Talk:Adi Da/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

POV dispute (continued from January 2010

This section has been largely rearranged by Starr, and I believe some of my comments have been removed, but I want to address these points concisely here, tho I have elsewhere below.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This is untrue.David Starr 1 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to the following inclusions: -

Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He also took part in hallucinogenic drug trials which included mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were being conducted at the local Veterans Administration hospital (where novelist Ken Kesey also participated in tests). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating," but described struggling in efforts to quit.

Original source is actually Da autobio Knee 1972, summarized in GJ. I quote some passages from Knee below. He took psychedelics regularly and habitually (by his own description) until 1967, including daily pot smoking while studying with Rudi (tho trying to quit), and culminating in a terrifying mescaline trip that year that was his last. I cited the chapters now on page, but so does GJ. Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The source here is "The Gurdjieff Journal," Gurdjieff & The New Age Part IX, Franklin Jones & Rudi Part I, by William Patrick Patterson, which is published by William Patrick Patterson. The line "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward" is not verifiable and I believe it to be inaccurate. Saying he described struggling in efforts to quit, suffers from undue weight, and is proposed for inclusion I believe to cast doubt onto Adi Da's character. As simply a source of information about the subject it is irrelevant.

Jones/Da called these years significant. I don't find drug use in the spiritual counterculture of the 1960's in any way shocking. They are given the same weight here in his bio as he originally gave them himself, which was considerable, but compartmentalized - he said they were very important experiences to him. Your judgments are subjective. The source is balanced, and cited. It's Jones himself.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged. A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."

This is discussed at length below. In particular tho, there is mention made in more than one place about "controversial" behavior and teaching methods that occurred in the 1970's. This contextualizes them, and provides response by Da org. Every independent report on Da mentions this period by name, and describes these events.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, using Free John as a casual somewhat disrespectful tone is a way of injecting bias. The article is about Adi Da. The amount of detail here, saying switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe by including it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added Bubba per your request, though "Free John" simply replaced "Jones" because his name changed by that time, and bio follows the name changes in every case through chronology, per WP bio precedents. Issue is not covered in controversies section fully - that section mainly deatils legal disputes and 1985 press. Even there "period in the 1970's" is referenced but not described. It fits in bio, and ties into "teaching" section with crazy wisdom sub-section.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why "Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones" and "The Gurdieff Journal" are Self-Published

Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones is published by the Mt San Antonio Philosophy Group of which David Lane is a founder. He uses this group to self publish his own books as well as the books of others. By definition if you use a group started by you to publish your own books, then those books are self -published.

The Gurdieff Journal appears to be published by the Gurdieff Legacy organization which as a competing spiritual organization would be pretty iffy as far as being a reliable source for what is happening in other competing organizations. This is not a publication being published by an independent third party and therefore would be considered self published. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The publisher has the imprimatur of the university. Who are you to judge its validity? It is not a guy publishing out of his home office, or only publishing his own materials. Also, the University is allowing its name to be used, lending the press credibility. Also, the information being sourced is quoted, and the author can be researched by readers. This simply doesn't meet the standard of "self-publishing" meant by the guidlines, and you are ruling it out simply ebcause you do not like the content due to your bias.

"Competing organization?" What independent proof do you have of this contention? Gurdjieff "Work" has no central church or organization. You seem to be concocting a rule or standard that seems self serving. What are the points you are contending? And why would another religious or philosophical journal have no right to publish material describing or analysing material relating to another? Adi Da had a relationship to Gurdjieff, read him, studied his methods. Not to mention the info being used here on Da is not biased or even especially critical, but largely descriptive.

The journal covers many topics. it is clearly reputable, and years in print, and meets the standard of a professional publication. Other sources are not being ruled out on these grounds - you are being arbitrary due to clear bias. Much the info being sourced from it can be cross referenced in the other sources listed. No other editor, many quite Da-ist, are having this problem. Tao2911 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the book and it is not published by the college, but it is published by the Mt San Antonio Philosophy Group. It even lists David Lane's personal email as a contact with the publishers info. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When this source was first applied I questioned it as to whether it was a self-published book. It is not i UNverse, but there is some gray area. How would we resolve this? Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Gurdieff Journal is being self-published by this guy, William Patrick Patterson, who according to WP is a spiritual teacher. Check out his Wiki page here:[[1]], which also has a section titled "Gurdieff Journal" Currently his self published views on Adi Da are being used heavily in this article. I count 9 citations. Incidentally, WP allows self published materials that are by the subject of the article, "as long as the article is not based primarily on such sources". See WP:SELFPUB WP largely does not allow un-verified self-published sources to be used in it's articles. see WP:SELFPUBLISH

I used the article because he summarizes info from early editions of Knee of Listening, that I actually confirmed by reading the first edition as well. I used it as source because it is not first person, and confirms first person material. And though it is used, no editorial opinion is used. The info is presented with NPOV. It is not biased in tone or usage - so PLEASE, again, what is your problem in the page, and how then is the source problematice. Your accusations here are just heresay re: Patterson. The journal looks to be professional and respectable. Its editorial stance is not up for debate here. "What is Enlightenment?" magazine for instance would not be in question, though it is the "mouthpiece" for Andrew Cohen. He is controversial, but I wouldn't discount his mag for that, or because he too is a "competing spiritual teacher."Tao2911 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Struggle for neutrality

This is of course the ongoing issue here. Due to the very helpful reminder some months back of some key WP guielines per sources (hopefully tertiary, and secondary when absolutely necessary) a lot of clarity was brought o bear on this page and a lot of original research, interpretation, and first person sourcing has been removed. Adi Da is a difficult figure because he was so controversial, a relatively little independent analysis of his work or life has been written at this time. What has been written reflects the very controversy that he was prone to engender. The entry therefore is going to reflect this to some degree. But without bringing up specific concerns, one cannot simply approach this page and say it is biased. Where is it biased? In all instances of these accusations, editors of late have worked together to find a solution, with sometimes vigorous dispute. But solutions have been reached - mainly by stripping things down to clearly citable facts, with no interp or analysis or weasel words. Editors coming into that process should respect this precedent, and engage with those active currently, bringing up their concerns, and allowing for debate to produce further consensus. I know that I have worked hard to cross reference everything on this page, finding and correcting errant dates or conflicting chronologies. I have appreciated those familiar with his teaching first hand helping remove paradoxical interpretations, and working together to find colloquial versions of ideas that more befit the tone of the whole page. This page is looking great, really, and I don't think its cool for someone to sweep in and slap a bunch of dispute labels on things without making specific allegations and allowing discourse. This is certainly against WP precedent, and the sense of cooperation that has prevailed of late.Tao2911 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed a number of url's to sites such as adidaarchives which are not nuetral nor third party. Left citations relative to the newspapers the quotes are cited from.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 1985, visible tensions emerged when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he allegedly refused to communicate with them.[60]" I have added back in "According to The Lake County News" There is a big differeance between " In 1985, visible tensions emerged " which is stated this is fact and happened vs a newspaper reported this information. IF somthing is reported fine. If it is stated as a fact in the article then it needs to state that it is a reported information by a source. So won't go crazy with this in the article unless it is misleading.23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Riverdale (talk • contribs)

The tags I have added are clearly not drive-by's. I have said that I am challenging your sources as self-published and un-reliable. I am also challenging the use of certain material as violating NPOV. The tags are necessary since you are reverting my edits that are intended on correcting this issue.David Starr 1 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You mention two sources, but not specifically what they are leading to that is questionable. Just because material has a POV doesn't exclude it from use. How is it used? Also, sources should be tertiary if possible, but can not be if info is only available elsewhere - like some of those links to adidarchives, which linked I think simply to Wilber letters or something. I didn't make those links, btw. Take things on case by case - don't rule them out simply because they don't fit some rigid agenda you are executing. As has been discussed here at length, there has been a real attempt to minimize questionable sources, but there are not a plethora of tertiary sources on Adi Da - little to no independent scholarship or analysis - so in some cases there are links to other sources; in all cases these things have been carefully phrased to acknowledge POV. This possibility is granted in the guidelines. Take it CASE BY CASE, not to just support your own biased views and desire for the page.Tao2911 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing someone else's discussion from talk page

Sorry to be off topic here, but Tao2911 just removed my discussion from this talk page and replaced it with his own. See here:[[2]] Removing someones valid comments from a talk page is way beyond acceptable behavioral guidelines, especially when the goal is to censor that persons POV. We should be discussing the merits of the article. Tao2911 has so far reverted all of my edits and removed my comments from the discussion page. He is clearly attempting to prevent me from participating here. My points are valid and based on WP rules and guidelines. I am replacing tags and asking Tao2911 to replace my comments that he has removed. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not do this (removing your comments in talk) - I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, I am simply asking for you to enter this process with respect, and bring up your specific issues here to be discussed. I am not trying to block you - such accusations are not helpful. So address my points please, and take it down a notch.

I removed your flags because you made accusations of bias tone with no specifics. I REVERTED some of your changes to the page because they were out of line. I have discussed my reasons carefully and reasonably here. If I accidentally REVERTED something in talk, it was purely by accident.Tao2911 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, hope you are well. I think perhaps you may have accidentally done it via the practice of adding a response in the middle of another persons entry. What do you think about all of us agreeing not to respond in the middle of someones statement, but instead only responding at the end of someones statement on the talk page? It makes it much easier for others to follow.David Starr 1 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally I think this is a good idea - I'm trying to create new sections in most instances to launch new points, so we don't get these convoluted passages. it does get confusing.Tao2911 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, a precipitous drop in tone!

It has been impressive lately, the way the main current editors here have discussed their differences, and made great strides moving the article towards a GA. But you were out of order Tao, removing another editors entry, no matter how provocative it was, and you should reinstate it. It's sad to see the precipitous drop in tone that has occurred since your confrontational return, David. The article, as you found it, was the current consensus between the regular editors here. You should respect that, and not make changes to the article until you have discussed them here and achieved consensus. I have reverted the article to the last consensual version before you started changing it. Please do not edit war by making further changes to the article without consensus. If consensus cannot be reached on whether certain sources are acceptable, the issues can be referred to the reliable sources noticeboard --Epipelagic (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling all Editors

Dear Editors, we need to be working together instead of playing adolescent games with one another. David Starr, your contributions have been much appreciated in the past, and your knowledge of wiki policy extends beyond my own, and that is something important you bring to this article. I am glad to see you back here, but I would advise you to change your approach. Simply making edits in the article, even while explained in the history, does not work so well here.

