Talk:Adi Da/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Censorship by Adidam functionaries here!

I have repeatedly added critical material from well-sourced third party sources, as well as critical material sourced from Franklin Jones' own writings. It is all removed by Adidam each time. This is utterly unacceptable! This makes the wikipedia entry dangerously lacking, it is a missionary tool not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.191.243 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to reiterate my criticism of this article. It is a ridiculous puff-piece, nearly complete in its lack of scholarship. I find it astounding that direct quoting or even reference to the lawsuit filed in the 1980's is so hard to squeeze into this article. In the context of a guru supposedl in Sahaj Samadi, this article becomes preposterous. People have a right to be informed. This incessant bowdlerizing of any criticism of this cult leader has no place in a public open encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.208.62 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add stuff from the 1980's news reports. Wikipedia has a policy about articles needing proper sources, especially in biographies of living people. Feel free to ask for clarification if you like. Thanks Comesincolors (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added quotes from the only lawsuit that was not sealed by the court as part of the settlement. Added quotes from Alan Kazlev's interview with a long-time ex-devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.214.117 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my comments below (under the section "Why I fight for critical material"). --Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing Line in Controversies Section

I would like to change the line The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million. [46], to, The church counter-sued for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought $20 million in damages. It is a statement that adheres to the truth more than the minimization of charges does. I am just trying to add more neutrality to the statement, Adi Da and his church were sued by an ex-member for (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery;David Starr 1 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. You are just an adidam cleaner doing your "service" to your "guru" whom you hardly know. The above is not even true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.67.31 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising or proselytizing soapbox

Clarifying the record by including relevant parts of one of many actual lawsuits is relevant. Pointing out that Franklin's belief, expounded in the unexpurgated Knee of Listening, that there are astral beings on the moon that eat souls is a psychotic belief - that is relevant. The book "Stripping the Gurus" is excellent, and highly recommended for anyone thinking of getting into a cult.

Frank is smart. He understands how people work. Your cognitive dissonance is forcing you to re-edit this article over and over again. Oh, well!

These facts will remain online and available. Time to deal with it. Actually, folks, you are really pissing me off to the point where what I am probably going to write and publish will make this bit of the iceberg seem like a love pat. Seriously - the smart thing for you to do is back off. Perhaps a few of you genuinely believe in your guru. If you don't know, time to sit back, time to dig and find out the truth.

You think I'm anti-Frank. Oh, you betcha. Matter of fact, you go tell Frank. You won't though. You're cowards and we all know it. Brainwashed. The only good thing is that most of what you are thinking and doing has nothing to do with Frank. 169.237.214.122 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Nemesis

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And how badly sourced is it David? Let's see - Franklin's own book! The Knee of Listening! Which is cited elsewhere and listed as one of his myriad "works". Oh, yes, that must be false or questionable. What is false and questionable is YOU. You know exactly what you are, and it is vile. You are a coverup man because you are a fanatic. Shut up and learn what Franklin really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.67.31 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

David Starr is a pseudonym for a whitewashing cult member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.60.219 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the insertion of text from a lawsuit into a BLP

The text of the lawsuit would be considered to be a primary source. It would first have to be published by a secondary reliable source. (Lightmind is not considered to be a reliable source. The SF Chronicle is.) This is WP policy. The text of the lawsuit as you have included it is also violates NPOV the text of a lawsuit inherently takes only the plaintiffs POV and is designed to take as extreme a POV as possible.

Also from WP:BLP

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Also from Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

==Are Lawsuits Original Research When Text From Them are Inserted Into BLP's?==

Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but it can inherently violate neutral point of view for exactly the reasons you state. A lawsuit should never be included in a BLP unless it is covered by secondary reliable sources. In such a case, content should be lifted from the secondary source itself, and not the lawsuit. One can still make an external link to the lawsuit in this situation (so long as it's not hosted by an attack site, which is often the case). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also from BLP: Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific Objection to the Use of Negative Distortion in the Controversy Section of the Lead

“Allegations by ex-members of what is now known as Adidam that Adi Da (then known as Da Free John) and some of his followers engaged in financial, sexual and emotional abuses were widely reported in American news media in 1985, [5] [6] including The Today Show. [7] Adidam rejects these allegations [8], acknowledging only a period of "sexual experimentation" that some members had not been told about "because they were not advanced enough spiritually", while conceding that such "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction. [9] Eventually the claims were settled out of court. [10]”

Specifically I object to “that some members had not been told about "because they were not advanced enough spiritually", while conceding that such "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction. [9]

These comments are taken out of context and are paraphrased. And taken as they are, and inserted into the Adi Da entry, only serve to create a further distortion from source material that is not a direct quote.

If you look at the original article, the only actual quote from a church official says "There have been incidents up to the fairly recent past," said Crane Kirkbride, speaking for the Johannine Daist Communion. "And we feel it is our right to experiment into the future. There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced.” The rest of the article as it pertains to concessions by church officials are all paraphrased by the writer Katy Butler and there is use of weasel words.[9]

In regards to the use of the term “spiritual theater”, that term is not explained here in the WP entry as it is in the Chronicle article. So there is no way for someone reading this to know what this actually means.

In regards to the “not advanced enough spiritually” statement, evidently this is not actually what Kirkbride said or this would be in quotes in the article. Once again the writer is extensively using paraphrasing. So the choice to not actually use his quote creates a question as to why.

And the concession that "spiritual theater may have consisted of members having sex in front of others at the gurus instruction is also taken out of context and is not backed up by any actual quotes, but again is simply paraphrased. Also note the use of the weasel word “may” as in “Officials of the group conceded that "spiritual theater" "may" consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction. This weasel word is taken out in the Adi Da entry creating an even further distortion from the original source.

I feel that the responsible treatment here, which would actually be a neutral counter-point to the original inclusion of the “allegations”, would be to use part of the only actual quote from a church official in the article, “ There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced.”

To summarize; I suggest a fair way of handling the controversy section of the lead would be to change it to the following: “Allegations by ex-members of what is now known as Adidam that Adi Da (then known as Da Free John) and some of his followers engaged in financial, sexual and emotional abuses were widely reported in American news media in 1985, [5] [6] including The Today Show. [7] Adidam rejects these allegations [8], acknowledging only a period of "sexual experimentation" saying that “There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced.” [9] Eventually the claims were settled out of court. [10]”

This obviously will not appeal to those seeking to portray a negative bias here about Adi Da. But he is a living person and WP demands that BLP be a fair treatment of the subject matter. In my opinion, using an actual quote as opposed to using Katy Butler’s paraphrasing is also a more responsible way of reporting what was truly said.David Starr 1 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree; reverted accordingly. There is no WP policy suggesting that a direct quote from an Adidam proponent would be required, as you suggest. The San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable source. According to WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." So this should stay. It's unfair not to include well-sourced material (and the article already has way too much self-published Adidam material). The material you propose substituting is just a variation of the existing sentence "Adidam denies these allegations". --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to address the specifics of what I proposed. I spent a lot of time on it and I waited 2 weeks before changing the edit. So perhaps you could address the specifics instead of simply disagreeing and reverting with no discussion. I feel that its a basic matter of style, fairness and neutrality. If the assertion is that Adidam rejects the allegations, then the rest of the sentence should support that.Please discuss the points that I have made, before reverting. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I plainly said above. I explained exactly why I reverted and am going to do so again. The material you want to delete is directly quoted from a reliable source. You have not provided a good reason not to use it: specifically, you have not shown where WP demands that the article quote Adidam representatives directly rather than indirectly. That is my rebuttal to your reply above, and you ignored it, so when you accuse me of reverting without discussion, you're really just doing the thing you're accusing me of doing (see WP:KETTLE.) Additionally, regarding the use of the word "may", WP:WEASEL applies to what editors write, not what sources themselves say. Finally, see WP:BLP regarding unflattering but relevant, verified material. That covers your arguments. Try addressing these counter-arguments rather than falsely claiming I'm not making them.

In fact, the news media articles are considered better sources on WP than self-published Adidam material. The latter are already overrepresented, so we should be relying on good secondary sources more, not less, whether or not they are flattering. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am saying that it is not neutral the way it is now. You are suppressing the POV that is stated in the SF Chronicle “that no one was forced and that no laws were broken” which seems highly relevant given the allegations. So I am saying that the phrasing you are selecting suffer from undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording. Also from WP:NPOV “Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." So based on this I am also reverting. I really am only trying to make the article better by trying to find neutrality and getting away from bias.David Starr 1 (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about your claim that you're reverting because the previous version "suppresses a POV" expressed by an Adidam functionary, when your version does the exact same thing with a slightly different POV from the same source.

• The specific phrase you want to include is this statement: "financial, sexual and emotional abuses "

• The phrase you want to delete is "[a period of "sexual experimentation" that] some members had not been told about "because they were not advanced enough spiritually", while conceding that such "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction."

Why one and not the other? They're both from the same source, on the same topic, and equally relevant to the subject's notability. Remember what he's notable for: he only hit the bigtime (in terms of media coverage) when this stuff broke in 1985. Prior to that, he was fringe city. So he's known mainly for this stuff regarding sexual abuse and exploiting his devotees. Consequently, a large part of the article is going to have to cover this.

So, what I'm proposing is just including both for now. The only reason I can see for omitting the second phrase is simply that it's unflattering. That's not the same as an NPOV (or BLP) violation, and not a valid reason on WP. Indeed, NPOV isn't even about including a single point of view. All verifiable, properly weighted points of view go in. Including those from Adidam cited in mainstream newspapers, whether or not they portray themselves and their guru in a flattering light.

All the stuff in the SF Chronicle articles are much more reliable on WP than any of Adi Da's asserted yogic experiences in his autobiographical works. That's a little bit of a different paradigm than prevails in some quarters. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Comesincolors, you seem to only be happy about a statement that is weighted heavily towards your agenda. What about making Wikipedia better? The controversy section of the lead is supposed to be a brief summary presented in a neutral tone. And again:“Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." You have inserted allegations of financial, sexual and emotional abuses, your right, very unflattering, so there is that point of veiw, I have inserted There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced. There we have a brief and fairly weighted statement showing both sides. Why the need for all the other conflicting statements? Is it becuase there is a need to not have it be balanced so that there can be the advancing of a personal veiw? David Starr 1 (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I don't think that adequately presenting critical material doesn't improve Wikipedia? I'm happy for both criticism and praise to exist side by side on WP if both are well-sourced. I'm happy with the lead as it currently is, more or less, although the rambling (and not wholly accurate) summary of Adi Da'a teaching could use work. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lying Adidam functionaries removing sourced criticism

Reviewing the history, David Star 1 writes that he removed content added to do harm that is libelous and unsubstantiated. This is totally false. He has claimed also that my content was added without discussion. And yet that discussion is right below this article! David Star1 and the rest of the cleaners are bowdlerizing functionaries for Adidam! This article is continuously updated by Adidam religion fanatics to prevent people from knowing the truth! David Star 1 must be blocked from editing this page! This systematic removal of real history is utterly unacceptable! I have also been accused of "vandalism"!

