in no way independently confirmed (gallery is not secondary source; it is primary, with vested commercial interest.)Tao2911 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and let's get something else clear. Jason, when you read a source (as in your promo. catalog), that is not "original research." That's reading a source - somewhat necessary for what we do here. To Goethean and Jason: when you check a museum website to cross fact-check a source, and then call them for a possible explanation when there is a discrepancy with said source, that is not "original research." That is fact-checking a source. This is what editors do.Tao2911 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Call whomever you want. But your word (or my word, or Jason's word), regarding who you called, and what they said is not admissible to the debate over this article. It's hard to understand how you think that it could. Maybe we could make a list of sources which have been deemed invalid due to Tao2911's detective work. Is that really how you think this works? — goethean ॐ 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You simply don't get it. We take each other's word all the time on texts that we quote (up to a point) - because we can also get those texts and check them. If a source is accompanied by red flags, we check up on it. My calls are only confirmation that the MUSEUM WEBSITE refutes the claim here - that Adi Da had a show there, during the specific time claimed (the initial claim being posited remember was that he had a solo show there.) Simply wishing to see if that source was mistaken, I checked. It wasn't mistaken. No Adi Da, no show during those dates, says website, confirmed by staff at museum. You can check, too. Do your job.

Again, I AM NOT THE SOURCE. There are discrepancies here enough to warrant caution, and non-inclusion of this material at this time. Just using the museum site alone, not to mention Adidam's history of exaggeration and massaging of Da's stature. Forget my calls if you want. As I've said 12 times, find one secondary/tertiary source confirming this show. And I'll be happy to see it included.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's clarify what your argument is... you do say that Adi Da's art was actually in the Kemper I recognized the place in a photo of one of Adi Da's pieces months ago

You question the time it was there from Sept 2009-March 2010 page 7, Sundaram Tagore Catalog ... and that Tagore may be lying about this in his catalog or potentially misinformed or misled Correct?Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You can check, too. Do your job.

My job is not to play Sherlock Holmes. My job is to write an encyclopedia. — goethean ॐ 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Put the pieces together, Jason. I've explained that yes, I recognized a Da piece at Kemper (labeled as such on some Da website.) I was so incredulous that I checked their website to see if he had a show there. When it was clear he didn't, I called to see if there was a mistake. They'd never heard of him, but said they rent the space out for events by way of possible explanation. But that call is extraneous - you say that Tagore says Kemper showed "a selection of Adi Da's art" there. Kemper's own otherwise quite complete website says this never happened. You now want to say that "they displayed one work" based on a photo? That's ridiculous. And THAT is original research. We have no confirmed reason for the existence of that picture. It could have been up for one night. It could be photoshoped. FIND A SOURCE that fixes the discrepancy. Until then, no way.Tao2911 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

and lastly, let's hypothetically say he displayed a single work for some brief amount of time. This is not a notable exhibition worthy of mention in an encyclopedic entry. "One work was temporarily displayed at a tiny midwestern art museum"? That's just silly.Tao2911 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

been out of town with work.. just looked at last entry... ok I will drop this for now unless another source is found.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)