Tao used to do this a lot. I also used to do this a lot. And it only ended up setting one another off. If you notice, Tao and I have been working together now, diligently, for really the first time I can remember. And it has been great. It is possible to do this, even when points of view are completely clashing. I would suggest that if you have suggested edits based on wiki policies, and content in this article you find is not NPOV, then please post it here for all of us to see and consider, and then propose an edit. This is a much better way than just going into the article and making changes. I feel it would serve the editorial process of this article much more, and make it into a cohesive rather than a divisive effort, thus yielding real results.

So please, I would like to ask Tao and David to put behind all past history and confrontation, and I would like to ask David Starr, if he is going to be a part of editing this article, to please post things in Discussion before making edits, so all can be discussed here. You may be completely right about what you are saying, but if it isn't clear to all the editors here why you are doing this change, and on what basis, giving us time to read the policies, and see the text in question, then inevitably people will react and jump on it, especially when we have been working together on this article for a while.

The article has been reverted back to where it was before David Starr made any edits, as Epipelagic just stated. Let's work from here, David.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mt. San Antonio College Philosophy Group -- Is it a real publisher?

When I do a search for this publisher I do not get any other books published except David Lane. What comes up is also a link to David Lane's website. Something odd is also happening when I search it on amazon.com in that no books com up with that name.Try other publishers and their books come up/ The ones that come up have Philosophy Group striked out. This needs to be resloved. Any suggestions?Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw another attribution for this as MSA College Press, and planned to go back and correct all the ref attributions when I had the chance. I will look for this source. However, this really doesn't matter - the university has given its name. it is not self-publishing. And the info used for this source is cited and contextualized. I know you don't like those essays - why else is it a problem?Tao2911 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is if you can find another book that is actually published in the exact name by that publisher... fine. It is coming up in a search as directly linked to Lane website and odd things show up in amazon. Perfectly ok question.

"I know you don't like those essays" we are all bias here right... you too! If it is a legit publisher fine ... if not as you always say .... it should not be cited. Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 1985, visible tensions emerged when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he allegedly refused to communicate with them." Tao what is the problem about putting a simple "According to The Lake County News " here. I am not asking for the actual citation to be removed. Just so the line makes it perfectly clear that this is a reported newspaper item. I know it annoys you but it is not an unreasonable request eh.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't include that because it is out of keeping with the article - every single line would then read as "this said" and "that said" and "he said" and "she said" - this is what citations are for. Adding that mention there would be peculiar, and would in itself reveal an editorial bias! In addition, this is why I used the word ALLEGEDLY. The potential for an opposing account is built into the phrasing of the sentence. However, we only have this one source - and it is completely within the guidelines of WP.Tao2911 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree...as I said earlier (and this discussion somehow has also disappeared I am not suggesting that it go in every place. But this statement is misleading without this insertion. So I am going to include it here. This is perfectly within wiki standards.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

its not enough to disagree - describe to me how it is misleading - especially refuting my points above, ie that inclucing this kind of "bracketing" of source info is out of keeping with the entire rest of page, and that the sentence itself says "allegedly", with citation? Tao2911 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, the line states "In 1985, visible tensions emerged when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances," Maybe and maybe not. The way this statement is worded makes it seem like this absolutely happened. While I have appreciated much of what you have done and worked hard on Tao, you are very resistive to any change of wording, treating this like your own personal english composition. . Relax a bit here. This is not major editing but making the statement have balance as to a mere reporting from a newspaper rather than making it seem that this is absolutely true. Citation is there I am not asking for it to be removed. I am not asking for this to be done in all citations. You don't have to control every comma and period here. Make some constructive change if you like to address the issue I am bringing up.Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1985, visible tensions did emerge. Period. Ok, so that is not in dispute. The article reports that devotees requested an audience, and as the rest of the line points out, were "allegedly" refused. Read the whole sentence. Its alleged. The audience request and refusal is being reported in a newspaper article. The possibility of this information being inaccurate or biased is indicated by the "allegedly." I'm not controlling every comma - I'm telling you why you are mistaken, and how your change is problematic and unnecessary. I know you don't like this line. We have been over a few times now. I made changes to reach consensus. We moved on. I want to stop coming back over and over to every line that partisans find offensive, despite citations, and carefully neutral sentence structure.Tao2911 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok how about this controversial "self-published" title, from a (different) university library catalog listing found in one quick google search?

"The socratic universe : interviews with California philosophers"

Other Authors Mount San Antonio College. Philosophy Group.

Imprint:Walnut, Calif. : Mount San Antonio College Philosophy Group, c1995.

Physical Descriptionxv, 96 p. ; 22 cm.

Bibliography Note:Includes bibliographical references (p. 95-96)

ISBN1565430506 (pbk.)

As far as I'm concerned this is the end of this discussion - point is made. This is a reputable college press. If the college lets their name be used, and provides funding (how this works, guys), it is not self-publishing. Both authors in the book in question (Lane and Lowe) are published PhD religions professors at different universities. They're views are contextualized as having POV. Source is not in doubt. Done.Tao2911 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, another listing: "Da: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones. Co-authored by Scott Lowe and David Lane. Walnut, CA: Mt. San Antonio College Philosophy Group, 1996. (Reviewed in Nova Religio, v. 1, n. 1, October 1997, p. 153.)" As ref'd already on page, the book was even reviewed by another university journal, Nova Religio, by USC religions prof. This point is now thoroughly made.Tao2911 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying this!Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... today I called the Mount San Antonio College to find out about their press, Mount San Antonio College. Philosophy Group. I talked to several departments including Social Sciences. The person there a Miss Gracias, said that NO such press exist at the college there. When I asked her how come there are two books with that name she said "Perhaps a professor published his own book" but there was definitely no official publisher there by that nameJason Riverdale (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

again this remains hearsay. I work in academia - you can't legally use the name of the school without some kind of backing. You can get into huge trouble - including losing your job. No one is arguing this is a huge important publisher. The only question is whether it qualifies as "not self-published". It has the school's name, it's published other scholarly texts that are in other school libraries. The only essay cited in WP entry is by Scott Lowe, and he is not affiliated in any way with this school. he teaches in Wisconsin I believe - that right there is not self-published (the essay was requested by the editor, as is explained). Beyond that, his citations are in one case a quote, and in another neutral and cited. His is a PhD in Asian Religions. He is one of the only first hand accounts of time with Da in the 70's that is independently published, ref'd by other sources used on page, and trying to exclude him reeks of unbridled bias.Tao2911 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, it seems to me that it is okay to use the Lane book. — goethean ॐ 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the press has hits on Books In Print which to me says that it is a real publisher. [3] — goethean ॐ 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the lead section

My apologies to all of you for the roughness of my approach. Thank you for the constructive criticism. I appreciate your call for consensus and will also abide by that guideline. Again my apologies. I hope you won't mind if I bring up a few problems that I am having with the lead section.

"His early books gained praise from respected authorities in religion and philosophy, including Alan Watts and Ralph Metzner.[6] In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community.[7][8][9]" Source #6 is an amazon.com page showing a picture of the Knee of Listening. Where is a source connecting Ralph Metzner with Adi Da?

Increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community are exceptional claims. :WP:REDFLAG says " Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." The sources for these claims are a broken link for viceland.com, a self- published booklet titled "DA: The Strange Case of Franklin Jones" by the Mt. San Antonio College Philosophy Group, and a non linked reference to Ken Wilber online. I do not feel like these references are high-quality sources at all. I also feel that using these statements in the lead are not in keeping with WP:Undue and WP:NPOV, as one persons statements, (Ken Wilber) should not define Adi Da in the lead section, and also I believe these statements are being included in the lead to further an agenda. What say ye? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

many have argued these points, leveled these criticisms. These accusations are prevalent - and discussed throughout the rest of the article. Come on, now. Having one line overview of the criticisms of Da is only reasonable. What isn't is to pretend that these accusations are NOT in 1000 sources online, elsewhere, many of them authoritative - including the multiple ref's cited. Every news story confirms this - this is almost always how is contextualized. I will perhaps link the wilber (its quoted in reception)- we all know what he said. Feuerstein (you are not questioning him as source, nor can you), Lane and Lowe (critical essays now established as legit publisher), Wilber (good enough for Da/Adidam until he grew critical), the Vice article (major monthly pub), former devotees, cult watch groups (rick ross, linked at bottom of page, not by me), every news article alluding to such accusations (quoted throughout page), on and on. Come on - you don't like the accusations. Fine. But we must acknowledge that they exist, and are indeed persistent. Your good faith would better demonstrated if you followed up and tried to help cite or fix things that you have questions about, rather than just remove them (say, like the Metzner ref - it is somewhere surely.) And the other thing - I cited the sources of the criticisms. You are telling me that you don't want citations for the line mentioning that there are critics, because they aren't NPOV? That is simply absurd; it makes no sense. Of course they aren't NPOV. The line is about them being critical!!! Not only that, but when citations weren't sufficient, JR requested that I add more, including the Vice article link. I don't know abt it not working - it worked before.Tao2911 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised above. I simply have not looked into the article at the level of sources, and policies. I don't have the time, so I am glad you do.

My suggestion is that we all come up with a Lead, in accordance with wiki policy, together. Perhaps you can begin drafting this with quality sources, and everyone here including Tao can offer criticism, content, suggestions, etc. I think that will be the only way to make it work, otherwise we will just have endless back and forth, each one unconsciously (or subconsciously) trying to push their own agenda, emotion, and point of view relative to this article. We must help balance each other, and make compromises for the sake of neutrality. The bickering and highly reactive approach simply has to stop, it is not fruitful, it has filled countless pages of Discussion thus far, and gotten the article back to square one each time.

So with that basis already established, let's consider what will work as a Lead, then.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem - Starr has a pattern of misusing policies and removing sources that he simply finds disagreeable, in order to remove critical perspectives on this page. I have carefully found sources both pro and con, and for every negative or potentially critical view I have in the same passage presented the reverse, in every case. Starr calling into question the whole page, sewing these seeds of doubt regarding the viability of the page even among admittedly partisan editors who have up to now been constructively active, is an unfortunate development. As is the attempt to demonize me. But whatever. lets stick to the points, folks.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, I am hoping that you will address the specific issues that I have brought up above. I think that they are reasonable issues and should be argued on their merits. Simply casting doubt on me personally isn't really going to work. Even if we find that the sources are qualified, there is still the issue of balance in the lead which currently is weighted pretty negatively with both the inclusion of the controversies summary and the issues I have raised above. In addition to the issues I have raised above, Who are the "some" who "perceived his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community"? This is a weasel word. See WP:WEASEL David Starr 1 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My final word on this here will just be to point out again how the passage is framed by the statement "criticized for what some perceived as..." I think that line quite deftly encapsulates a common characterization, maybe best summed up in the Wilber and Feurstein comments (discussed at length later in the page), but also by news articles and others. It says what some perceive and state, and then it references those persons comments/sources. It is in no way make an editorial comment on Da, or those persons. Remember, the lead is an overview. Each point in lead is fleshed out in later sections - but each is nonetheless carefully cited in lead as well.Tao2911 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

I am removing the POV flag on this article until specific allegations re: bias are listed here in talk and can be discussed. The flag colors the article in a negative light - it was added by Starr without making specific allegations - but simply his questioning two sources that are demonstrably not self-published.