THIS MUST STOP!!!!! People need to know everything about Franklin! Not just his own self-adulating drivel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.122.196 (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate Group Agenda Being Propagated Here

This article is being destroyed by hate group propagandizing in a way that can only be found historically in the Fatty Arbuckle case of the early 1900's. The person below continually is using this discussion page to spread libelous assertions. I have recently removed this persons libel in the past but I am leaving this material here for now and I ask, is anyone interested in Wikipedia being fair and balanced?

It is really beyond the pale to try and define someone by a decades old lawsuit. You could just as well call it an extortion attempt as there was a lawsuit also filed by the church claiming this as well. Unless you want to completely destroy an almost already incomprehensible lead section by including both points of view, then we must get rid of the lawsuit there and really try to make the lead section better as it really dismal right now in my humble opinion. I also think this whole entry should be way scaled down. Its just too long and self-serving. Also, if we are going to have Mark Miller’s lawsuit here then we must have the churches also. Both the pro-daist rhetoric and anti-daist rhetoric are destroying this article. I suggest editors take a look at the Roman Catholic Church entry as it is similarly religious and controversial and hated by some yet this entry is considered by Wiki staff to be a very good example of the perfect entry. That entry is protected and does not mention any of the thousands of lawsuits against the church anywhere, not to mention in the lead section.

So what-up editors? Are you interested in creating a good encyclopedic entry that really defines Adi Da, or is it just going to be a polarized hack-job between two competing agendas? There is definitely a great deal of evidence thus far that there is a polarization here that is about the hate group continuing it‘s campaign of negativism and myth-making relying on the 1985 lawsuit/extortion attempt as their sole centerpeice.David Starr 1 (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool the Adidam derived PR rhetoric about a "hate group", a illusory, defamatory and diversionary claim from a group that by its own admission withheld critical information from those outside an inner circle, and whose revisionism of fact is proven and constitutes documented mythology. Comparison with the Catholic Church and lawsuits against priests is bogus logic, for one thing, since only a few priests are so accused where here is is the "Promised God Man". Even a comparison you did not make, if hypothetically the Pope himself was being so accused, which would justify similar coverage in an article, gets closer; but even that is not a full comparison. Here the allegations are published and credible and made against the equivalant of what is in Judeo-Christian terms a self-claimed Messiah (basically what an Avatar is in western terms), and published accounts come from credible former members who left as early as 1973 and as recently as 2002. Whereas there are now a small, minority group of long time devotees who stayed, compared with the 90% who left voting with their feet, claiming only their skewed version of what happened is correct when such belief is a litmus test for involvement. True, newer converts may well think the accounts of those who stayed are a majority opinion, an argument being used as long ago as 1975 after the post Garbage and Goddess defections, but they are not. The lawsuits are what Adi Da is most widely noted for, like it or not, and were settled to avoid Adi Da having to testify under oath, and occur in the context of a long history of similar accounts. That being said, however, and despite what actually happened in the inner circle which was far worse than anything in print, and despite the obvious absurdity of Australian advocates claiming to know anything about what really happened, the article must stay enclopedic. Assuming good faith, you may really believe there is a hate group, but that is your belief. Make your point without engaging in hate speech yourself.--Dseer (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, so “Lying Adidam Functionaries” is just fine, but “Hate-Group Propaganda” is a foul”. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are inappropriate on talk pages and distract from substance. BTW, Dseer is right that the lawsuits are highly notable: maybe not the single most notable issue, but at the highest tier of notability for this subject. That is based on sources, not opinion. The best sources we have (secondary ones, per WP:SOURCES) all cover the lawsuits. That's why the article gives them salience. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

David, no need to misrepresent what I stated. I asked you to "make your point without engaging in hate speech yourself" because you asserted without any evidence there is a hate group and I do think you have a legitimate point. "Lying Adidam functionaries" was not endorsed, and is inappropriate also. Outide of that being a personal attack, evidence you are knowingly asserting what is false or are an Adidam functionary doing so is lacking in any case. What I am pointing out is that the person making these characterizations can show it is a documented fact that Adidam admitted it did not did not disclose significant information regarding the nature of activities around its guru to much of its membership, let alone potential converts, from 1977 through April 1985, and over those years presented a false picture of a renunciate guru who ceased the practices in 1976 later shown to have continued until the revelations. This admission only came only after the allegations became public from multiple defectors who were in a position to know, allegations consistent with multiple published accounts by ex-members, whose private accounts are much worse than what is published, and which Adidam settled for a sum of monies rather than refute the accounts in court. "Lying" is an inppropriate word to broadly describe editors here, but that Adidam was not truthful during that period is fact, while the hate group agenda claim has no evidence other than Adidam PR to support it. It is obvious that anyone who was not involved and present at the Northern California location during the period prior to the allegations surfacing who makes claims about a hate group and extortion is simply choosing to believe and repeating what they have been told about what happened by the minority of those still actively involved of those who were active at one time or another between 1974 and 1985, including the Australian group editing here. --Dseer (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dseer, since you are not on the receiving side of the anti-Daist hatred, I can see why you would be so offended by the term hate group. But much of that hatred can be seen right here on this talk page. Here's a few for you. "You're cowards and we all know it. Brainwashed." "This article is continuously updated by Adidam religion fanatics to prevent people from knowing the truth!" "THIS MUST STOP!!!!! People need to know everything about Franklin! Not just his own self-adulating drivel! " And thats just the stuff I left on here. The hatred and rumor mongering and myth making from Lightmind has inflamed many many people. And including the lawsuits, with little or no verifiability. And now many fans of Adi Da are ritually abused in print. I think it would be best if we just stick to discussions about the article and not get into personal attacks and rants about how awful you think Adi Da is. Also, I would appreciate if I weren't referred to as Adidam. I have no formal affiliation with Adidam and I am an individual. Thanks.David Starr 1 (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to pay attention to what I actually wrote. I did not refer to you as "Adidam", I referred to attributable and evidenced assertions about Adidam from varied sources over a long period that significantly reflect on its credibility, while pointing out there was no evidence you were an Adidam "operative" or knowingly lying. My other point is that you are not being helpful in not acknowledging that in stating there is a hate group you are simply acting on a belief that assumes that these allegations have no validity, based on the views of a population of advocates that is a small minority of the totality of those involved during the controversial period up to the lawsuits. Unless you were actually sufficiently involved during the most controversial period in question to make assessments of relative credibility, you have no way of knowing whether the allegations are true, and if they were and Adidam was totally deceptive in that regard, the attitude of some editors would be understandable and not just an irrational hate group, even if unencylopedic. You see lots of similar language from former members of many charismatic groups and often their charges have at least some validity. Sticking with Wikipedia guidelines is sufficient, no need to make such assumptions about a hate group. --Dseer (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP, hate speech is defined as: speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

Therefore, hate speech is speech intended to degrade someone based on their religion. To call me a coward, or a liar or to say I’m brainwashed is not hate speech. To call me a coward, or a liar or to say I’m brainwashed because of my religion is hate speech. And the reason for this my dear friend is because peoples religious beliefs are those beliefs that they hold most dear to their heart. So to be abusive towards me because of my religion, as has happened to me many, many, times at Lightmind and here on this talk page, just in the past few weeks, is classic hate speech. (It cuts to the very core of those on the receiving end of it.) And a group of people organized around a website who ritually support the denigration of those associated with the religion of Adidam are, I’m sorry to say it, a hate group.David Starr 1 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Every exploitative group calling itself a religion whines "hate group" when its abuses are outed. Poor, threatened cult leaders living on their tropical islands. Cue the world's tiniest violin. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New Tags and removing lawsuit from lead section

It’s quite clear that there is a very strong anti-Adi Da agenda being supported here. I can’t find any support for including a decades old lawsuit in a lead section in a BLP. The idea that Adi Da is best known for that lawsuit is an opinion, not a fact. I stand firmly against this un-neutral stance of including the lawsuit in the lead when it already is well covered in the controversies section. The fact that it is in the lead is evidence of editors here having a bias against Adi Da. For this I am submitting a neutrality tag. Also 128.120.52.38 postings of libelous assertions in the talk page which have been allowed to stand without deletion against WP policies are strong evidence of this persons conflict of interest here using WP to further libelous assertions and editing the Adi Da page at the same time. So while this type of editing continues I am submitting the COI tag. I am also submitting the unbalanced tag for including the lawsuit in the lead section, and for lack of balance in the controversies section. Please do not remove these tags until these disputes are settled.

Here’s some facts for you regarding other BLP articles affiliated with religious groups that have been sued and how that lawsuit is never included in the lead :

Swami Kriyananda as Ananda Church of Self Realization sued by clients of Ford Greene and lost to the tune of $1.6 million for fraud, coercion, and sexual exploitation. No mention in the lead section, only in the controversies section.

Maharishi University of Management founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi sued federally in US District court for failing to protect it’s students after 2 stabbings one resulting in death. No mention whatsoever of this on that Wiki page.

Church of Scientology loses $39 million lawsuit for fraud. No mention of this in the lead section.

Rick Ross found guilty of conspiracy to violate the civil right to freedom of religion of Jason Scott. Ordered to pay more than $3 million in damages. No mention in the lead section, only in the “cases” section.David Starr 1 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, welcome to Wikipedia. A comment about talk page guidelines: please add new sections at the bottom, not at the top (just as new comments go under old comments within sections). I will try and rearrange the page accordingly and archive it. My comments below refer to various guidelines on Wikipedia; it may sound a bit jargon-filled, but it's just stuff that all editors gradually become familiar with.

Please read WP:LEAD, which explains why the lawsuits belong in the lead section here. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as newspaper articles. The lawsuits were extensively covered. The fact that they happened in 1985 doesn't make them less notable. See Bill Clinton; his impeachment is mentioned in the lead, even though it happened well over a decade ago.

I'm not familiar with the lawsuits of other religious figures that you mention. Maybe there's a good reason to exclude them in those cases, or maybe they actually should be included, but have been kept out by groups of determined editors; who knows? Anyway, here it's a matter of how much weight we give to sources. Secondary sources (e.g. news media) have more weight than primary sources (e.g. self-published Adidam material). For more on that, please read WP:SOURCES.

Regarding COI, please read WP:COI. Just because you believe an article is unbalanced is not sufficient reason to assume a COI exists. There needs to be evidence that an editor's real-life affiliations are affecting the article at the expense of WP policy, and there has been no evidence of that. I'm removing the COI tag. The neutrality tag is fine, but the unbalanced tag is just redundant. We don't need to clutter up articles with tags. thanks, Comesincolors2 (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I fight for critical material

The inner circle within Adidam is VERY good at lying, covering up, manipulating and spinning. Very, very few people inside Adidam have a clue what has really happened. They just don't know. That is why it is I am so adamant about making sure that at least some of the critical material is included, and sourcing it from where it can be sourced. Yes, it is true that Beverly O'Mahoney's material and Jackie's got sealed. So critical material needs to stay. It will help educate people inside Adidam among other things. I strongly suspect that the primary motive of the inner circle for pressing so hard on this Wikipedia entry is that they really don't want the membership to get clues and start poking around or asking questions. Yes, most people involved in Adidam are great folks. They are some of the kindest, most generous people one can find. But that doesn't mean that Franklin is a saint. What he is is very complicated from some points of view, but simple from others.

