Talk:Adi Da

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAdi Da has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 30, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
September 27, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Untitled[edit]

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!

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Adi Da. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for art exhibition in New York[edit]

Hi Tao, I noticed you removed the sentences about the art exhibition in New York because of a lack of citations or references. As you know it is unusual for an art gallery to keep a full list of exhibitions going back a number of years. Below are a number of sources announcing the art exhibition held at the Tagore Gallery of Adi Da's art. These are non-Adidam sources. Hopefully that will be sufficient to put back a simple sentence about the New York exhibition. Thanks.

https://issuu.com/sundaramtagoregallery/docs/samraj

http://www.sundaramtagore.com/attachment/en/575562f5cfaf34762c8b4568/Press/5755639ecfaf34762c8b7528

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sundaram-Tagore-Gallery/159018997454676

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMT_060UoUY

https://www.artslant.com/ny/events/show/119392-orpheus-and-linead

jasonriverdaleJasonriverdale (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any real evidence of abuse?[edit]

Claims have been made about abuse of followers concerning a number of spiritual leaders, including Adi Da in this article in section Public controversies. Is there any definitive and reliable evidence for or against such claims for Adi Da? Such claims about currently living spiritual teachers should be taken seriously, but should only be acted on if such evidence exists, since anyone with any sort of peeve can make a fraudulent public claim of abuse. Therefore, the existence of such reliable references in the case of Adi Da could be helpful in researching claims about currently living spiritual teachers. David Spector (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the references and footnotes in the article, most of which refer to a few court cases from 1985 that went nowhere, the answer to your question is no. There is no real evidence of abuse anywhere else either as far as I can tell. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't evaluate the cases. We report the sources - which in this case are all highly reliable, secondary and tertiary, and thoroughly vetted. The article accurately reflects the nature of the accusations, the results of the lawsuits, the defenses of the accused, etc. Some devotees are back and actively trying to hagiograph the page again, I see. It has been stable for years, after being heavily reviewed and debated, with admins stamping it a "good" page, which hardly ever happens. Leave it alone.Bearmountainxoxo (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The OP asked whether there was any definitive or reliable evidence of abuse and the answer to that is clearly 'no there isn't'. There are reports in newspapers from the time about civil cases that were dismissed or dropped, and then forgotten about. There has been nothing about these cases since.
Of course we don’t evaluate the cases. In this case, there’s nothing much to evaluate anyway. Who would care enough to evaluate them?
Re "Leave it alone", I'm personally not that interested in changing it, although it is badly written, undue, and so obviously an attempt to insinuate something or other. I tend to think that discerning readers can judge these things for themselves. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]