So I request that specific instances of BIAS are shown here - not simply (cited) contextualized mentions of incidents or accusations in the article that offend the POV of certain persons (which in all cases are phrased to be "alleged" etc). Again, there has been hard work put in on this page - it has been carefully crafted to neutrally voice all POV, and briefly but thoroughly present an overview of Adi Da, neutrally. The flag is an unfair and unreasonable negation of these efforts, which have on the whole been very effective.Tao2911 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Tao is saying here. Let questionable phrases be posted here for discussion, so we can all see it. If someone feels it is violating a specific wiki policy, then let's all look at it, and see if we agree with that interpretation.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the two sources (Gurd. Journal and MSAPG) in question have been shown to be within WP standards for independent tertiary sources, which is the primary stipulation - not how much one likes the material or the quality of the writing or how often they publish or the color of the cover etc. Please let us discuss specific instances of alleged bias in the article, and move past this source discussion. Starr's tactic is try to remove cherry picked information by discounting the source. I want to know what specific lines are problematic, and deal with those. I challenge anyone to find an instance of bias here that is not balanced by an opposing view, or where it is not phrased as to indicate that assertions are specific to source or individual; and in all cases these are reported in tertiary sources and not based on original research or interpretation. Tao2911 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, specific lines, we have to get really clear on anything that is questionable, if someone thinks there is something biased, non-NPOV, etc. The "make 30 edits" approach simply does not work, and cannot work.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Gurdieff Journal is definitely self published and it's being used as a source for contentious claims. But mainly it seems that there is an idea here that if you have a source for something, then it's fair game for inclusion. But thats not how it works. Verifiability is only one consideration. Neutrality, including undue weight, is another. So when talking about someone who started a new religion, why are we listing the brand of cough syrup he once drank in the early 60's? Why are we mentioning that he had a hard time giving it up? And why are we using self-published sources to even bring it into the article in the first place?

In addition to the passage in the lead that I feel is biased, I object to the following inclusions: -

Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He also took part in hallucinogenic drug trials which included mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were being conducted at the local Veterans Administration hospital (where novelist Ken Kesey also participated in tests). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating," but described struggling in efforts to quit.

The source here is "The Gurdjieff Journal," Gurdjieff & The New Age Part IX, Franklin Jones & Rudi Part I, by William Patrick Patterson, which is published by William Patrick Patterson. The line "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward" is not verifiable and I believe it to be inaccurate. Saying he described struggling in efforts to quit, suffers from undue weight, and is proposed for inclusion I believe to cast doubt onto Adi Da's character. As simply a source of information about the subject it is irrelevant.

In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged. A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."

Here, using Free John as a casual somewhat disrespectful tone is a way of injecting bias. The article is about Adi Da. The amount of detail here, saying switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe by including it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Free John was how he was called at that time. The bio now follows his shifts in title/name, per other WP bio precedents. The mention of sexuality, as discussed before you reappeared, is the first time this has ever been authoritatively addressed in this page. it is clearly the most controversial time in his oeuvre, described as such by his own spokespersons, who often have excused later accusations of abuse as stemming from this period. the citation is authoritative, and specific. You have a clear pattern fo trying to remove negative mentions, so that things become vague and nebulous. here. it is made specific, from a tertiary source. It is balanced with a Da source to explain that "experimentation" occurred. It is needed in the bio to explain timeline of events. It is further explained in legal accusations, but not in specifics. When I came to this page 18 months ago, I was aware that there were allegations - i wondered when, where, why. Subsequently, exploring these sources as cited throughout this page, I have come to realize there was a clear chronology. The "crazy wisdom" section helps in this regard as well. The whole page is of a piece. If someone were to read the whole thing, they would I believe get a balanced view of the figure, as he has been reported in various tertiary sources - news, legal proceedings, articles, analysis, and self-assessment by himself and followers - in a timeline. So - the Garbage period is crucial. What Feuerstein is quoted as describing about it is not hearsay - it is supported by many follower's accounts, both lapsed and current. Articles support this. It is not excessive. it is brief and a quoted tertiary source. I will strenuously defend its inclusion on these grounds.Tao2911 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE : Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. An entire book was written about the Garbage and the Goddess period which had various significant importances to the religion of that Adi Da created. So why the focus on the sexual aspect? And why in such great detail? The only reason I can come up with is to inject bias. The sexual issue was not the subject of the Garbage and the Goddess period. Undue weight means that you are focusing or highlighting some aspect of an event that has very little actual significance to the subject of the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"an entire book" was NOT written about the G&G period. A now out of print book (removed from later Adidam bibliographies of his books) was created from some of the (heavily edited, according Saniel Bonder/Feurstein) lectures Jones gave at that time called "G&G." This period is arguably the MOST important in terms of the amount of controversy created - which is how Da is framed from word one on the WP page, which accurately reflects his stature in the culture. He is controversial. No dispute. The sexual aspects are a major reason for this controversy. Therefore their inclusion in sensible. They actually deserve greater coverage - and get it, in the legal section, and Crazy Wisdom section. Adidam says there that ALL the behavior alleged in the lawsuits stems from this period, and therefore the statute of limitations had run out. This is one of their defenses. The bio tells what this period was - as do all Adidam chronologies. One line describing why this period is so incendiary is warranted. Adidam spokepeople/lawyers/members from that time do not dispute that those behaviors occurred, only saying that they stopped. Also, mentions of polygamy are commonly mentioned in interviews and news reports, as well as Lowe's first hand account. They are framed as such in page. this is all significant because Jones/Adi Da was a spiritual leader, teacher, and self-proclaimed holy person - a "god man." To not mention that these behaviors may have occurred, as reported in major media and countless reports, is to not accurately reflect his stature in the culture, or give a sufficient overview of the man. For good or ill, the allegations (and admissions) exist - it becomes important because of Da's self-declared role. A general audience will want to know that a religious figure engaged in such activities, or simply that such allegations so widely exist (be it Jimmy Swaggart, a dalai lama (the 5th), a Zen master, or a pope. Funny, there are examples of controversial sexual behavior for each...) This is how he is known. This is a reasonable summation looking at the existing coverage and tertiary info on the guy.Tao2911 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Magioladitis

for ref./formatting cleanup - I was hoping someone would do all that.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted passages in question/Drug quotes from Knee 1972

I just wanted to clarify changes I just made to the 'divine emergence' section. I could see how sentences left room for some misinterp that was bugging Dev and JR, so I shifted some things. In particular, I wanted to head off misunderstanding about the substitution of 'near-death' for less concise "death and rebirth" of the original source article. I have actually heard this point discussed by scientists, in that while it may seem to the subject that they've seemingly died and been reborn, since they've not terminally "died" (clearly), the experience is always termed 'near-death.' There is a nifty page about this that I linked to, which is very much on topic I think. Hope this helps.Tao2911 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, added more info about VA drug tests, with links. While the CIA mention may seem potentially controversial, while quickly checking on the exact name and location of the hospital I noticed that everything I came across mentioned these as MKULTRA tests, including the Kesey page that is linked. I added ref from the MK page to cover that base. I think mentioning Kesey in the same breath heads off potential accusations of slant, whathaveyou, ie no implication Jones was anything more than just another "test subject."Tao2911 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From page 155 of The Knee of Listening:

"Such remarkable states of uncommon awareness combined with my rising sense of anxiety, fear, and reluctance in relation to drugs--such that, finally, in the early summer of 1965, I determined to somehow stop their use.

I decided that I would deliberately take a drug for the last time. I would not simply stop using drugs before a last, bravely intentional try. I did not want fear to be my motive for stopping my experiment with drugs. Thus, I bought two large capsules of mescalin, and Nina and I went to spend the Fourth of July weekend at the summer home of a friend on the south shore of Long Island.

I was quite anxious, and I delayed the taking of the drug for several hours. nina decided she did not want to take the drug, and so I gave it to a young man who was also present, the friend of my friend. My friend, Larry, took several capsules of peyote. I shuffled through all my cautions. Then I downed my last capsule of drugs with abandon. It was to be the most terrifying experience of my life."

I do appreciate your effort and clarification of the drug trials, and also the Divine Emergence paragraph. I agree that mentioning Ken Kesey levels it out. Adi Da never found drugs to be "self-validating" nor did he struggle to quit. In fact, it was Rudi who told him to stop, and he did immediately. However, you have an apparent source (Gurjieff Journal) with this information, and it is verifiable in the sense that anyone can go and see that it is written there, so regardless of it's untruth, it just may have to stay in the article.

But the whole thing is painted like a positive for Adi Da, which it really was not altogether, if you read his experiences of them. The passage I quoted above being the most revealing of his final viewpoint on drug use.--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a passage in the 1st ed of Knee where he is studying with Rudi, and wishes to finally stop using (pot and psychedelics) and has some difficulty. I will find the passage and quote here. Also, he talks about the cough syrup episode, etc and he actually uses the phrase "self-validating" in Knee (hence quotes). This is also I believed quoted in another source - clearly from 1st ed of Knee. The passage in Knee is quite similar to how it is phrased in the page - that he found drug use helpful for a time, "self-validating" and helping to remind him of childhood experiences of awareness and bliss (I think many people would say something quite similar.) But later he became attached to their use, and struggled when in NYC to completely stop. Sources back this up. Will find quote soon.Tao2911 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, well that is fine then. Not a huge deal, but I wouldn't mind seeing some balance relative to the fact that it wasn't all good 'ole fun.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is also I believed quoted in another source - clearly from 1st ed of Knee. The passage in Knee is quite similar to how it is phrased in the page - that he found drug use helpful for a time, "self-validating" and helping to remind him of childhood experiences of awareness and bliss (I think many people would say something quite similar.)" Tao this in fact is the accurate description of why he found it "self validating" Let me know if you find the source. I have a friend who has a used bookstore and I think he has a copy of that edition of The Knee of Listening... thanks for cooperation here. Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as to this inclusion. I have detailed my objections in the section above. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the passage, chapter 4 1st ed of Knee: "In the midst of my year at Stanford I had occasion to use marijuana again. And I took a formula cough medicine called "Romilar" that had very remarkable effects if taken in large doses...I found that the dose of "Romilar" had no effect whatsoever in terms of a "high" if I spent my time at a party or in conversation with others. But if, after an hour or so, I went out alone and walked in a natural environment, particularly among trees, a profound state would come over me... in the state produced by "Romilar" I became deeply relaxed, mentally and physically...I thought this state must be the same condition described as Nirvana in the Buddhist texts. That state seemed to me true, even though artificially induced. It was very similar to the natural condition I called the "bright," and it duplicated quite exactly, although more calmly, the structure of my experience during my college awakening. It was on the basis of such self-validating experiences that I openly desired to experience the effects of the "new" drugs, LSD, mescalin and psilocibin. And so, just prior to Nina's return, and for several weeks thereafter, I voluntarily submitted to drug trials at the V.A. hospital..." Also, I adjusted the passage to say that he ultimately found the use of such substances "limited". Does that cover your concerns Dev?Tao2911 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I found this passage rather droll: "There was Ken Kesey, a novelist who had written at the Stanford workshop and who has since gained notoriety as an exponent of drug culture. He was rather incommunicative, but we smoked marijuana together and listened to random tape recordings while we watched the silent images on his television set. I gave him two of our cats."Tao2911 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Struggles to quit": This is all after Rudi has encouraged Jones to quit drugs - "By the spring of 1965 I had begun to use marijuana frequently. I found it relaxing and particularly necessary under the pressure of work and effort that Rudi required. But the drug began to have a peculiarly negative effect. When I would smoke it... I would realize a profound anxiety and fear.