I am traumatized to some degree. But I have to do this. No, Mark Miller was no saint either. But he didn't lie, and the salient points of that lawsuit NEED to be quoted.

Also, I have, so far, left the adidam supplied stuff alone. While obnoxious, the fact that this is there is something I can live with - but there must be a section that has serious criticism of Franklin. 128.120.52.38 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Dave

Regarding critical material: we need to adhere to policy whether the material is critical or not. Quoting from lawsuits is generally OK, within reason, if the lawsuits were covered by media (which they were in this case). Still, better to quote from the newspaper articles than to cut and paste whole slabs of the lawsuit. The Kazlev stuff is at best borderline; I'm not sure that site qualifies as a reliable secondary source. Same with Falk; I think that book is self-published. (Whatever; even if it doesn't go in Wikipedia, all that stuff is still accessible via Google, and someone stupid enough not to google probably deserves to join a cult.) --Comesincolors2 (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I am going to remove the wholesale inclusion of text of the plaintiffs complaint from the entry as per dicussuions here and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.David Starr 1 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Text of lawsuits is what gives newspapers license to publish. People deserve to see this. You are just giving license to an Adidam cleaner to remove material. No, people don't go google everything under the sun. They come to Wikipedia and expect it to have reasonable links to relevant material.

Miller Suit Covered by Reliable Source?

I’m not finding any reliable source for the Miller suit. It’s my understanding that this is required by WP policy for inclusion in the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. This is just licensing of Adidam cleaners to get rid of things they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.169.172 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Feuerstein Material From “Life” Section

Besides the fact that it seems like Feuerstein is a critic and I think his writing uses insinuation to create bias, (see WP:NPOVT, Insinuation), for people who are relatively unknown, such as Adi Da, (meaning that he does not fit the category of a well-known public figure), WP:BLP says: “editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability.” (See WP:NPF) I don’t believe Adi Da’s health issues are relevant to his notability. Neither are his children. So I removed the Feuerstein material from the life section based on this policy. Also WP:HARM says: Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. David Starr 1 (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your second point first: Mainstream media includes books. Feuerstein's Holy Madness is, in fact, a book available anywhere in the world where there is an internet connection and mail. As soon as Feuerstein's book was published, that information entered into the mass media along with all the stuff from the SF Chronicle and so on. I don't see the violation of WP:BLP or WP:HARM here.

On your first point: Is the material relevant to his notability? Indeed it is, just as similar verifiable, widely-disseminated information about any controversial would-be guru is relevant. According to the best secondary sources we have (newspaper articles, Today Show, Feuerstein, Wilber, Lane), Adi Da is most notable for being a controversial guru who was embroiled in scandals involving exploitation of his devotees as well as his personal, addictive excesses. That's a simple fact, from those sources. So if such sources discuss his paranoia or personal excesses in the context of his would-be guruship, let alone basic biographical information like his having three kids, that should go in.

Again, material should not be deleted just because it's unflattering. It's a massive NPOV violation to gloss over such material when it is verified and relevant to the subject's notability, as is the case here. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream media or mass media is a term used to denote a section of the media specifically envisioned and designed to reach a very large audience such as the population of a nation state." So no, even though it is a book, it doesn't even come close to qualifying unless it had sold millions of copies. Just becuse it is a book it isn't "mass media". Also, Adi Da is most notable for being a spiritual teacher, so material relevant to this specifically would be in alignment with WP:NPF. If he were some type of a health and fitness expert, then his medical problems would be relevant, and if he were a very famous person then his children and his medical problems would be relevant. Also the Feuerstein quote is quite communicative of his bias against Adi Da, so it violates WP:NPOV.David Starr 1 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that books aren't mass media, but I see your point that some forms are more "mass" than others. However, isn't this portion of the Feuerstein quote relevant to his notability as a guru? "...he announced to his devotees worldwide that their lack of support and devotion were killing him—a complaint he made on several previous occasions." And I'm puzzled why information about his having children is somehow off-limits. I think some of these issues can be discussed in an article RfC once we narrow then down. --Comesincolors2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Today Show quotes; what subject is notable for

Expanding on my comments just above re Feuerstein, the Today Show quotes that I added are absolutely fair game. The material is central to his notability. The secondary sources we have for this article are:

• Newspaper articles covering 1985 controversies
• Today Show on same
• Scholarly types like Feuerstein and Lane (and would-be scholarly types like Wilber) talking about Adi Da, frequently in reference to the above

That pretty clearly establishes what he's notable for: being a controversial guru who was embroiled in lawsuits and allegations of abuse. Not being a world-teacher or a yogi or getting a merit badge from Muktananda or being a great artist. Under WP:HARM, this material is not a BLP violation. It is certainly well-sourced. Not including it requires a better reason than complaining that it is controversial and wasn't discussed before adding. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying the scandals are the only thing for which Adi Da is notable. Feuerstein and Wilber (and even David Lane) also say he's written some lucid, insightful books and so on. But the scandals are certainly one of the most significant things, and very probably the most significant thing in terms of coverage and weight given in the secondary sources. That's a straightforward conclusion that any editor can make. From that, it's obvious that a significant part of the article should cover the scandals in significant detail. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: my reversion, please see above info box which states: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." As this was not done, I had no choice. Re: The material you added. WP:HARM is a guideline, not an official policy. It appears that your edits are a violation of WP:NPOV. Also your assertion that Adi Da is most known for the 1985 allegations is only your opinion and you cannot prove this as it is unverifiable.

Hi Comesincolors. My apologies for reverting/undoing your material as I know that you probably spent a lot of time on it and I do not mean to be disrespectful to you, or your time and energy. As you know this article is both “controversial” and “under dispute” for neutrality, so thanks for bringing your edits to the talk page.

Obviously your point of view deserves to be heard, but it has to be done in a neutral way. WP:NPOV says: “Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.”

There are two sides to every story. Even the Today show report, as biased as it was, gave some time to the other side. In your expansion and renaming of the “Controversies” section, you have only added detail and weight to the allegations, but you have added nothing regarding the church’s defense. Including the other side of the story would add more detail to the allegations of extortion, abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, a smear campaign, [[1]] why the judge said there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, why there were demands for money before the suit by the ex-members, etc. etc. etc. If you don’t include these details as well then it would seem that the scales tip and neutrality is lost as only your POV is given weight which is that Adi Da is a destructive cult leader. And the POV that “disgruntled ex-members” as the Chronicle put it, might have an axe to grind and were just out for money, that POV is not represented or it is suppressed.

So I am tagging that section with a neutrality tag for now, and if expanding this section is how you want to proceed, then I will have to work on your expansion of that section to try and bring both sides of the argument to bear, or I will revert it based on the fact that it suffers from undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view. My question to you is, is this what we want? An expansion of both sides of this controversy? Also your title of “Lawsuits and allegations of abuse by former followers” is already a violation of NPOV as it is exclusive to one side of the story only. It would have to be something like, “Lawsuits and allegations of abuse by former followers and allegations of extortion and a smear campaign by Adidam”. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, David, re discussing substantial additions in light of the "controversial" tag above. My apologies for overlooking that. I'd also like to say that you are doing a magnificent job of learning and applying WP policies and being civil in the process. If everyone behaved that way, WP would be a joy to edit.

Yes, WP:HARM is a guideline, but it is one that specifically clarifies a policy, WP:BLP. So what I mean is that the content I'm adding is appropriate under WP:BLP, especially those aspects of BLP you mentioned above regarding Feuerstein material.

Speaking of policies, you are correct regarding the relationship of NPOV and VER, but we disagree on the "undue weight" aspect of NPOV, as I'll explain. Indeed, my edit was intended to restore NPOV to that section. Have a look at the earlier version: It has quotes from Ford Greene (speaking of the cases' outcomes), two Adidam spokespeople, and a Feuerstein citation of Adi Da himself. Notice what's missing: quotes from any ex-devotees involved. It seems proper to include those views, doesn't it? Especially given that the Today Show focuses on them? I don't see how your criticism of non-neutral fact selection follows, given that fact.

Of course we can include Adidam responses as well; it simply seemed to me that the material that's already there was perhaps a little more lucid than Bakker's and Lesser's comments. Also, as far as advancing a personal view goes, I have no idea what you mean, given that my edits stuck close to secondary sources. "Advancing personal views" refers to views of WP editors, not views of Adidam critics or supporters that are cited in reliable sources.

Determining proper weight can be complex, but I think it can be done fairly easily here. Per WP:WEIGHT (a subsection of NPOV), "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So all we have to do is see to what degree various views have been represented in reliable sources, and structure the article accordingly. As I mentioned above, I believe a reading of those sources shows that the 1985 scandals are a prominent (perhaps the most prominent) aspect of Adi Da's notability.

So of course we can and should include multiple sides to the story, but it has to be in proportion to which those views are already represented in reliable sources, particularly secondary sources. That's why your proposal for changing the section header is problematic; it represents a false equivalence given that secondary sources have covered ex-dev complaints far more than Adidam's attempted rebuttals. I'm not saying exclude it, but I am suggesting that it shouldn't be weighted nearly as much. The prominence of various views in the few secondary sources we have at hand isn't very hard to determine objectively. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So I revamped the section. I used the “Article structure” section from WP:NPOV which says: "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Examples that may warrant attention include:

"Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;

Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue; or

Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints."

So based on this I removed the bullet-points and also returned the name of the section to “Controversies”, for NPOV. I found it difficult to retain all of the allegations that you had included without sounding totally POV. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As a title, how about "Lawsuits and allegations of abuse"? That's fairly precise and encompasses both sides.

Agree re article structure and avoiding "segregation" of text and content, but that's not license to trample on paragraph structure. It's confusing to alternate "he said" - "she said" statements, particularly when some of those statements are all slight variations on the same Adidam lawsuit/rebuttal and all sourced to the same article. Having discrete paragraphs, successively presenting POV's, is clearer. I've retained the substance of the Adidam rebuttals, removing outright repetition, and combined them into the subsequent paragraph.

I strongly disagree that the quotes from the Today Shows (the ones that had been bullet-pointed) should have been deleted. The article as a whole is far too heavily weighted toward Adidam's POV's, cf. self-published sources. We can and should cover POV's to the extent that they are salient in reliable sources. I've restored those quotes, omitting the bullet-point highlighting which I agree can appear non-neutral. Finally, I moved the Ford Green quote re settlements down, approximating the chronology. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure about your view that the material on the subject of a BLP should be balanced by criticism of that subject to achieve NPOV. I think that’s against policy. WP:BLP says:

“The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.”

So I left all of the claims that you felt strongly should be added. I added some beef to the church side of the story in order to compensate for those claims, and I put them in a paragraph instead of splitting them into two. Also I feel very strongly that it would be irresponsible and biased to subject the reader to these claims without first allowing the reader all of the information available about those claims. Otherwise these claims only serve a particular bias and POV.