I took other drugs with my old friends. We took Romilar again, but now its effects seemed minor. We found the city atmosphere aggravating, in contrast to the natural and beautiful setting of California. We began to turn on and spend our time yearning to return to the ocean and the forests.

I took a drug called DMT which had a remarkable and miraculous effect. I became visibly aware of the nature of space and matter. Time disappeared, and space and matter revealed themselves as a single, complicated mass or fluid...Such remarkable states of awareness combined with my rising sense of anxiety, fear and reluctance in relation to drugs, so that finally, in the early summer of 1965, I determined somehow to stop their use." he has some bad trips and finally does - "My efforts, internal and external, were profoundly magnified by this freedom from the need to indulge myself in drug experiences or any other kind of stimulation." This is all in Chapter 8.

I have the first edition of The Knee of Listening, published by the CSA Press. None of this material is in there. Are you perhaps quoting from some other source? I believe that this material must be coming from the un-published manuscript of the Knee of Listening. Is that true? As an un-published manuscript, it definitely would not be allowed under WP:verifiability. In the first edition of The Knee of Listening that I have, Chapter 4 has only 16 paragraphs and is only 7 pages long. None of this material is in there. I don't even know if you can excerpt legally from an un-published work. I believe that Fair Use only applies to copyrighted, published materials. Furthermore, there would be no way to verify that the copy that you have is correct. There would be no way to verify such text.David Starr 1 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all right here: http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/KneeofListening/book/tableofcontents.html I have a print version too, that despite some typos on web, is the same.Tao2911 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Picture

Dev- can you find an authorized pic of Da from 1990's? I added that one that has been removed, but I didn't have time to get all the copyright issue worked out. Maybe if you could do that? I think having a "classic"one similar to the one I inserted - you know, shirtless, slightly round, meditating? That is even how he is depicted in devotional sculptures etc. Just to cover a period from baby to "elderly pensive." You know, real "god-man era" stuff, with glasses and all.Tao2911 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The copyright holder at the Dawn Horse Press has to send a special write-up granting permission to Wiki Commons for use of any photographs. So it is not easy, and rather complex. I have worked this in the past, so I can try to get a picture. I feel doubtful that a picture such as the one you put up (popular amongst negative websites) would be easy to obtain permission for. But I will see what I can do.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also a subject in drug trials for mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were part of a CIA project called MK-ULTRA,

I think Tao if you are going to make major additions such as this without discussion and without sources for such a claim while I am supposed to go through seven or eight back and forths just to make one small change then there is something wrong here. What's your specific proof that the Menlo Park drug trials were part of MK-ULTRA? Or do you just assume that all the government drug trials were part of MK-ULTRA? And I thought we weren't making such additions without discussion? Are we interested in being accurate at all? Or is it just about spreading rumor? David Starr 1 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making assertions or adding new info, I'm clarifying the data that is already present. The tests at Menlo Park hospital were run by the CIA; the project was called MKULTRA. I went simply to find out at which hospital the tests took place, going from "ner Stanford" to "local" to "menlo park." There were then numbers of sources that revealed this extra detail. Link to kesey. There it is, and elsewhere. It is cited, and not in dispute.Tao2911 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, if you don't have a source that specifically says Adi Da's drug tests were run by the CIA, then it's original research, you know that. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All psychedelic drug trials at Menlo Park were run by the CIA, as the ref's cite. Jones himself described being involved in the same tests as Kesey, and Kesey spoke at length about the tests CIA origins. but no matter. Check the citations, and the internal links. they tell the story. It's not original research.Tao2911 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this fact ie CIA relevant to this article? Except... perhaps the editor who inserted it to impose extreme bias in the article. It is totally irreverent to this article and should be removed. Way off here Tao. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter Tao if your source says that, it's still original research. The source has to bring in Adi Da specifically. We aren't here to put such things together ourselves. Wikipedia does not publish original research. I'm not finding mention of the Menlo Park VA in there either. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources say that Jones participated in the same hospital and tests as Kesey. That hospital is Menlo Park VA - accuracy is helpful. Menlo Park tests were conducted by CIA. Why is this a fact a problem? I don't get it. I think it's interesting, and posits Jones into his milieu. I didn't research any of this - drug tests, kesey, VA, CIA, all cited, internal links, that cross reference. A + B = C is not original research. It's simple fact.Tao2911 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From Gurjieff Journal article: "He, like Ken Kesey (who gave his own account in his One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and many others, volunteered as a subject for drug experiments at the nearby Veterans Administration Hospital. During a six- week period he was given LSD, mescalin and psilocybin." That hospital was in Menlo Park. Those tests were run by the CIA. That project was called MKULTRA.Tao2911 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But frankly, I'm not that attached to this info. The link to kesey provides the info - so I'll remove it.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing 3rd party cited material WITHOUT any discussion

This section is identical to section below, with some added comments below. Must have been cut/pasted by Starr in his attempts to clean-up(?) talk. So I'm removing here - see "overall view/bright..." heading.Tao2911 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal references

Here are the references for that GJ article, and why I used it for the bio:

"Notes

1. Quiet, long-suffering, fathered mother. Jones, 1992 edition of The Knee of Listening (Los Angeles: Dawn Horse Press, 1992 edition), p. 34.

2. Drug experiments. Franklin Jones, Knee of Listening, 1972 edition, pp. 17-18.

3. A mass of gigantic thumbs. Jones, pp. 20-21.

4. A largely unconscious or preconscious logic or structure. Jones, p. 16.

5. Universally adored child of the gods. Jones, p. 26.

6. Libertine, drinker. Jones, 1992 edition of The Knee of Listening, p. 140

7. Are you an adept at this yoga? Jones, pp. 99–100.

8. A man of great passions and appetites. Jones, 1992 edition of The Knee of Listening, p. 158.

9. Rudi’s tendency. Jones, p. 52."

This is just the first of three sections of the article. He simply uses Knee in different editions to compile a thorough bio. Later, he uses Rudi's own books as well. So, tertiary source doing some useful research for the page.Tao2911 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This GJ article also quotes the LCN article at length that has been the cause of some dispute. I've highlighted the qualifications for all assertions that reflect the article's neutrality and journalistic orientation:

"Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in with little regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development…In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to this suffering a major breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.” —Lake County News, December 7, 2008"

We have further worked together here to make info even more neutral. I do not see anything in this article I have not seen asserted in other sources, some of which do not meet the standards of WP source material. However, this source does, and the other article on Da from LCN is not in dispute. This source is not used as a primary one for most of the page. However, it is one of the only newspapers articles we have on Da, and it should be used, especially as it is the only tertiary source we have on the significant "lawsuits "Divine Emergence"" period.Tao2911 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall View/"Bright Since Birth" mention

I wanted to point out that the very first line in this page has always said (from the first creation of this page) that Adi Da is "controversial." That's never been in debate. A following quote, quite astutely characterizes him as seemingly sometimes "outrageous." he certainly was at times. His own followers embrace this, and call him "radical," in every way.

Why then is he controversial? Certain persons have continued to try to remove any mention of anything but some lawsuits (and at times, even those.) The lawsuits were not the beginning or end of his controversial reputation. Removing all assertions that help explain this lead simply isn't in keeping with an encyclopedic entry. I think we now have a number of specific tertiary sourced events, in a timeline, that helps explain this reputation, without bias and without some seeming duck and cover dance that I found very frustrating when I originally came to this page looking for a single source overview. Without getting into unsubstantiated claims of abuse or wild behavior (of which there are many right to his last days) we now have enough info to at least allude to why he gained this appellation or reputation.

These mentions are balanced with accomplishments, relationships, individuals, moves, development, positive as well as negative analysis, and self-assessment. I hope we can resolve remaining disagreement on specific lines in question, and then let this page rest. The longer it can remain stable, the more trustworthy is becomes. I think it is showing vast improvement, and resolves many of the disputes of the past.Tao2911 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, you removed cited material and ereased discussion you did not like. Your not getting it ...to quote you " Please discuss the changes you wish to make here - Please bring up your individual points here for discussion - then changes can be agreed on as a group." When someone does this to areas you have written you react. This does not have to do with your idears or sense of what should or should not be in the article. It has to do with vandalism and edit waring .... period. Please reinsert what you vandalised and let's have a dialog. For the most part, at least Dev and I have been willing to discuss and consider things that perhaps we did not agreed with, with you. We have done this without making any changes until some agreement was reached. Certainly you can do the same. You made changes without ANY dicusssion nor indication why nor allowing to a consensus to be reached. What is that about and how do you expect dialog etc as you so proudly boast yourself of being fair and balanced when you do not do this yourself. Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding erasing stuff in Talk. As I said above, if I accidentally erased something here, it may have been while trying to revert a bunch of edits Starr made to the main page. I have not ever intentionally edited talk. Who cares about the chat record? I clearly have no problem with just arguing the points, and I have honored your suggestions in many demonstrated cases by making changes to suit you both, and have commended you both on your participation. I'd love to have all of Starr's biases on the table and have no interest in getting rid of anything he, or you, has to say.

I noticed that Starr made a bunch of edits in comments - I thought he was just trying to restore something lost, but check there if you are missing something too. Again, this assertion is simply ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

And again - that 'bright since birth' business was moved weeks ago. it was one of the first changes when the bio underwent overhaul. I am not in any way opposed to that info being in the 'teaching' section. I think it is there in some way, but feel free to make a clearer mention of it if you see it necessary. but not in the bio. It doesn't fit.

I made changes that greatly improved the page. I explained each as it went along, and as Talk will attest, many of these points were discussed, changes were made to suit all parties, and consensus was reached. Starr reappeared, slapped a bunch of POV labels on things, tried to remove sourced info, and yes, now we are in a period where we had better run changes by everyone here in talk first to reach consensus. For a time, this did not prove itself absolutely necessary in all cases.Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's do this. I will work on adding some things back in that were taken out and post it in discussion. The we can come to agreement on it. It will probably be next week since I have work coming up. I do understand and agree that just sticking a quote in the bio about "The Bright does not work. Give me a chance to work on it and will submit it in the discussion section.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added simply that he claimed to have existed in the bright since birth in the teaching section. It makes good sense there and fits perfectly in the line already there about what the bright is. Could use a specific citation. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurjieff Journal

I would like to paste David Starr's comments from above here. I strongly agree with his comments, and would like to see them addressed. The source in question, Gurdjieff Journal, must be determined to be a reliable source or an invalid source, before anything more happens. It is clearly a biased article, I've read the stuff on the Journal, it is undeniably negative. That already ruins it's credibility for use in this article, to support NPOV content.

There is bias in this article, and Tao you have to be willing to face your own bias. I have eaten a lot at this point, admitted my own biases, accepted your edits of highly critical and questionable content, accepting lack of sources for balancing content, and simply gone with it and tried my best to work in cooperation with you to keep this article neutral. So far, so good. But Starr is raising a real issue here and everyone needs to look at it and according edits should be made. I would like for wikipedia admin to step up and shed some light on this Gurdjieff source.

"I strongly disagree. Gurdieff Journal is definitely self published and it's being used as a source for contentious claims. But mainly it seems that there is an idea here that if you have a source for something, then it's fair game for inclusion. But thats not how it works. Verifiability is only one consideration. Neutrality, including undue weight, is another. So when talking about someone who started a new religion, why are we listing the brand of cough syrup he once drank in the early 60's? Why are we mentioning that he had a hard time giving it up? And why are we using self-published sources to even bring it into the article in the first place?

In addition to the passage in the lead that I feel is biased, I object to the following inclusions: - Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He also took part in hallucinogenic drug trials which included mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were being conducted at the local Veterans Administration hospital (where novelist Ken Kesey also participated in tests). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating," but described struggling in efforts to quit.[8][9]

The source here is "The Gurdjieff Journal," Gurdjieff & The New Age Part IX, Franklin Jones & Rudi Part I, by William Patrick Patterson, which is published by William Patrick Patterson. The line "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward" is not verifiable and I believe it to be inaccurate. Saying he described struggling in efforts to quit, suffers from undue weight, and is proposed for inclusion I believe to cast doubt onto Adi Da's character. As simply a source of information about the subject it is irrelevant. In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged.[10] A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."[11] Here, using Free John as a casual somewhat disrespectful tone is a way of injecting bias. The article is about Adi Da. The amount of detail here, saying switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe by including it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader."--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already made my points about this clear. I won't go over them again in detail. GJ meets all criteria of a professional publication. The Feuerstein quote is offensive to you because you are a devotee. I think it clarifies the allegations of abuse etc, controversy etc. It is quoted, cited, and given an explanatory line from Adidam. The source for the drug stuff is not GJ - it is Knee 1972, as quoted above at length above(did you read it)? GJ is a tertiary source summarizing the material. That is the only reason it is added. Take it out there -just cite knee 1972. In fact, I will do so. The passage still stands. Drugs were significant part of his early journey, as he attests, and gives it lengthy passages in most early chapters in Knee 1972. it suits the chronology. i don't see why you see it as so negative. i took psychedelics. Didn't you? Didn't everyone interested in spirituality in 1965? Would you remove Ram Dass LSD experiences? Come on...

I don';t know what more of Starr's complaint you want to address - you can't just keep repasting that. he says like 6 differrent things, and I've said my peace about all of them, a few times now. So be specific, and we'll deal with one by one. Again.Tao2911 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Tao It's not enough to just say "GJ meets all criteria of a professional publication". You are being challenged on this point and I believe that you need to show or prove in some way that GJ is not self-published by William Patrick Patterson. But even if it is a reliable source, these inclusions may still violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. But the point is if these inclusions are noteworthy, there should be a source that is reliable for them and a way of including them with neutral tone. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire - I think it is up to you to show that it is "self published." It has other authors. It is a print pub, with back issues for purchase, a website, is cited elsewhere online, in other pubs. To all appearances it is totally legit. This is no xeroxed 'zine.' Who are you to judge? What kind of authority are you? I maintain that you are simply finding excuses to discount others' work due to your bias. AND I WILL ASK YET AGAIN. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE TEXT? WHAT ARE YOUR DISPUTES? AGAIN - AGAIN - THE SOURCE IS ONLY USEFUL IN THAT IT COMPILES INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT EDITIONS OF "KNEE" WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. WHEN WILL YOU ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS? YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER.Tao2911 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding

Garbage and Goddess mention should stay - it's short, cited, balanced, and reasonable. It IS NOT covered in Controversy section - that is about lawsuits, and doesn't reflect how his teaching methods/lifestyle involved activities that would result in lawsuits etc. It reflects his "crazy wisdom" period, in a timeline. Partisans don't like it because it sounds racy. However, you can't talk about Da in the 1970's without talking about that period. Every other source does, specifically - Wilber, Feuerstein, news articles, etc. How do you explain going to those sources all mentioning this period and then not having in a bio overview? you don't just get to have the bits you find acceptable with "your" Adi Da. I have worked really hard to (as I've said) balance every "controversial" line with something to counterweight it. Not to mention the statement is TRUE. Those facts are CITED, IN QUOTES, BY AN ACCEPTED TERTIARY SOURCE that no one disputes. YOU CAN"T REMOVE THEM with vandalizing the page. The page doesn't make a value judgment about the behavior. Are you arguing these things didn't occur? The source says different. You can't do research.

Oh yeah, re MSACPG, calling the college is original research, btw. Who knows that you talked to the right person etc. Hearsay on your part. We solved this already - when I gave examples of other books and you said "ok, thanks for resolving that"? There are other books, with ISBNs, in other library collections from them, and reviews from other scholars in other journals of the book in question. Enough. The authors both have PhDs in religion, are respected published scholars, and they wrote critically of Adi Da - so what? Why are you trying so damn hard to find reasons to censor them? This is not the place for a book burning.

This pattern of behavior is wildly censorious. Every single fact or instance that sheds Da in a light certain editors subjectively find offensive (what's wrong with sex, or drugs, btw? Da himself said we had to get over our hang ups) is now under attack, by just undermining sources? Low. But typical. It's been going on since the page was first made. I will stand by these facts, by simply sticking to WP guidelines. they are tertiary source cited, they are posed neutrally, they are balanced when needed with opposing views.Tao2911 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE : Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

An entire book was written about the Garbage and the Goddess period which had various significant importances to the religion that Adi Da created. So why the focus on the sexual aspect? And why in such great detail? The only reason I can come up with is to inject bias. The sexual issue was not the subject of the Garbage and the Goddess period. Undue weight means that you are focusing or highlighting some aspect of an event that has very little actual significance to the subject of the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The sexual thing is because that is what is described in the tertiary source, and the line follows the previous line that they experimented in communal living and "sometimes created controversy." (why am I bothering to explain - you don't ever seem to actually read my responses, or respond to them.) What kind of controversy? Well, they regularly drank, took drugs, had group sex and made pornos. That's significant behavior for a religious group. It is given one single line. How is this undue weight? This is the info a lay audience wants to know, needs to know, because it is alluded to in so many other sources. The source is not in question - Feuerstein is indisputable as source. Find another tertiary source who describes something about the teaching, and include it in the 'teachings' section. But I think the "crazy wisdom" passage in 'teaching' explains this fully. its why I added it - it includes him saying he "generally" no longer uses such methods. But he did use them. You have to be nuts not to think that deserves mention. As I said, anyone who has ever written about his has mentioned these excesses. Over and over Adidam has been forced to respond, and such instances are cited. They 'experimented." Ok, what's the problem? Oh, I know what the problem is. You don't want a truthful balanced overview - you want hagiography. Well, you can't have that. That's what Adidam.org is for.Tao2911 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Lake County News" not a reliable source?

Lake County News is not and has never been a published print newspaper. The published print newspaper in Lake County is the Lake County Record Bee which is also published online [4]. I was concerned when I read one of the entries from Lake County News (pasted here to the talk page) which seemed to source fringe websites that carry heavy disclaimers as to their factual validity, (which is the only place you would find "having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers.")

There is no print newspaper who would state this as fact in this kind of biased language. Lake County News is not listed with the Library of Congress the way that the Mill Valley Record is, just as an example. [5] Compare the "contact us" page from the Record Bee [6] to the contact us page at Lake County News [7]

I am concerned that "Lake County News" is not a reliable source as per WP standards. It appears to be a self-published online only newspaper with little or no editorial oversight. If these claims about Adi Da are the prevailing view, why then can they only be found in fringe, self-published, or otherwise unreliable sources? Also from WP:RS, While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

In the article the Lake County News is being used as a source for this inclusion:

In 1985, visible tensions emerged after a number of ex-devotees allegedly requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them.[41] As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church. Adi Da did not personally address any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond. He emerged from apparent seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a near-death experience that he found especially significant, calling it the “Divine Emergence.”[42]

I am challenging the non-neutral tone of this entry per WP:NPOV, its verifiability under WP:RS, and I feel it is factually incorrect. I would like to remove it. At this point I feel a responsibility to tag this article for factual accuracy and non-neutral POV. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...which is the only place you would find "having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers." No, that is not the only place; you find all of those same allegations in the lawsuits, lower down on the main page, in all those citations and links and news reports. Remember those? And in Feuersteins' book, Lane's first hand account from living with him, endless interviews in the SF Chronicle etc. Are you serious? You must just be messing with us. You can't believe the things you are saying here.Tao2911 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You conveniently cut the citation where they qualify all of this as "alleged." They don't write its true. Nifty, and again, convenient.

Not in the Library of Congress? Oh my god! Burn the page down. (btw, I think you've tried to rule out the Mill Valley paper before when it was used to report "negative" facts about Da - now you use it as standard? Again, convenient...) Pro-Daists have been perfectly happy to use that source to quote the interview with followers; or cite the sympathetic story about his death. The source seems sound. Judging by the writing, I would call it similar to any small local newspaper - as much as I can tell. I'm not positing myself as an authority. I'm just a regular, unaffiliated guy, with regular standards (seems it might make my opinion valid here).