I don’t agree with the naming of this section or the amount of claims that you have sourced, but I am not going to change it. I feel this section is fairly balanced the way that it is. Also I feel that the lead section summary of controversies needs to be updated again. So I will want to do that as well. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - The naming of the section is not a big deal for me. Please feel free to change it back if you like. I think I remember reading something about discrete "criticisms" sections being poor form, but I can't find it.

Regarding BLP concerns about giving a "disproportionate amount of space to critics", remember that "disproportionate" is measured relative to what reliable sources say. The vast majority of our secondary sources establish that Adi Da is notable as a guru who was involved in abuse scandals ca. 1985. That is arguably the main thing he's notable for, and certainly a major thing. The newspaper articles and Today Show go into that stuff in detail, so there is no BLP violation in sourcing views therein in proportion to their coverage. We simply report the sources and let the facts speak for themselves.

Covering Adidam's response is entirely appropriate, and you've done a good job of summarizing it. However, it is not the case that every sentence describing a critical view necessarily has to be "balanced" by a pro-Adidam sentence (and correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the trend of your edits). Rather, per WP:WEIGHT, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I'm pretty sure that you've about maxed on the Adidam responses, whereas there is a whole lot of critical ex-er material that we haven't yet included.

In other words, I think we should be careful of false equivalence. The Adidam counter-suit did not receive as much media coverage as the criticisms of ex-members, and the article (and lead) should reflect that. I understand that you believe anything greater than a 1:1 ratio of critical ex view to Adidam view seems un-neutral, but I believe that the above quote from WP:WEIGHT demonstrates otherwise.

Finally, there is still a lot of Adidam-sourced material that should be pruned, per WP:SOURCES, which says articles should not mainly be based on primary sources. Do you have any ideas on how to proceed? And on how to summarize Adidam teaching more accurately in the lead? The centrality of the guru, a primary theme from "Method of the Siddhas" all the way to "The Promised God-Man Is Here", is kind of underplayed, isn't it? --Comesincolors2 (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Comesincolors, Can you show me where it says BLP critic proportion is only measured by what reliable sources have to say? With all due respect, I am not editing by adding pro-Adidam statements. I am only trying to bring balance to the claims that are being added so that it's balanced and not just simply biased. If I don't add the stuff I'm adding, then the claims have to go because of bias. It is my understanding that what I am doing is in line with what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. I believe that prominence has to do with the prominence of a particular view, not the amount of coverage a particular view was given. There's a difference. In the case of flat earth vs. round earth, it's an easy call, but here I think it's impossible to know which view is more prominent. Also NPOV says: When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. The Today Show didn't even mention that there were charges of extortion and that one of the people in their report making allegations was part of that alleged conspiracy. Also you mentioned in your edit summary keeping the section chronological. Didn't the claims and lawsuit for extortion come before the Today Show report? David Starr 1 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) To answer your points in order:

• Can you show me where it says BLP critic proportion is only measured by what reliable sources have to say? -- When WP:BLP doesn't change, qualify or clarify basic policies like NPOV and VER, those policies apply to BLP articles just as they do to any other article. Thus, again, per WP:WEIGHT, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So, let's look at our secondary sources: newspaper articles, Today Show, Wilber, Feuerstein. What is prominence of reports on Adidam's views that critics were engaged in a smear campaign, extortion and so on? Moderate; it's in a few articles. What is the prominence of reports of what ex-members say? In nearly all of them.

• I am only trying to bring balance to the claims that are being added so that it's balanced and not just simply biased. - The key issue here is that balance and bias issues can be assessed according to fairly objective criteria: the prominence of various views in reliable sources. Do you disagree that that is the criterion we should use, per WP policy?

• I believe that prominence has to do with the prominence of a particular view, not the amount of coverage a particular view was given. There's a difference. In the case of flat earth vs. round earth, it's an easy call, but here I think it's impossible to know which view is more prominent. - It's an easy call for flat v. round earth because (a) everyone knows, and (b) all reliable sources say round. Here, the issues aren't well-known at all, but we do have a finite number of sources to look at.

• Also NPOV says: When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page ... The Today Show didn't even mention that there were charges of extortion - Omission is not contradiction. I don't recall any substantive disagreement about basic facts in the news articles at all. They all pretty much reported aspects of the same thing: allegations of abuses by ex-members, Adidam's responses, and various facts about Adidam and Adi Da.

• Also you mentioned in your edit summary keeping the section chronological. Didn't the claims and lawsuit for extortion come before the Today Show report? - I'm not sure, but you're not addressing my other point, which is: style and NPOV matter. Edits like this, which split up paragraphs and put Adidam's response before the substance of the critical allegations, read as spin. Along the same lines, this edit, a revert, has no edit summary; can you explain your preference?

Finally, I'm quite puzzled by this edit to the lead. I understand your desire to properly cover Adidam's claims in their countersuit, but you've eliminated two more mass-media-sourced statements that are germaine to the article, including substantive material from both Adidam and critics. How is that balanced, or an improvement?

I understand that you may not like seeing prominent statements in the article that appear to trash Adi Da, but please understand that it's true that some highly unflattering material did appear in the mass media in the '80's, and it's WP's obligation to let the facts speak for themselves. And I'd again urge you to consider that balance, on WP, isn't in the eye of the beholder, and doesn't involve balancing every "he said" with a "she said". It's assessed relative to weight given in sources. We have a finite number of sources to assess. Shouldn't be that hard. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I apologize for the lack of edit summary. My mistake. I changed the controversy summary in the lead to better summarize the contents of the controversy section in the article according to weight, I.E. the info about keeping sex practices secret was a separate incident of reportage that was a much smaller issue than the 2 lawsuits. And so that is now reflected in the controversies section of the article by the inclusion of more of the allegations by both sides. It is my understanding that the mention of controversy in the lead is supposed to be summary in nature. I disagree that I have eliminated any statements as those statements still exist in the controversies section of the article.

As far as the idea that negative coverage of Adi Da outweighs neutral coverage of Adi Da is really just an opinion right now as one would have to prove that statement somehow definitively. It can’t be done just by analyzing headlines. One might be able to do it by analyzing each article and defining a paragraph as either critical, neutral, or off-topic and then tally it up. But as I see it, it’s not that cut and dry because many of the articles which talk about the allegations also contain a lot of information that is simply neutral. So I don’t think we can definitively say at this point that the view of reliable sources is prominently critical. Also Wilber would not be a reliable source unless it is in print. I have found it difficult to locate Feuerstein’s updated book but I did find it available directly from the publisher today, so I will get that. I disagree that I have a problem with negative statements being made about Adi Da. I am only about making sure that the accounting is not biased one way or the other. That’s also what Wikipedia asks for as well. I do appreciate your candor however. But I really believe that all of the info should be out there and available as long as it is done responsibly.

So to be clear I object to the use of prominence criterion that has not been defined or proven. If it is simply an opinion that reliable sources are mostly negative, then no. Also WP:NPOV says: Verifiability is only one content criterion .….. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.” So if I am reading this right, sourcing is only one criterion, undue weight and the facts selected being neutral seem to be mandatory by WP standards. Undue weight isn‘t just about prominence of a viewpoint in reportage. Thanks David Starr 1 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilber's web-published stuff is fine from Shambhala, which publishes his books. I was able to find Feuerstein via inter-library loan.

We seem to be going in circles about undue weight. You say "Undue weight isn‘t just about prominence of a viewpoint in reportage." What else is it about, then? Please cite policy. WP:WEIGHT is clear that weight is assessed from reliable sources. What other standard would you propose? The section you quote from NPOV refers to the same principle: one can't just say that because something appears in a source, it should be included; one has to consider principles such as undue weight, which are assessed by looking at all sources. Then one includes views "in proportion to the prominence of each". I'm not saying this means we should turn the article into a negative coatrack for Adi Da's misconduct, but we do need to base the article on what has been reported, and not assume that just because X said one thing, we have to "balance" that by Y's counterargument: we only do that if X's and Y's views are equally reported in reliable sources. If X's views are reported significantly more, tit-for-tatting with Y's view isn't acceptable. Does that make sense? I agree with you that assessing weight is not trivial, but it's not that hard either given how few sources we have in this case. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd reiterate that we need to be careful about what we think is "balance". Above, you wrote, regarding critical claims, "Also I feel very strongly that it would be irresponsible and biased to subject the reader to these claims without first allowing the reader all of the information available about those claims." In this edit summary, you described your edit as "balancing, sourced statements woven into previously added critical material." This edit was similar. These are good examples of violating NPOV's Fairness of tone.

Consider what the article would look like if we did that elsewhere. Following your example in this edit, we might reword the second paragraph of the lead as:

"Adi Da's teaching is summarized as follows: suffering is the result of the (false) presumption of separateness. In media reports in 1985, however, former members argued that Adi Da's conduct has little to do with his teaching, and that following him caused them more suffering than it alleviated. According to Adidam, the assumption of separateness forms the basis of all conventional human activity, and must be undone..."

Do you think it would be proper to make that edit with the justification that "it would be irresponsible and biased to subject the reader to these claims without first allowing the reader all of the information available about those claims"?

I think it's pretty obvious that the answer is no, and the reason is clearly stated at NPOV: Fairness of tone. Obviously, this principle should apply to all sides. Also, fairness of tone and undue weight don't contradict each other. If one view is covered in sources less than another view, each can still be given a fair presentation without spinning and caveating from the other side.

Up until now, the article has been slanted heavily toward Adidam's side, relying heavily on self-published Adidam sources, which plainly violates WP:SOURCES. There was an article RfC in September 2007 in which it was agreed that the article needs to rely more on secondary sources. (Link here.) We're moving somewhat in that direction, and I expect a great deal more material from news media to be added. I hope we can find agreement on ground rules, like fairness of tone and undue weight, as we go forward. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Message to 128.120.60.219

I reverted your material because basically it was vandalism, or you haven't read the talk page. To be honest with you, I actually hate the whole book section that you deleted, and if you bring it to the talk page, maybe we can come to a consensus. The rest of it was against Wiki policies so far as I could tell, but maybe if you try and bring your edits to the talk page and actually keep it about the edits and not go into a whole personal thing like calling me an Adidam cleaner, etc. (yawn) But thanks for that, if your trying to be funny, then LOL. Otherwise, if it's just about vandalism, then you should give this a read: seeWikipedia:Vandalism David Starr 1 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) This is not about vandalism. What is vandalism is the wholesale removal of material time after time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.169.172 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Second message to 128.120.60.219

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Adi Da. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Balanced Presentation?