The fact that it may not be in print (I have no way to verify this) means less and less every minute of every day. The standards are changing; print is no longer the, or soon even a, major criteria - and when there is so little tertiary info on Da, we have to take what we can get if it meets general standards. Again, WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO JUDGE THE EDITORIAL OVERSIGHT OF THE LAKE COUNTY NEWS? According to their "contact" page? Huh? If the source is good for some stories, and I believe it is, then it is acceptable. Plus, the info cited (from a source known for regularly writing neutrally, even favorably, about this figure and his community) is a helpful description of an important event that we have no other tertiary source for. Again, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE PASSAGE IN THE BIO? It is neutral, factual, and in keeping with descriptions of the "divine emergence" (pro and con) from other out-of-bounds websites.

This all just fits in the unbroken pattern of you discounting sources that report facts you don't like. You never question any source for anything positive - in fact, you used to work quite vigorously to include extensive quotes from adi da lit.Tao2911 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, you need to chill brother. Were all here to do the same thing which is make this a better article and I think these issues are real issues. I'm not bringing them up just to get at you. I respect the work that you have put into this article but we all have a responsibility to make it better. The entire quote from the Lake County News is as follows as you pasted it in the books books books section above;

"Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in with little regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development….In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to this suffering a major breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.” —Lake County News, December 7, 2008

The only place that where there have been "persistent accusations" has been in online chat-rooms where people posted all kinds of stuff. This writing is extremely biased and does not sound like anything a professional editor would ethically allow. This whole passage is rife with inaccuracies and biased wording. It reads like an attack piece from a dissident website. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Persistant Allegations" are documented in all the stories I cite above. Again, Feuerstein, Wilber, Newspaper/Tv interviews, Lowe essay, lawsuits, and yes, entire websites of people claiming he was abusive (which do not need to be sourced to support "persistent accusations", because the other sources cover it fully. They aren't needed.) Every assertion is qualified as such. This does not rule out the LCN source, or show any particular bias. It is called reporting! it says they are allegations, not established facts. THE END. Again, what are the points in dispute. I will keep asking until we get down to it - nothing is the WP page is given "undue weight." Everything is sourced. Negative are balanced with positives. What are your specific problems? let's deal with them - as I keep asking. There have been persistent accusations of abuse. this is partly why he is "controversial". You may not like it. But the proof of the existence of these allegations is overwhelming. Why do you wish to deny this fact? it makes any changes you wish to make seem extremely parisan and biased.Tao2911 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Persistant Allegations" are documented in all the stories I cite above. Again, Feuerstein, Wilber, Newspaper/Tv interviews, Lowe essay, lawsuits

Here, User:Tao2911 argued that Feuerstein and other devotee-written sources were biased and not to be used. But it appears that they are okay from which to source negative material about Adi Da. Are there different rules for sourcing positive material than there is for sourcing negative material? — goethean ॐ 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Feuerstein is not being cited here as pro or con. The citation in question is a knowledgeable tertiary source for an important bio fact, that needs cited mention - Feuerstein is unarguably one of the primary scholars of South Asian religious traditions, and American Yoga practice. He has never been in question as an authority. His opinions are not being cited - except where they are framed as such (in reception.) Again, you're trying to play gotcha - the point is that the "garbage" mention needs to be there. Adidam's explanation for what might be perceived as controversial behavior is there for balance. It's a brief two lines, one a quote. This is not undue weight, and, again, needs to be addressed in an overview of Adi Da. Sources have to be considered in context. You simply rule out a source, if it meets WP standards, because it expresses an opinion in some aspect, if that aspect is not in play. You don't rule out Cousens if his opinion is framed as such. Feuerstein case in point - he is (knowledgeably) reporting on certain activities in the garbage passage - activities that have been admitted by the church and that are confirmed in other sources (interviews, lawsuits, etc). His opinions about it are not belied by the quote. You don't rule out an author completely because he expresses an opinion on a subject in a different time, place (Wilber for instance, or Feuerstein). The passage is a quotation, and does not show any bias whatsoever. In other places throughout the page, Adidam sources are used to describe his teachings etc, and Da himself is quoted repeatedly. Knee 1972 is THE primary source for the bio section. In every case, info is now framed with a neutral voice (which hasn't always been the case, hence my expressed concerns before about the prevalence of pro-Da sources, and also with anti-). This is just common sense. Also, guidelines indicate always using the best source possible. With the poverty of sources on Da, we have to make do with what there is, which this current version does, contextualizing, quoting and qualifying everything that demands it, and finding balancing viewpoints in all cases.Tao2911 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you use Feuerstein to source negative material, Feuerstein can also be used to source positive material. — goethean ॐ 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you frame as such. However, you also have to consider that he changed his mind. Like the Wilber section shows in a very neutral fashion. Or like Cousens - I thought adding that quote was a good balance for others. But again, the garbage mention isn't an opinion. It's a description, a list, in quotes.Tao2911 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Later Bio Section?

I think some of the concerns about the bio could simply be addressed if a paragraph could be added to follow the "controversy" paragraph. There could be a mention there of his later activities - its why I added the art mention there. If someone could find tertiary info to describe what he was up to between 1986 and 2007, maybe it would flesh things out. I think its clear that his arguably most controversial behavior occurred between 1974 and the lawsuits in 1985. That's what is documented. What happened later? There's a zoo, right? So somebody else can work on this - just phrase it neutrally, using tertiary sources (if there are any.)Tao2911 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Vandalism?

David Starr has re-posted the POV alert tag on this page. I do not feel he ever fully addressed my questions. He is asserting that the page shows overwhelming bias in some way - according to him there are only two specific single line instances that he cites of bias on the page, both in the bio. This does not a biased page make.

I have clearly refuted both of these claims at length, with no response (despite repeated requests) from Starr.

1) The "garbage" passage is balanced with an explanation from a Da spokesperson. The source is quoted, phrase is neutral, and source (scholar Georg Feuerstein) is not in dispute by Starr. The mention is crucial because it explains the "controversial" aspect in first line of lead, and period is alluded to in Adidam apologies for "controversial" earlier behavior and in the numbers of lawsuits, news articles, and analysis by authorities linked to and discussed in Da page. Also, further explained by Da himself in "Crazy Wisdom" section in teaching.

2) Mention of 1986 breakdown/Divine Emergence. This is a significant event, as attested by Adi Da press. Source is not biased, all mentions of events are phrased neutrally within basic journalistic standards. Balanced with Adi Da self-assessment as personally significant event (about which an entire book was written by him.)

3)Accusation of "undue weight" to potentially controversial passages were shown to be unreasonable, as each line is short without subjective exposition, and balanced with Adidam apology. On balance throughout page, all potentially "controversial" material (in every case sourced, cited, and neutrally phrased, if not in direct quotes) is far outweighed by neutral info and Da "self-assessment."

Every potentially controversial mention is carefully contextualized and phrased to reflect source, and balanced with an alternate explanation. In every case.

Source disputes:

1) Gurdjieff Journal: no specific instances of bias are alleged by Starr from this source. Starr is simply questioning the source without saying why it is an issue. Did not address my point that source is only used because it independently summarizes bio info from Da, Rudi, and Siddha Yoga accounts. No bias from source is reflected in WP entry, nor has any been revealed or even specifically alleged. And Starr has failed to show how magazine is biased or "self-published" simply making assertion that it is a "competing religious organization" which is simply unproven (there is no Gurdjieff church or "organization") and a potentially specious argument in any case (Adi Da's own teacher used Gurdjieff methods/ideas, as did Adi Da, inspiring the series of articles in question).

2) Lake County News: articles from source have been used in other instances in WP entry Starr only questions it for single mention that he subjectively finds to his dislike (the Divine Emergence passage). He has not worked to find alternative source that would allow the material about a significant event to remain. Source has been found acceptable to all other editors in past months, as demonstrated by its repeated use. Source has fairly presented Adi Da/Adidam org. in a number of separate stories (being a news source for the area of the oldest Adidam community.) Starr cannot singly enter now and discount source, when not showing WP guideline that effectively discounts it (only his own subjective analysis of the quality of the "contact" page on their website.)

3) The Mt San Antonio College Philosophy Group press: source is used to provide balancing critical perspective, and contextualized as such. One of the essays in this source is perhaps the only non-self published account by a former follower (witness to much of the most controversial period that is alluded to in all other sources) extant. He is a PhD is Asian Religions, and is quoted in the WP entry as even allowing that Adi Da's methods are debatable, though he personally found them problematic (how much more balanced can you be?) The other essay (by another, quite critical, PhD scholar) is simply not referenced in WP entry.

Assertions that this is "self published" are refuted by association with the university where editor is tenured prof (college's legal would not approve use of name if not sanctioned.) Source is used by many other sources used for WP entry that are not in dispute. Publisher has been shown to have published other titles on philosophy and other subjects, that are held in other university libraries, and book on Adi Da has been reviewed by another university journal. Authors (both tenured PhD religions and philosophy profs) and publisher are not in dispute.

All other editors, including myself, have been involved in give an take on this page, making allowances and corrections for each other - even yesterday I made changes to accommodate other editors, including Starr. I do not feel that Starr is meeting this standard, and in particular completely failed to address my repeated specific requests. Because of this, I am removing the POV tag as vandalism and an attempt to discount page. I have requested third party review, and perhaps further dispute resolution. Tao2911 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request in progress:

I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on Adi Da/Archive 10 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. Comments and request for response and clarification: Let me begin by noting that: My opinion will pertain only to the issue between David Starr 1 and Tao2911 over whether or not the POV tag should remain or be removed, not to any other issue. I haven't made a careful analysis, but on first blush it appears to me that there has been vigorous discussion involving multiple editors on many if not all of the reliable sources issues. The Third Opinion project is only for disputes between two editors, not three or more, so an opinion on those issues would not be appropriate. Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags, an essay, says: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." I concur fully with that position which, though it is in an essay, is completely in line with Wikipedia's policy on deciding things only by consensus. The question is not, therefore, whether or not there is a POV problem with this article. The question is whether or not there is a good faith dispute over whether a POV problem exists in the article. If there is, then the tag should be placed, and remain, on the article until there is consensus that no POV problem exists. I would, therefore, request that David Starr 1 make a clear and concise statement of (1) whether or not he concurs with Tao2911 that the POV problems include Tao2911's first three points above, (2) identify any other POV problems which he sees, and (3) explain why he believes that these issues constitute POV problems. I am going to post a notice of this request on his talk page. I'll wait a reasonable time (probably a couple of days) and then respond further. (If David Starr 1 feels that he has already made all those points previously, I would ask him to at least provide diffs to those changes, but would at the same time ask him to instead have mercy on me and summarize them again here.) If any other editor (especially, but not only, one previously involved in the discussion on this page) wishes to state a position on the question of whether a good faith dispute exists over whether there is a POV problem with this page they are free and, indeed, encouraged to do so, but it must be recognized that if they do so then I will be unable to issue a Third Opinion on that issue, since multiple editors will then be involved. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

David Starr 1's concerns regarding neutrality, factual accuracy, and verifiability issues

Response from David Starr

Thank you TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) for your request. My response is as follows per your request, (I have tried to be brief):

I do not concur with Tao2911's assessment of my views regarding NPOV and this article.

Here are the inclusions along with why I feel that they have either neutrality, factual accuracy, or verifiability issues.

1. "In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community."

With this inclusion we have one positive statement followed by 3 contentious statements. I believe this creates a negative bias towards the subject of the article when combined in the lead section with the already existing summary of the 1985 controversies section.

The "three" are a summation of critiques from different sources. Those sources are referenced. I contend that this is a fair summary of his later reputation, as reflected in the sources cited. And, it is framed as "what some perceive." Not as final word. Find another tertiary source and add what else he's praised for. Having read just about everything there is out there on Da not published by Da's press, I think this is a more than fair assessment. Tao2911 (talk)

So in the lead we have the subject being perceived by "some" as being increasingly isolated, having eccentric behavior, having a cult-like community, and having been alleged to have engaged in financial, sexual, and emotional abuses. I feel that his is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Also the use of "some" would be an instance addressed in WP:WEASEL.

how on earth is "some" now a weasel word? Some is then cited with three seperate references to explain. You don't like the allegations - however, numbers of people have made them. You simply can't argue otherwise. I will add more ref's for you. Five? 10? What will it take?Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:WEASEL: Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous or misleading. On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution. Weasel words can present an apparent force of authority seemingly supporting statements without allowing the reader to decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable, or they can call into question a statement. If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them.

For example, "Luton, UK is the nicest town in the world", is an example of a biased or uninformative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world."

Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:

• Who says that?
• When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
• How many people think it? How many is some?
• What kind of people think it? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is unverifiable.David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2. "Having taken peyote in high school, in California Jones often smoked marijuana, and tried taking large doses of Romilar cough medicine in hopes of recreating similar effects. He was also a paid test subject in drug trials of mescaline, LSD and psilocybin that were conducted at a nearby Veterans Administration hospital (novelist Ken Kesey also participated in these tests, inspiring his novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"). He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. He later called this a period of experimentation that he found "self-validating" but limited, and described struggling to end his reliance on substances to alter his awareness."

I believe that this statement is highly inaccurate and uses detail to give undue weight to this material. Some of the statements here I feel are misleading. I find no credible source, including Adi Da's own works that he took peyote in high school. And while he may have smoked marijuana, there is no source to say he often smoked marijuana. That he was a paid test subject is not in dispute. I find no credible source including Adi Da's own works that he continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward. I find no credible source to support the statement "he described struggling to end his reliance on substances to alter his awareness."

As such I feel that this paragraph is inaccurate and uses detail and non-neutral wording to inject negative bias and undue weight.

I quoted the first edition of his own autobio above where he himself says he was a times a daily pot smoker. This book is the source for everything in this passage. He also explains participating for 7 weeks as a paid drug test subject, and often took psychedelics after. He himself attested to how important this was in developing awareness of altered states of consciousness. He did indeed remove these ref's in later editions of his book, making the early edition all the more important as source for his early life. You are clearly just not informed of the source - you have no grounds therefore to discount it. Please read passages quoted above, and in link I provided to online version from pro-Adi Da website, to elucidate. I hope this clears this up. Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The source that you have given is to an unauthorized, unpublished manuscript that is being posted at Beezone.com.[8] I am looking at the first edition of the Knee of Listening, which is what they are picturing at Beezone, but what they are publishing online as far as text is absolutely not this first edition. As such there is no way to verify this text and there is no fair-use provision for inclusion here for even brief excerpts. See [9] for a discussion of these legalities. WP says these materials should be removed immediately. Beezone is not a reliable source and they are breaking the law by publishing this work. So these are issues of verifiability and the use unpublished works as a violation of copyright. So this doesn't even begin to address issues of unfair weight, and neutrality by focusing on aspects of his use out of context, such as "He continued to take hallucinogens for some years afterward", and "he described struggling to end his reliance on substances to alter his awareness". This level of detail creates injects bias. More neutral would be to simply say that Adi Da experimented with drug use in his early life. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

3. In a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" beginning in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Bubba Free John directed his followers in "“sexual theater,” involving the switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and intensified sexual practices." Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged.[33][34] A lawyer for the organization said later that "the church in the '70s spent many years experimenting with everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality."[17] Former followers said that he had as many as nine "wives", including Playboy centerfold Julie Anderson.[30][35] A member of the church addressed this in 1999 by saying that he then "had a circle of ladies around him that served him intimately," but a spokeman for the church stated that he spent later years living a life of solitude and contemplation.

The mainstream source in this paragraph is the SF Chronicle, which made the distinction that these activities were alleged. Here they are stated as fact. The amount of detail here, saying "switching of partners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies" is a way of applying undue weight, and thus creating a non-neutral statement. Fair and impartial would be to say that he engaged in "controversial sexual practices", and that is already in the 1985 controversies section. The whole issue is already covered in the 1985 controversies section. By adding it here again we are injecting bias around the hot button issue of sexuality. It's redundant. I believe to include it again is to try and create bias in the mind of the reader.

that was a quote from Georg Feuerstein, preeminent American yoga scholar and former Adi Da devotee, who interviewed followers himself and reviewed all data. he wrote an entire book about the subject of crazy wisdom and devoted a chapter to Adi Da. I added more references for occurrences of these behaviors. they are not just allegations - the church itself on more than one occasion admitted to all of them - group sex, public sex, filmed sex - the sources are there. The vagueness of "controversial sexual practices" is simply not clear. Why NOT say what they are - especially in a section on crazy wisdom. You can not remove them because you find them offensive. they do not show bias - they are supported by a dozen separate newspaper articles from different papers. I will quote more of them here for the reviewers. Tao2911 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Feuerstein's book is published by this guy [10], and so if he is so preeminent, why does he have to use the Hohm Press [11] to publish his book? (Hohm press is just like the Dawn Horse Press, only it is what controversial guru Lee Lozowick uses to self-publish his own works as well as the works of others.) I have the book. And in it he appears to source directly from anti-Adi Da websites. He is also a disgruntled ex-devotee. So while he may be a reliable source as to his opinion of Adi Da, he would not be a reliable source for events that have occurred in Adi Da's life. And since his book is being published by another controversial guru who is critical of Adi Da, why should we believe that he is some neutral party simply reporting the facts?

As far as WP:NPOV is concerned I stand by my argument below. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE : "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

An entire book was written about the Garbage and the Goddess period which had various significant events important to the religion that Adi Da created. But this book was not about sex. So why the focus on the sexual aspect? And why in such great detail? The only reason I can come up with is to inject bias.

This is not quite true - the book wasn't written "about" the period. It was lectures from the period, as I say above, heavily edited but still deemed problematic, so it was not reprinted and is now removed from Adidam bibliography. it had some quite controversial statements about sex, including the sham of marriage and the lie of motherhood ("giving birth is no better than taking a crap." I can find the citation - it's quoted in a news article.) So Garbage was period, as the passage says, characterized by "crazy wisdom" approach, and involved all the activities that led to alter lawsuits. A short mention in bio (as I've said 20 times already) is necessary and warranted in time-line.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have this book and it is both, lectures and stories about the period. But these issues are already addressed in the article in the controversies section, so to keep repeating it again is to apply undue weight in the readers mind. It is also redundant. We are not keeping this information out of the article. It was already in the lead as well as the controversy section. I believe that is as much weight as it needs to be given. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

4. "There were persistent accusations of him abusing his power as a spiritual leader.[8][41] In 1985, visible tensions emerged after a number of ex-devotees allegedly requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them.[42] As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church. Adi Da did not personally address any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond. He emerged from apparent seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a near-death experience that he found especially significant, calling it the “Divine Emergence.” "

This paragraph suffers from non-neutral wording, undue weight, and redundancy (already covered in the controversies section) as a way of injecting negative bias into the article. I am not aware of any mainstream media coverage that characterized how Adi Da handled the lawsuit allegations. There is no credible source to say that the "Divine Emergence" was a result of the 1985 lawsuits. By saying that Adi Da basically made up a spiritual event as a way of "explaining" his "breakdown" is biased and sounds as though it is written with a sarcastic tone, also as a way of injecting negative bias.

I take this line by line below. I think your read is wildly subjective and peculiar.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. This information already existed in both the lead section and the controversy section, to add additional paragraphs on the same topic is to add undue weight and to inject bias in the mind of the reader. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

This statement which comes from the review of a book critical of Adi Da is itself a general criticism and opinion of Adi Da and belongs in the Reception section of the article. I believe that it is being applied to the Religion- Community section as a way of injecting negative bias there.

I disagree, though I think there could be more info in this section. the assessment is not just form that one book, but from other accounts as well. He is a scholarly authority describing an overview of how practitioners see there practice - and how practitioners see what they do. I do not see his assessment as wholly negative in this line - in it he balances the extremes that characterize the nature of the mans teaching as reflected in the teaching itself and his life. Your bias again is possibly impenetrable.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In summary:

I think that in general some editors believe that every account of Adi Da's accomplishments must be balanced by a negative or critical inference of one kind or another. I feel this is a misapplication of WP:NPOV. We are here to represent all significant points of view, yes, but in a neutral and properly weighted manner. And simply to give a neutral account of the subjects accomplishments does not mean that we must also include material critical of those very same accomplishments.

I also feel that by continually bringing in negative issues that were a result of the 1985 lawsuit controversy as though they are each a separate incidence is a violation of neutrality and of undue weight.

I also feel that most of this contentious material is being brought in by the use of questionable sources which is also a violation of verifiability and causes undue weight by making it appear as though these views are held by many sources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. David Starr 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Please see my comments below, and mention of 13 paragraphs, only three of which warrant balancing viewpoints because of the inevitable challenges that including controversial info seems to demand - and even that doesn't head off dispute, clearly. "Negative" issues are not simply related to the lawsuits in 1985. This is a serious misunderstanding, certainly of my reasons for including the info in bio. Reports of controversial behavior are THE cultural signature of the group from '74 until the time of the lawsuits. Which reflects the nature of his message and approach at that time. I am not saying that this didn't change - in fact I included accounts of how it did. But in a chronological overview of his life and career, you can't NOT mention "Garbage" (no pun intended) and the period it initiated. These positions (re: consistent sexual experimentation, polygamy, drug use, and potential abuse) are/were INDEED reported by many documented, tertiary sources. I went ahead and added a 1/2 dozen more sources that further support claims of "crazy wisdom" years, including the adidam/JDC position that it was all for enlightenment. And I respect that position. His followers made their choices. More or less. Rather than quote them to you, or even suggest you comb the internet (its a short search to find plenty) just go to Rick Ross for a compendium of good news stories, some of which (particularly Mill Valley) are well researched - and many include the admissions by JDC of all the activities that you still seem to question.