I haven't paid much attention to this page, or the general Adidam debate, for a few years, but I notice that a whole lot is being left out on both sides of the aisle. This whole page seems very much watered down and has a number of factual errors in it, and at this point seems like a puff piece on Adi Da. Having been both a very active devotee of Adi Da's, and a very prolific critic of his, I'd like to try an edit which gives a fairly balanced, factual presentation of both Adi Da's life, and the controversies surrounding him. If anyone has any input they'd like to give me in the process, please feel free. I'd like to put a new, more detailed piece together, and substitute it in whole for the present piece, which simply isn't worth trying to improve. It could at least be a sound basis for further edits and discussion about what belongs and what doesn't. I can be contacted here or by email if anyone wishes to help out. Conradg@gmail.com

````Conrad Goehausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conradg1207 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the page needs a rewrite. I support this effort. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Conrad, welcome to Wikipedia. I think it would be great to have you as an editor here. Regarding your proposition, if the page were an improvement by Wikipedia standards, abiding by all of the policies of Wikipedia, more fair, and more balanced, then great. But Conrad, you are an avowed critic of Adi Da and you express your bias here by saying this article, which currently does it's best to abide by Wikipedia standards and policies, is a "puff piece". As far as I can tell this article is a work of consensus and cooperation. A critic will not like everything about it, either will a proponent. I think it would be rather presumptuous of anyone to attempt to rework the article in total, but particularly someone who is a critic. Wouldn't it be very difficult to maintain an impartial approach? Why not try re-working a section and see how that goes. For starters, you say this article contains inaccurate material. Why not address those inaccuracies here on the talk page? I also take issue with your statement that the current article isn't worth improving. I strongly disagree with your stance here. This is a controversial subject. I think the idea of reworking it on the side would be a way of avoiding the transparency and cooperation on neutral territory that Wikipedia affords. I strongly disagree with your proposition. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to intro and recent edits by 69.150.58.151

Thanks to 69.150.58.151 for recent edits. In an effort to make this a project of concensus vs. unilateral approach, please bring your edits to talk page even if just briefly. I don't have any problem with what you did and they weren't really major edits except for the removal of the tags, but I for one was ready for them to go. I simplified the first sentence removing parentheticals in favor of accessibility by all readers per WP:MTAA. Added spiritual writer and artist with an independently published reliable source for those claims. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I removed "artist" per edit summary. His own book doesn't meet WP:N. thanks, Comesincolors2 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Comesincolors, Spectra Suites is published by Welcome Books out of New York [2] This is a rather large publishing house whose only affiliation with Adi Da is that they published his book. I haven't had a chance to add discussion yet David Starr 1 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"First last and only" redundancy

Right now the the "first last and only" claim is stated in the intro, in the teaching and community section, and in the teaching literature section. IMHO, one of these has to go. It appears to be non-neutral fact selection with the agenda of making much of this claim in order to make a point. I think twice is enough. Anybody want to weigh in? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate has not been resolved

The POV of this article is in dispute. The various authors have simply denied and made arbitrary decisions. Authors have denied involvement with Adidam while making comments that indicate insider knowledge. The POV flag on this article should not be removed - ever. 128.120.105.99 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Dave

Hi 128.120.105.99. Thanks for contributing to this article and thanks for bringing your edit to the talk page. I moved your posting to here because new posts start at the bottom. There's a "start new section" tab at the top of the page.

So relative to the tags you've placed at the top of the article and above each section, (except for the Lawsuits section which already had one), I don't think it's enough to simply state that the article is in dispute, you need to state why, and it has to be based on Wikipedia's policies. In the past there has been a lot of name-calling as referenced above. I hope that we can be adult about this dispute and concentrate on the material itself. I certainly feel that everyones POV has the right to be heard, and that includes criticism of the articles subject. I assume that your tags were done in good faith, but I do believe that without statements for each section as to why the tags are there, then the tags will have to go based on lack of supportive, properly referenced material that they stay. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:DRIVEBY, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." So I am reverting the tags after leaving them there for over a week, presuming good faith, and asking for clarification here.David Starr 1 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Added section on art

I added a section on art. I used only non-self published reliable sources. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added cited, quoted lines of negative review of the artwork of Adi Da from a well-respected American online art journal(Glasstire.com) by widely published art critic Titus O'Brien. Unsurprisingly, David Starr removed these comments. The article is still accessible through the critical links section, perhaps until Starr notices. As I read this discussion record, Starr's biases are transparent. He's an unfortunate threat to balanced information here regarding Adi Da Samraj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tao2911, thanks for editing here and welcome. Regarding your recent edits the quoted lines you added were cited to an online blog. WP:BLP says "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Also WP:LINKS says "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies." So I deleted the link on that basis. If you look at Comesincolors2 recent edit, he is using a published newspaper as a source and it's properly cited so that's a good edit. I am only trying to help Wikipedia maintain a high quality standard of information, no disrespect to you or your POV was intended. You may also want to check out WP:NPA. Personal attacks are strongly discouraged. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I clearly understand your points. However, the source of the material is an established, respected, not-for-profit art journal, 8 years + in publication. The author is a nationally recognized, established art writer and critic, who has written for dozens of "printed" hard copy publications. While the source of the article is from this critic's so-called "blog" called Nothing Always Happens, hosted by said journal (and not self-published), it is clearly more akin to a newspaper "column", and is a valid source of critical thinking and evaluation, much in the same way as other established critic's blogs on numbers of other websites, including artnet.com, artforum.com and even modernartnotes.com. The entry quoted is a thorough, thoughtful, and informed critique of the artwork of Adi Da Samraj, and the lines quoted were not inflammatory or personal. A blanket ban against "blogs" is not, I think, the intent of this rule, nor is it realistic considering the changing shape of the media landscape.

The section in question was not biographical, as the you quote above. It was a section quoting subjective, purely positive reviews and statements by individuals directly involved with Adi Da Samraj, in support of his artwork and activities. Other sections, even in the Adi Da entry, reference negative and critical statements. I maintain your deletion of these comments was arbitrary and biased.

I also see another critical blurb was added, and I replaced an O'Brien quote. Please let others weigh in on it's appropriateness.

--Tao2911 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, the critical point is to avoid self-published stuff, not to eschew the blog format. An art critic whose column appears in blog format in an established online magazine is as reliable as the same critic appearing in, say, an in-print alternative weekly. WP:SOURCES clarifies in a footnote:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

So, the blog format is OK as long as it's not self-pub, and Glasstire does have editorial oversight[3], so it's fine in that regard. As for the "defamation" claim, I don't see anything inappropriate about Titus O'Brien's review at all. Scathing, satiric criticism of an artist/guru isn't the same as defamation (and really, his criticisms aren't nearly as over the top as some of the hyperbolic praise Adi Da receives, which the article also mentions). --Comesincolors2 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Firstly, my apologies to Tao2911 for deleting this material again. I hope that you won’t let this discourage you from participating here. I am hoping that we can reach a consensus here and that your POV is heard. Unfortunately I am finding a problem with using Glasstire.com as a source and as a link for the following reasons:

For inaccurately stating that Adi Da was not an official exhibitor at the Venice Biennale. O’Brien states in his blog: “Adi Da showed some things at the same time as the Biennale in Venice, thereby tagging the show (and a website) with Venice Biennale all over the place. In the typical shuck-and-jive, it had no official connection, short of being organized by Achille Oliva, a former Biennale curator.” This of course is not true and sources given citation in the article prove that. [4] [5] This would indicate a very serious problem as to the claim that this source, (Glasstire.com) has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. As a source, (Glasstire.com) would violate WP:Verifiability which says “Articles should rely on reliable third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”, and as a link it would violate WP:LINKS which says to avoid “Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.”

Also as a link and a source it would be in violation of WP: LINKS for engaging in hate-speech by referring to a person as “his pudginess”, referring to “his enormous belly“, referring to his hair loss, and drawing a moustache and black-eye on a picture of a person. These are all intended to degrade the subject and are totally unnecessary in a serious critique about art. Wikipedia defines hate-speech as speech intended (among other things) to degrade someone based on their appearance. WP:LINKS says (again) “"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links.” IMHO, Glasstire.com has proven itself questionable, and the O’Brien piece is derogatory.

I think it’s unfortunate that O’Brien had to go over the top with his degradation of the subject which in my mind obfuscates his credibility. I believe his actual criticism of the art itself would have been totally appropriate for inclusion here if it weren’t associated with his seemingly unprofessional derision of the subject .David Starr 1 (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the O'Brien piece is clearly freewheelingly satirical, and in no way a "biography of a living person". Your citing this rule is, once again, incorrect in this instance. Invoking 'hate speech' is absurd in this context, and denigrates those who actually suffer from it. My understanding looking at the website and other materials is also that Adi Da clearly wasn't an official exhibitor in the Biennale. Many galleries schedule ancillary exhibitions to take advantage of the press at art fairs and events like the Venice Biennale. O'Brien's pointing out a questionable relationship is fair game.

I maintain that Glasstire is a respected art journal, and therefor a valid source. The piece cited is a blog entry on that site, and is clearly in keeping with that format. All of these points were clearly understood and affirmed by comesincolors2.

This editing clearly fits a pattern of bias. Other contributors, please weigh in. I will not reinsert the critique. The positive bias of the entire Adi Da entry, caused by the policing of his supporters, is clearly transparent.--Tao2911 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)--Tao2911 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with every one of your points, Tao. I weigh in on your side. Franklin's art review should be allowed to be quoted, pro and con. Getitrighty (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with David Starr 1's assessment of Glasstire as unreliable. David's logic is: the author, O'Brien, made a factual error; therefore, Glasstire has "proven itself questionable" and is therefore an unreliable source on WP. By that logic, ANY media outlet that ever makes an error is unacceptable, which is patently absurd. Being error-free isn't the criterion (since errors do slip through, and are usually corrected later); editorial oversight is, and we've established that Glasstire has that[6]. Since Glasstire is a reliable source, it's perfectly acceptable; O'Brien's harshly satirical comments are well within the acceptable scope of discourse about public figures. So, I'm going to restore it; if there is still disagreement, we can post to WP:RSN for further feedback. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Reading that footnote again, I see that editorial oversight isn't itself a necessity if the author is a professional published by a third party. O'Brien is a published critic, an art professor, and on Glasstire's staff. WP:SOURCES: Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." So, whether or not Glasstire has editorial control over O'Brien's words, they're cool as long as they're attributed to him and not to Glasstire. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your points and I feel that you have not addressed the issues that I have made above. Glasstire.com is not a news organization, reliable sources are usually not online Texas art journals and do need to have a reputation for fact-checking. O'brien is not a recognized authority and does not have enough notoriety to have a page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not usually source from material that is both shaky and derogatory to the subject of a BLP and that contains unverified claims and factually incorrect information. These types of sources tend to be unprofessional and careless and in this way harm the quality and the reputation of Wikipedia. I am also unsure that satirical sources belong in an encyclopedia. That being said, I am not going to remove the material for now as it appears that there isn't any reliable source that will convey your POV and I feel that your POV should be heard. I am going to add a little more detail about the source so that the reader can take that into account. But the blog should not be linked until the inaccurate information is corrected. A good clue as to the unreliability of Glasstire.com as a source: they seem to not be interested in correcting their mistake and are apparently happy to be the publisher of false information. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting Wikipedia to David Starr's clear bias on this post. I will reiterate the consensus of other voices here: Glasstire, and O'Brien, are valid sources. The journal is based in Texas - and actually they have a news feed, regular interviews with globally renowned artists, critics, and curators (see current interview with British artists Noble & Webster by historian, curator, and critic Charissa Terranova[Harvard PhD], and previous with curator Michael Auping, etc), and editorial oversight, making them a "valid news source"; I see coverage there of art in London, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and Europe. The O'Brien piece is satirical in aspects. Other aspects, as Starr acknowledged previously, are critical from an informed perspective ("I believe his actual criticism of the art itself would have been totally appropriate for inclusion here if it weren’t associated with his seemingly unprofessional derision of the subject") O'Brien's lack of inclusion on Wikipedia is no grounds to discount his stature. He's a widely published critic (do a google search, for goodness sake), Yale grad, and professor at a number of universities, including the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, University of Texas, and Columbia College Chicago. He seems more qualified than the other critic quoted from that NW weekly (as Glasstire similarly does) who is not in dispute.

Factually, I think O'Brien is probably right - Adi Da was NOT officially included in the Venice Biennale, as his website ("adidabiennale.com") implies; again, he was in an unofficial ancillary exhibition, the lesser but real prestige of which is acknowledged, being the premise of the essay. I don't see any validity to Starr's other "factual issues". And the tone is fully in keeping with the nature of art criticism, which is NOT journalism proper (see famed irreverent British art critic Matthew Collings). It could be argued that Kuspit and Oliva's quotes could be removed as positively biased; they were both involved with the show. Their comments were for promotional materials for said show, and could also be removed from this standpoint (not "independently published sources" as Starr claims at the top of this section). Starr clearly just doesn't like what O'Brien has to say. The definition by dictionary.com of "satire": "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc." This is a perfect definition of O'Brien's piece. However, Starr not only misspelled "satirically", in an admitted attempt to undercut the sources, he mangled the passage. Splitting some difference with Starr, here is my correction: "Equally skeptical, American art critic Titus O'Brien, in his blog for the online art journal Glasstire.com, writes:[quote unchanged]" --Tao2911 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--

Also, I saw that Starr removed the link to the O'Brien article, without notice here, in the criticism section. I replaced it. Others contributors, once again, please weigh in. --Tao2911 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--

Hi Tao2911, Sorry for the misspell, no hidden agenda is intended. I realize your new here and again, welcome. Thanks for your contributions. Wikipedia has a guideline called assume good faith. Click on it and check it out. We all have our bias so we are all alike in that way. Wikipedia functions better if we assume good faith and comment on the article and related policies and not other editors. (BTW I did indicate that I was removing the link and why above)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID says to avoid linking to; “Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.” So before the O’Brien material could be linked you would have to refute that the material in question is inaccurate. You are indicating that a collateral artist is not an official part of the Biennale. I offer the following proof for you to consider. There are many official Biennale webpages that indicate that the collateral events are an official part of the Biennale. Here is one quote, “The national participations and the collateral events have grown considerably in number in recent editions of the Biennale Art Exhibition and have become a structural part of the main exhibition, increasing its stature even further” [7] Also in the Adi Da article there is a link after citation 32 (the cite after mentioning him as a collateral artist in the exhibition) that shows Adi Da listed in the official Biennale program [8]

I think that this is compelling evidence that Adi Da was an official exhibitor at the 52nd Biennale. I think it is very important that we get things right here so I am going to have to remove the link per WP:LINKSTOAVOID for OBriens statement "“Adi Da showed some things at the same time as the Biennale in Venice, thereby tagging the show (and a website) with Venice Biennale all over the place. In the typical shuck-and-jive, it had no official connection, short of being organized by Achille Oliva, a former Biennale curator.” I also submit that Glasstire.com has made no attempt to correct this mistake.

I also think it is important for the reader to know that the O'Brien quote is coming from a satirical source. We all agree that it is satirical so why not indicate that in the text? David Starr 1 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We are simply missing the forest for the trees. In keeping with wikipedia style and format and precedent, including ANY critical information is uncharacteristic of a listing about an artists - especially one so little shown or recognized. I stripped the entry down to just the facts, as it should be. If there are more exhibitions to list, then they should be listed in a CV, according to the guidelines set in other posts about artists (which tend to just give a simple list of exhibitions, with possibly a bibliography listed below.)--Tao2911 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed quote from lawsuits section per WP:NOR

From Feuerstein, page 156, paragraph 4:

"The pivot of Adi Da’s “way of radical understanding” is to recognize the Goddess in and as all experiences and to develop the cool disposition of nonattachment toward everything that has been recognized as a manifestation of the Goddess. In his view the traditional orientation is to worship and surrender to the Goddess. He argues that this is all nonsense but occasionally concedes, tongue-in-cheek, that he may just be mistaken. In his own words, flowing easily from his lips in a state of ecstatic inebriation during one of his celebrations:

What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me…They all tell me that I’m mad, that I’m undeveloped…Muktananda used to say “Yield to the Goddess” and that is not the principle. The Goddess used to say “Yield to me,” and I fucked her brains loose. I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have."

What was added to the article in the “Lawsuits and Allegations of abuse” section:

"Georg Feuerstein suggests that the following quote from Adi Da's original 1974 talk "Garbage and the Goddess" may shed light on Adi Da's unorthodox teaching and conduct:

"No one agrees with me. I've never met anyone who agreed with me. I've talked to many people. I've talked to many teachers, and none of them agrees with me. They all tell me that I'm mad, that I'm undeveloped. So that must be so. If you consult the usual books they won't tell you such a thing. I've read them all myself. Rudi used to tell me to surrender, but that is not the principle. Muktananda used to say, "Yield to the Goddess," and that is not the principle. The Goddess used to say, "Yield to me," and I fucked her brains loose. I've never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have!"

So while Feuerstein (incorrectly) describes Adi Da’s “way of radical understanding”, (which has nothing to do with the Goddess according to the Adidam website)[9], he never suggests that the quote that he gives sheds light on “Adi Da's unorthodox teaching and conduct”, particularly in the context of lawsuits and allegations of abuse, which Feuerstein does cover in his book.

So the suggestion that Feuerstein is saying something that he isn’t would violate WP:NOR (No Original Research) which says: “ Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.” The quote used was also changed from what was published by Feuerstein.

And just in the interest of bringing in accurate information to Wikipedia, apparently Feuerstein’s hypothesis is incorrect. From the Adidam website; Adi Da: When one begins to see again the subtle forms of one's own action, which are one's suffering, that re-cognition is "understanding". When this becomes absolute, most perfect, when there is utterly, absolutely, no dilemma, no form in the living consciousness to interpret existence, when there is no contraction, no fundamental suffering, no thing apart from Consciousness Itself, this is what I call "radical understanding". [10]

I suggest we add something to the criticism section to balance this removal. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this editing fits in a consistent pattern of positive bias, willfully misconstruing the rules and intents of wikipedia guidelines. When Feuerstein is being quoted, whether his argument is valid or not is not up to secondary editors. Obviously some readers will agree, others will disagree. It is censorship to remove the argument due to a different interpretation, and a disagreement with the ideas expressed! If there are inaccuracies in the quote as included, corrections should be made to the quote - I commend Starr for the research. However, the changes seem minor. That should not be used as an excuse to remove the comment entirely! Also, Starr is engaging in a debate here about the ideas expressed. This is expressly against the Wikipedia guidelines. I would request that the Feuerstein quote be corrected, recontextualized to increase its sense, and reinserted into the criticism section. I also feel that the general tone of the entire Adi Da entry is slanted toward the positive, with the critical section consisting of only two sources, one of them slashed here. Starr is completely misinterpreting the rule about "original research." This means original on the part of the author promoting THEIR OWN work as an entry. Here, Feuerstein is being quoted as an authority, from an independently published source - he presumably didn't publish these quotes here himself, for the first time. If he's being misquoted, fix it. I commend Starr for recommending an addition; I would request that since he seems to understand the original intent of the deleted inclusion, that he be the one to correct it and reinsert. In the meantime, I will undo his deletion. --Tao2911 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I deleted the material because I believe that an editor's statement "Georg Feuerstein suggests that the following quote from Adi Da's original 1974 talk "Garbage and the Goddess" may shed light on Adi Da's unorthodox teaching and conduct", is not what Feuerstein was suggesting at all. So as such it would violate WP:NOR. I am removing it on that basis unless you can tell me why I am mistaken. I also removed it because the quote was changed from what was published. I believe both of these things were done to push a certain POV. Wikipedia says that the burden of proof is on you in order to restore it. My proof I have indicated in detail above. Also this material could violate WP:V. The Feuerstein book is published by the controversial guru Lee Lozowick[11], which could pose a problem as to this being a reliable source as it is in fact not an independent press, but a press used by a another guru to self-publish his own books as well as books by others. But when a book published by one guru criticizes other gurus, it's hard to say that this is necessarily an independent and reliable source. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As an additional note regarding the quote referenced above from Garbage and the Goddess, it would be a mistake to take the quote out of context. Just reading the quote the tone suggests that it was meant in a humorous way. That is, what he says in the quote is not meant to be taken literally but ironically. Anyone who has studied the large body of work produced by Adi Da would recognize that this quote is intended to be interpreted humorously and not literally. Whether it was in bad taste or not, it was still meant to be "good fun" and not taken seriously. User: Thespiritrider —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Numbers of small changes, for appearance, neutrality, and consistency

There were numbers of different fonts in headings, instances of poor or awkward punctuation, inconsistencies in tone, as well as a number of instances throughout the Adi Da page where the voice didn't sound neutral, or contemporary. I made a number of small corrections - beginning most significantly with the section on art. The heading "Image Art" made little sense, indicating a title used by Adi Da, but not a phrase in common parlance. The debate about the inclusion of certain critical elements was really a moot point. Other listings on much better known artists do not include that sort of information (criticism, pro or con, or artist statements of intent). Also, the original inclusion was entirely too positively slanted.

Again, the importance of neutrality can't be overstressed. The whole description of Adi Da's "teaching literature" was almost incomprehensible to non-followers, showed a pro-bias tone, and seemed straight from an Adidam pamphlet. I edited to the simple, comprehensible facts, and combined it with the "books" section. Having the two separate made no sense; again, indicating a biased inclusion at some point. We have to stick to the facts, and qualify all assertions of opinion or belief. --Tao2911 (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tao2911, there are problems with some of your recent edits because they appear to violate Wikipedia policy and as such would be considered unconstructive edits. Please familiarize your self more with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before making such edits.

Regarding the removal of the literature section, WP:PRESERVE says: “Whatever you do, endeavor to preserve information.” To remove information, it should be in violation of a particular policy or guideline.

Regarding removal of most of the art section, in addition to the above, WP:NPOV says ( in Characterizing opinions of people's work section) “it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate.”

You can be blocked from editing here for repeating these types of edits, so it is better if you take these types of edits up on the talk page first and let other editors help you. It takes up other editors time to correct these mistakes and as such is disruptive to Wikipedia. Please know that this is nothing personal against you. It is important for us all to abide by these policies and guidelines. If you think that I am wrong then please correct me but you must use Wikipedia policies and guidelines in doing so.

Some of your edits were indeed appropriate and I tried to do the corrections in a way that allowed those to remain. Also please include a concise edit description for each edit.

These are the problems I found:

Biased Wording (see: WP:AVOID)

Editor writes “what He claims is a series” [12]

Editor writes “He claims this is associated”[13]

Editor writes "supposed meeting" when source cited clearly shows meeting occurred[14]

Content Removal (see: WP:PRESERVE)

Removed reliably sourced relevant material and 1 citation[15]

Removed reliably sourced relevant material and 6 citations[16]

Removed reliably sourced relevant material, entire section with 5 citations and 1 internal link[17]

Removed reliably sourced relevant material, “Muktananda engaged in a discussion wherein it became clear they each had very different notions of what the highest, or most enlightened, spiritual state is, and that Muktananda would not acknowledge his enlightenment”[18]

Inaccurate/Un-sourced/ Unverifiable (see: WP:V)

Editor adds “Curated by formal Biennale curator” WP says he was the director of the 45th Biennale[19]

Adidawilber.com is a self-pub site and not considered a reliable source[20]

Original Research (see: WP:OR)

Editor adds personal opinion the actual existence of this letter remains a point of controversy. [21](Picture of letter here: [22]).

Editor adds a person has renounced subject of article with no citation to verify claim.[23]

Please do not revert changes made to above edits unless you can address these issues citing WP policies and guidelines.

Thanks.

David Starr 1 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

All of David Starr's edits show clear bias in favor of Adi Da. Some of the corrections he states are ok - a little back and forth is fine. Many of my edits were clear improvements - not least of which were those to the section on art. Replacing all of the glowing positive statements of people DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH ADI DA does not show an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. This is hopeless. I am not going to begin to fight you over the stupidity of the current version of this entry. The Adi Da page is all yours. Please simply edit to proselytize freely. HE IS THE GOD MAN! Hallelujah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adi Da in Scientology--Omission from Later Biographies

The original published version of the autobiographical Knee of Listening from the 1970s documents from Adi Da himself that (1) Adi Da became a member of the Church of Scientology for a year in May of 1968 after his return from India in April of 1968, (2) The Church of Scientology is where he met three of his original followers, including a woman who then joined his household, (3) that he was an active auditor in the Church of Scientology during this period, and (4) that he left the Church of Scientology soon after reporting a shakti awakening in April of 1969 while taking advanced Church of Scientology courses at the center in Los Angeles California. This is confirmed as fact in other early official Adidam publications, where there is additional detail on this period. Mention of this year long Scientology period was omitted without reference in later versions of the otherwise much expanded and generally more detailed Knee of Listening published since the mid-1980s. Georg Fuerstein's endorsement followed by later disillusionment with Adi Da does not make that source unreliable about a matter of documented fact like the omission of the Scientology period. Rather than question Fuerstein's credibility as a source on a matter of fact, add a cite to the original version of Knee of Listening, published by Adidam itself, of which many copies still exist.

Also, when the article currently states: "The ego, which in various traditions is understood to be an entity, is identified by Adi Da as the activity of separativeness, which is enacted in every moment.", it is not up to wikipedia standards. The phrase "which in various traditions is understood to be an entity" is not properly sourced and does not specify those alleged traditions. In fact, the bulk of non-dualist traditions do not define the ego as an entity either. Buddhism denies the existence of any ego or such permanant entity, considering it nothing but an illusion created by a bundle of thoughts and primal craving. Advaita Vedanta, including for example Ramana Maharshi, also denies the reality of any such illusory separate entity, considering it no more real for example than believing the optical illusion of a coil of rope appearing to be a snake in the dark. In short, both major non-dualist traditions consider the ego an activity of mind and illusory, not an entity. Thus, the statement should avoid such inaccurate claims about other traditions and stick to what Adi Da teaches, that being: "The ego is identified by Adi Da as the activity of separativeness, which is enacted in every moment." If this is not corrected, I will be forced to make the change. --Dseer (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dseer, I agree with your point on referencing to the original Knee of Listening which, according to Dabase [24] was actually published by an outside publisher, so as such would be one of only two books published of Adi Da by an outside publisher that I know of. There are about 5 short paragraphs there about Scientology. It doesn’t mention anything about Adi Da being an auditor or taking advanced courses. I also know that there was an original manuscript which was never published which had all kinds of detail about Scientology. But most of this info was edited out along with 100’s of pages of other material presumably by the original publisher. It is my understanding that it would have to be published to qualify as a RS and there is no fair-use provision for un-published material by a living author. I do believe that singling out the removal of references to Scientology in later editions as an issue worth mentioning in the article would constitute original research unless that point could be referenced as already having been made by a reliable source, so that is why we would need to go to Feuerstein. The problem that I am seeing with Feuerstein is that his latest book is published by the same press that controversial guru Lee Lazowick uses to self-publish his own books. So I am wondering if this qualifies as a RS since it isn't exactly an independently published source. Perhaps we can source from an earlier version of Holy Madness that may have been independently published?

I agree with you that in the traditions the ego is an activity - as in the delusion of an “I“, or otherwise perceived “I” consciousness. So an illusory perception and a delusional perception would both be perceptual activity. So I went ahead and changed that. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Death of Adi Da

As Mr. Starr has noted in just restoring the article to the prior state of relative balance as developed by more regular editors, the sudden death of Adi Da at age 69 from what is reported to be a massive heart attack does not justify radical changes to the article, particularly by single purpose editors. It simply brings this subject's physical life and actions to a close, and begins the posthumous period of assessment. Please continue to discuss significant proposed changes here first, keeping NPOV and proper sourcing in mind. --Dseer (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The main thing we need to find over the next few days is a reliable source (in WP terms) reporting Adi Da'a death. Some community "notes" have been circulating via email, and some have been posted on blogs, e.g. http://nonduality.org/2008/11/28/adi-da-is-dead/. While unlikely to be a hoax, these are still not up to WP standards (WP:V, WP:RS). Once the dust has settled (and we've waited the usual three days to see if he's going to rise from the dead or not), the BLP concerns go away and we can be more relaxed in terms of including certain critical material (as long as it's ok per NPOV, VER etc.). --Comesincolors2 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am re-adding the recent death tag. Reliable source here :[[25]] The Fiji Times is one of the major newspapers for the Fijian Islands. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Perfect; putting that in now. thanks, Comesincolors2 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

another article from fiji times here: [[26]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.237.148 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

On recent changes made to Adi Da article without discussion

Hi and welcome! I am sorry that I had to revert the material that you added. This is a controversial subject and has been through many cyclical rounds of editing which has been the product of much consensus building as far as approach and staying aligned with WP policies and guidelines. (Read the archives.) Check out the info boxes at the top of this page and you will see that as a guideline, if we are doing something more than a minor edit, we should add a brief comment about our edit and why we think it should be included in the article. Then other editors will have the opportunity to help and respond. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is, many cyclical rounds of David Starr reverting all changes to his self-admittedly biased versions. This is one of the worst entries in all of wikipedia: completely absurd, slanted, awkward, and downright ridiculous. Fitting though, considering its subject... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.0.8 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

David Starr 1, if you're interpreting that infobox as carte blanche to automatically revert without discussion, then you are misusing it. Bold edits are fine, within reason, especially if part of a bold, revert, discuss cycle, but to revert with no explanation other than "see the infobox" defeats the goal of collaboration. If someone makes a major change you disagree with, and you feel you should change or revert it, then please do so and tell them why. Reverting with little discussion other than a nod to the infobox doesn't advance discussion in any way whatsoever. You'll notice I removed the {{Controversial}} template, and kept {{Controversial-issues}} since it's more to the point and doesn't contain misleading language. regards, Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the most spiritually advanced being to appear in human history

> ComesInColors wrote: Editors are allowed to summarize accurately, and sources fully support wording.

This is not the case. I removed the mis-paraphrased, unsourced statement, "Adi Da described himself as the most spiritually advanced being to appear in human history." This is neither a direct quote, nor an accurate summary, and the sources do not "fully support the wording". I'll now elaborate. Even beyond the misunderstanding represented by this wording, adding the language, "Adi Da described himself" is something that should only be supported by a direct quote from Adi Da.

The other phrases in that sense are accurate quotes from Adi Da: the "First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept", "Promised God-Man", and "Divine World-Teacher", and the references are valid. But none of those references use the phrase, "the most spiritually advanced being to appear in human history". For any number of reasons. Adi Da never describes himself as a "spiritually advanced being". He describes himself as an incarnation of the Divine, which is a completely different "category". In Adi Da's perspective, the Divine is not an "advanced being"; the Divine is the One Being, in whom all apparent beings (spiritually advanced or not) are arising. Furthermore, the word "advanced" obviously implies "progress" and "limit": an "advanced" being is someone "who was less "advanced" before" and potentially could "advance" further. That is completely inconsistent with the way Adi Da describes himself. He says in many places that his "seven stages" framework is not a sequence, of which the "seventh" is the last or "most advanced" stage. The "seventh stage" is a completely different "category" from the first six stages. As Adi Da puts it: the seventh stage is Unconditional Reality, while the first six stages are conditional reality. So if you are reading his references to some realizer being "sixth stage" and Adi Da being "seventh stage", and misinterpreting that as him saying he is the "most advanced" on a single comparative spectrum (as though that were what his "seven stages" framework were), then you are mis-reading him. Make any comparisons you want between characters in a dream. But if the Consciousness dreaming the dream deliberately appears in the dream, that is radically different from all the characters in the dream trying to be more "spiritually advanced", or relatively more awake, with the hope of waking out of the dream altogether at some point.

So please do not reinsert this inaccurate characterization, attributing it to Adi Da, and then pretending to list valid sources. This misleading wording was NEVER made by Adi Da. Whoever crafted it knew it: that's why they didn't put quotes around it, as they did around the other phrases. The other phrases are all consistent with "Divine Incarnation". The phrase, "the most spiritually advanced being to appear in human history", is not. The word "most" doesn't do it. That a tree is the tallest in history still doesn't turn it into a mountain. "Spiritually advanced beings" and "Divine Incarnations" are simply completely different categories, apples and oranges. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.153.134 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008

Show me the policy that says every statement about Adi Da needs to be supported by a direct quote from on. Go ahead, look it up; I might just be overlooking some guideline in WP. But I doubt it. Editors are not required only to quote personal quotes from the article's subject. We are allowed (encouraged) to summarize with good prose, especially if we are working with material laden with (what many would agree to be) impenetrable spiritual jargon. If we have words closer to Adi Da's, so much the better, but not if they're jargon-y.

As for my proposed wording, I'm happy to change it, but use both common and uncommon sense: in saying he's the FLO 7th-Stage Adept-Realizer, what else does he mean? He's broken thru to to the hitherto-intuitedbut-not-realized 7th stage; he's the unique means in the world (indeed the universe) for others to achieve such realization. He's the first to do it so far; others may follows with the realization, but his agency is still unique. That's exactly what Adi Da says (do you disagree, or do you just not take anything he says literally?), and is quite a straightforward depiction of what it would mean to be "the most spiritually advanced being to appear in human history". Or we can use something else in that ballpark. Other ideas? --Comesincolors2 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. David Starr will come soon and change everything to how he thinks it should be anyway, according to his flexible interpretations of the guidelines. (---unsigned comment)

David Starr has to abide by the same rules any editor does... Now, regarding this paraphrasing-FLO thing, it looks like the IP isn't going to discuss as long as it gets its way. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What the IP hasn't done is explain where WP policy says that we always have to quote subjects verbatim, and not paraphrase their words. Indeed, Adi Da uses so much jargon, much of it invented by himself, that we'd be doing readers a disservice is we didn't, once in awhile, summarize his view in plain English. Adi Da unquestionably placed himself atop (or completely beyond, etc.) the "totem pole" of historical spiritual attainment, and we shouldn't be constrained to use only the By-Him-Chosen spin. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Restoring some material now that WP:BLP no longer applies

• Text relating to Mark Miller's lawsuit can now be restored (cf.this edit). BLP forbade use of primary sources (e.g., Miller's lawsuit) that had not been mentioned in secondary sources. However, for dead subjects, the policies are more relaxed. WP:NOR, allows primary sources under certain conditions, and this articles fits: Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Not everyone can read, e.g., raw scientific data, but any literate person can read that lawsuit and understand what it's saying.

• Again, here is some straightforward biographical info (from Feuerstein) that may have been questionable under BLP, but is certainly fine now: health issues, and a note that he had children.

• Feuerstein citation of the "No one agrees with me" quote from Garbage and the Goddess: This was discussed above at Talk:Adi_Da#Removed_Feuerstein_Material_From_.E2.80.9CLife.E2.80.9D_Section, where the main concerns were BLP and a need to accurately depict Feuerstein's own depiction of the quote. I changed the wording accordingly[27].

• Art section: restored Sims and O'Brien for balance with Kuspit et. al.[28] -- oh, wait, I see, this was never a BLP concern; it was just deleted without explanation. Since it's properly sourced and properly weighted, it should remain.

more to follow, either explained here or (in minor cases) in the edit summary... --Comesincolors2 (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad you're here comesincolors2. I attempted to do a balanced revision of this article a few months ago, correcting awkward phrasing, combining a couple sections, etc. All was reverted. I maintain that this entry is slanted, confusing, amateurish, and just plain weird. What's with the "teaching literature" section? Followed by a book section? A discussion of proposed books? The art section is an absolute mess. On and on. Terrible. This is not a reliable entry with unbiased information. it reads like a pro-Da literature, with only the most mild negative information grudgingly peppered here and there - but undercut with positive slant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tao2911, I was hoping you'd show up too; I agreed with your comments here as well as, e.g. here regarding the art section. I also agreed with your comments under the Number of small changes... section. While I agree that David Starr 1 is a model of civility, I don't agree with a number of his points, and his notion that your edits were somehow so bad you might be banned for them was more a reflection of his lack of familiarity with WP than of anything you actually did. For example, WP:PRESERVE certainly does not mean that we should keep unencyclopedic, irrelevant material about barely-notable art, or books projected to appear in the future.

So, yeah, let's both keep this on our radar. We did have an article RfC awhile back, and the consensus was that the article was in violation of WP:SELFPUB by virtue of leaning way too heavily on Adidam-published material. I'm not sure we've ever really corrected that; anyway, it's good place to start. regards, Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements section removed

I don't know when this section appeared - I don't see an entry in Talk about it. I might just have missed it. In any case, numbers of unedited paragraphs from one follower's religious testament made it perhaps the longest section in this entry, which already suffers from pro-bias problems. The criticisms section contains only defanged conflicted critiques, by the likes of Ken Wilber (who arguably is still a fan.) I'm not sure even it is necessary - this material could be covered in the "controversies" section. I don't see any need for further "endorsements" - believers and supporters are quoted elsewhere. I maintain that this entire entry needs an overhaul. It is way too long. Many aspects remain suspiciously positive Da-lit. derived. Look to sections on "similar" figures - Neem Karoli baba, Ram Dass, Muktananda, or other religious (or even artistic) figures. They are short and to the point, giving the basic facts of times, places, accomplishments, followers, maybe critics with a line or two. We need to edit this down using these and other models!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Art section edited to conform to wiki precedents

Someone had added another lengthy glowing review from an obscure website. Including lengthy quotes of reviews (positive or negative) of artist's work in a Wikipedia article is unprecedented - especially for an artist with such a modest exhibition history. He made some art and began to show it. That is enough to say. Artists with much greater recognition have much shorter listings. My hope is for more independent and neutral editors continue to monitor this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I made some radical edits. I maintain they are needed, and I know others here agree. Of course there should be refinements. But before reinsering sections, I urge people to go look at articles on other similar religious figures, and take style cues from them. the length of the article is appropriate as it sits after my edits. Some wording and sources may need refining. But this thing starts to read like a wiki entry, and not an Adidam pamphlet, or veiled attempt to bash the man. Stick to the simple basic facts, for lay people wanting to know who he was and what he did!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Concise and Neutral Edits

I made some changes as well, following Tao's example. I agree with Tao that the edits I made earlier were too long and not fitting Wikipedia protocols. I looked at articles of Neem Karoli Baba and other gurus and see more what this article needs to look like. Much smaller and more neutral! We really only need the facts.

There is a great write-up done in a book by James R. Lewis called "Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy" which features the most neutral write-up of Adidam I have ever seen. It is basically just a description and that's all. It was clear and to the point and just the facts. So i thought it would be good to change this article using bits from that write-up.

I changed the first biography section a bit, adding in Lewis's description of Adidam and it's practice. This condensed that section. I changed the life section to Lewis's summary because it was more neutral and compactly descriptive. I then radically altered the Criticisms page because it was not necessary to have it be so long in comparison to the other pages, and was clearly not presenting anything in a neutral fashion, with so much emphasis and length in that section. So I posted Lewis's concise description of that, I suppose more detail could be added, but it doesn't seem necessary. I find Lewis's descriptions and language to be short, simple, direct, and significantly neutral, so I hope we can keep this article as it is now, as it is looking very neutral and as an encyclopedia article should. Just a presentation of the facts, not pro-adidam, and not anti-adidam, but all sides should be presented, including criticisms, but in a way that is simply presenting information, not with any agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unconditionalight (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Unc Light is on board with the spirit of neutrality and brevity. HOWEVER, many of your recent edits are really slanted positive. I must ask that you reconsider some of your edits. I am unable to revert them to earlier versions now, and I feel some earlier forms that were more suitable might have been lost. I will re-approach later for input. Again, the spirit is much appreciated, but your bias might be invisible to you. This version of criticisms is too little, even if the other might have been too slight. There have to be solid references to serious legal conflicts and allegations of abuse!

I appreciate working with others here to clean up this article. But again, I have to stress to Unc. Light that you have to pare it down to basic facts for laypeople - this is not the place to introduce the teaching philosophy or beliefs of Adidam, or to attempt to lend it legitimacy, or to denigrate. Let's keep it direct, simple, and plain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mahasamadhi"

This word keeps being inserted to describe his death - even recently replacing the word "death" completely. This is unacceptable wording. It's specific to a certain religious perspective, and implies belief in Adi Da and/or his follower's claims to his divinity. It should not be used, nor should a discussion of its possibility be initiated in the article. That is merely a statement of belief, not a verifiable state, quality, or fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added a line to the "Death" section describing that Adi Da's followers believe he has taken "Mahasamadhi" and that Adi Da himself referred to his own future death as a divine event of "outshining".

I agree that this statement is a matter of belief and I made it a point to make it clear in my wording that this only a BELIEF of his followers, and therefore not a fact with any rational basis at all. It is similar to people mentioning Jesus's Resurrection, etc., it is a pure belief, but I don't see why that should not be included in this article, when presented properly as a belief of followers, as opposed to a fact.

I absolutely agree with Tao that it is a "statement of belief" but I feel that it is important to include, so long as it is presented in exactly that fashion, as the belief of Adi Da followers and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unconditionalight (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

why would this be important to include? I can't see how it does anything but give a biased, overly detailed account of his death. When a christian dies, one does not include in an entry on them, "and they ascended to heaven to be with Jesus for eternity, as they had forseen at their rebirth in Christ". You can insert any post-mortem religious conviction of choice. Which are in no way different descriptions than the one you added. If someone is interested in more detail, they follow links below or search online, and they will quickly apprehend that this is what his followers believe. This is not the place - it does not fit, especially as we try to pare this thing down and stick to the facts. And toward that end, I have appreciated some of your efforts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, that makes sense then, given the context we are working in. I understand what you are saying. Not a big deal then, let's leave as is. This article is looking significantly better than it did a week ago. I appreciate your hard work in helping to keep the article straight! --Unconditionalight

Cool. I am unused to such rationality and graceful give and take on this article. Nice! I'd love for you to source the Adidam section - I think you'd added a bunch of info there, which I cut back to something that I saw as a basic informative kernal, again just to get the facts across. It should be sourced, because it does seem like a description from the group itself. Also, maybe you can work on adding a very abbreviated books section - or do we need it? I'm glad to see the 70+ one with breakdown go, but maybe there should be a dozen "greatest hits," as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lineage"

UL is adding informative links, which is ok. However, they are departing from fact-based wording to subjective and specialized wording. Characterizing Trungpa, who had absolutely no direct relationship to Adi Da, as a "Crazy-Wise Maha Siddha" is a foul ball. You could say he is a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, or rinpoche. Though I don't see any need to have him included at all - nor do I see the need for Ramakrishna, or the other unrelated teachers and gurus, implying relationships. Likewise with Zen, etc - these associations are tenuous, and in some cases misleading. Using the phrase "lineage teacher" is similarly misleading. Adi Da only claimed Ramana as guru - they never physically met, and anything else is speculation. Muktananda renounced Jones completely, and never gave him more than authority to initiate students into SY. He never said Da was "fully enlightened." Read that letter - I was surprised how underwhelming and conditional his authorization reads. UL, you clearly seem to be an admirer, if not a devotee. I must continue to encourage that you undercut your bias, and cultivate a more objective stance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi editors -- to sign your comments, just put four tildes, i.e. ~~~~, at the end. thanx - Comesincolors2 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1985 controversy stuff absolutely belongs in lead

WP:LEAD says:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."

Prior to the 1985 lawsuits, Today Show, etc., there were precious few reliable, published sources discussing Adi Da (other than self-published material, which is only marginally reliable on Wikipedia). Since that time, it's been the case that the greatest number of RS's have been about the scandals in which Adi Da was embroiled. By any standard, WP:LEAD requires the inclusion of this material in the lead; and if anything, there should be greater discussion of it in the article as well, following what WP says about giving the greatest weight to reliable, secondary sources. (cf. also earlier article RfC, in archived talk, on self-published sources.) Comesincolors2 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez, why was the rest of the critical stuff gutted? The sources are as good as they get, and it should be weighted at least as much as the hagiographical material. Tao and Unconditional, please get a little less deletion-happy. Neutrality is good; brevity, not always. Not if you're removing encyclopedia material. Encyclopedias are kind of long for a reason, right? See WP:NOTPAPER. thanks --Comesincolors2 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)