What some seem to want to do is pretend that a few disgruntled former followers made everything re: this stuff up. Nothing could be further from the reported truth, or the admissions by JDC/Adidam itself. There were lawsuits that didn't result in convictions. That does not cover everything else. Are you saying that it does?Tao2911 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao this is not a place for general discussion about the subject, but to discuss the specifics of the article. Otherwise I would debate you on all of the points you have raised here which are truly an expression of your negative bias against Adi Da. There are plenty of attack sites on the internet and fringe sources for just about anyone who is even slightly controversial. There are sites that claim that George Bush was a serial killer. That doesn't mean that it is true.

The sources that you are adding for your claims are all from the 1985 controversy, so once again I say that by adding more paragraphs on these facts in addition to what is already aptly covered in the lead as well the controversies section is redundant and a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration, here we come!Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Party Dispute

Thanks to Transporterman for your help.

I would just reiterate my desire (and your direction) that David Starr address my points specifically as I've outlined them. At this point I do not think we will find agreement, and imagine that further arbitration will be necessary. But I hope this won't be the case.

I ask that no changes be made to the main page now until this issue is resolved.Tao2911 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Transporterman. To give my own feedback, I do feel there is a clear POV dispute happening with this article amongst editors. There are aspects of this article that include bias, however, I simply don't have the time and energy to fight it like I used to be able to. So I have been accepting it, and given the lack of third-party resources to present the "other side of things", there hasn't really been a way to balance some of these parts of the article.

As a whole, I feel certain parts of the article are great. The Teachings Section is really good. The Biography is where I see the most bias happening, and instead of going into it here, or arguing with other editors, I would rather have David Starr summarize those points here, which I do contend with.

I do not feel that Tao2911 is trying to be biased for any purpose or intention, and I have enjoyed working with him on this article recently. However, his bias (as well as my own, and everyone else's) does creep into the article, and he can get heated when confronted about this. It is also true that it is easier to find support from third party websites about all the controversies and negative hype about Adi Da, so there is a natural upper hand to Tao's point of view. Either way, there is a way to have this article not represent the POV of any editors, but simply neutral, factual (truly factual, not merely verifiable but still biased and questionable), and straight information.

I appreciate the efforts of all editors involved here, including Tao and David Starr, and Jason Riverdale. Tao and David Starr have had a long history, and they have a tendency to bicker with one another about this article, without much positive consequence. I hope that we can finally all work together, go beyond our own biases, and create a (finally) neutral article. That is my two cents.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I too have appreciated others efforts - and have said so as we've gone along. I get "heated" if you will when partisan editors attempt to remove hard fought balanced mentions of the most obvious biographical facts, attempting to manipulate information to suit their own idealized version of this controversial figure. The nature of my "bias" if it can even be called that, is different in kind to those who have religious faith in Jones/Adi Da. I do not have an "atheistic" anti-faith. I don't think he was any less holy, worthy, or god-like than anyone else. I also think he is worthy of some mention, clearly. But that mention needs to be fair and balanced, accurate and fact-based. That is my only agenda. I don't care if people think he was god. I only care that all the information that I know I've spent the last 18 months carefully reviewing re: Adi Da gets accurately reflected, in the way I would have hoped when I came looking for an objective overview back then. I think Starr is the least flexible when allowing for this kind balance, ie any mention of potentially controversial information, however factual. He's the least willing to carefully respond to refutations of his demonstrated bias', and the most likely to misuse WP guidelines to support his position of faith. This is not a "personal attack." This is an observation, an explanantion, and a rebuttal to Devanagari's accusation.Tao2911 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Opinion: As I pointed out in #5, above, since another editor — Devanagari108 — has weighed in with an opinion, it would now be inappropriate for me to give an opinion under WP:3O. I would recommend, however, that it would be well if David Starr 1 would go ahead and clarify his position so that it will be easier to try to resolve those issues. Good luck to all. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to DS1 for doing what I recommended at the very moment I was writing those words. Again, good luck to all. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Sex Practices in Da church

Here is most of one of the series of SF Chronicle articles reporting on Jones/Da in 1985-86, which further clarifies sex practices in the 1970's (and after) in Jones' community according to the church's own spokespersons:

---

Sex Practices Did Not Cease, Marin Cult Officials Admit San Francisco Chronicle/April 9, 1985 By Katy Butler

Officials of the Marin. based sect of guru Da Free John conceded yesterday that, "sexual experimentation" as a spiritual practice was not abandoned in 1976 as they previously claimed.

"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..."

Some of the shocked members at the meeting had been unaware of sexual activities within the group's inner circle, sources said. Until yesterday, officials had maintained that all sexual experimentation ended in 1976 within the small religious group, whose guru now lives on a Fijian island.

Kirkbride said yesterday that some members had not been told about the activities because they were not advanced enough spiritually.

The homegrown group, which is not part of any major spiritual tradition says its religious practices draw on the "Crazy Wisdom" traditions of some forms of Tibetan Buddhism and on devotional spiritual practices within Hinduism.

Officials of the Free John group said they participate in "spiritual theater," a kind of psychodrama in which people are encouraged to release sexual and emotional problems as they travel the path to union with God.

Officials of the group conceded that "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction.

It is not proper wiki-etiquette to post the entire article to the talk page. A simple link to the article is the better way to go. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I leave out the allegations of abusive behavior that are leveled by a former member following these lines.

I do not bring this up to shock, or aggravate. I am demonstrating that this WP page is a fair and balanced reflection of all aspects of Adi Da, leaving nothing out - as certain editors would like to do. Everything is this article for instance is further explained in the Adi Da entry: use of "crazy wisdom", group sex practices, direction by Da, and admissions by spokesperson for the group for all these allegations. I added this to the Feuerstein citation, though it is also quoted elsewhere. Again, I want to hear a compelling argument for why this entire aspect doesn't deserve a balanced single short paragraph mention in a biographic profile of a religious leader.

Yes, but these issues were already covered in both the lead section as well as the controversies section. So as such they were already well represented in the article. To continue to add more and more references to these issues in is to apply undue weight and to inject bias in the mind of the reader.David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Other sources confirm and expand on these same admissions on the church's part, including the filming of sex activities, as cited by GF. Again, this all deserves its very brief mention. The bio section relates info to the chronology and his evolving teaching philosophy/methods. Lawsuits and 'crazy wisdom' are both given separate sections. I think considering the wealth of this type of info, Da gets very balanced treatment on this page.

Yes but your sources are fringe sources that are simply parroting the already existing news coverage that aptly represents the mainstream media's POV on the subject and were already well represented in the lead and controversies sections of the article.David Starr 1 (talk)

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that Tao has never seen a copy of this newspaper or verified the content and is just cutting-and-pasting information from the Rick Ross website. — goethean ॐ 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again - it's one thing when a rock musician has group sex or takes drugs. Perhaps hypocritically - the point is arguable - it's significance unarguably changes when the leader of a religious group entrusted with the spiritual well-being of his followers does so - and its reported widely in the news with some of the former followers pretty upset about it. You don't then pretend it didn't happen, or that everyone who said so is lying (as Starr has alluded, saying all assertions are hearsay in online "chatrooms"; or that it all stems form a couple's "bitter divorce" as JR tried to have the passage read) - especially when the spokespersons for the church are on record in a dozen sources as admitting some degree of such controversial behavior, including drugs, alcohol use, and sex practices of kinds generally deemed extreme. The page has to reflect the standpoint of a general audience. I think people are left to make their own conclusions with the page as it stands - again, all mentions balanced, objective, counterweighted, cross-referenced, etc.Tao2911 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to either amplify or minimize these issues as they pertain to the subject of the article. It is up to us to fairly represent all points of view in a neutral and fairly weighted manner, supply the sources, and let the reader decide for themselves. These issues were very fairly represented in the article both in the lead and given an entire section of focus within the article. To add more and more paragraphs with additional detail and non-neutral wording is to inject bias and undue weight.

Also it seems to me that you are using this talk page to make more assertions about the subject of this article in the hopes of prejudicing the view of any editor who comes here and becomes part of the discussion. You are focusing the discussion about Adi Da around all of these assertions that you are making about his activities, not on the article itself. So there is all of this freshly formatted discourse that you are creating on him and his "sexual practices". So just as in the article you are weaving bias here by focusing the discussion on what I believe you consider to be highly inflammatory assertions about Adi Da's behavior in 1985. I believe that you are doing this in order to create bias here on the talk page in the same way that you are using the same facts as a way of injecting bias in the article. Sorry Tao. But I need to call it the way I see it. I mean no disrespect to you and I do respect your point of view. I just feel that it was already well represented in the article. In my mind, to over-do it is to make Wikipedia into just another attack site. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Biography" is balanced

I just want to point out that of approximately 13 equal-sized paragraphs (combing the last few lines together etc) only three of them contain material that is being deemed problematic by partisan editors here. Only three. And in those paragraphs, each is at least half-comprised of information/apology/explanation from Adidam itself. How this adds up to bias, I have no idea. The sources cross-reference, and there are a plethora of them. The primary source for early years is Jones autobio, cross-ref'd with other sources where available (which is in a number of places.)Tao2911 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag is not vandalism, but removing it could be.

I think that I have established that this is a good faith effort to improve this article per WP standards. Since the third party opinion was crashed, I am requesting that the tag remain until the specific issues that have been raised are addressed. This is per WP guidelines on templates. That means that if you remove it without consensus, and without resolving the issues that have been raised, then that would constitute vandalism. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do what you have to do; I will definitely seek further arbitration. I don't think you have addressed my arguments in any way however. I of course maintain that the page is balanced, and we were doing quite well ("having our fun" as you put it) before you decided to reappear and slap NPOV tags on it. Welcome back.

Please bring up your individual points of contention, perhaps under individual headings here in talk, so that they can be addressed clearly for reader/arbitration reference. I will in many cases probably just cut and paste my responses from some of the voluminous material above. Maybe you could even factor some of those responses to your points into your new allegations of bias.Tao2911 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only later saw Starr's point by point above. Still feel he didn't address my points. Just hoping for arbitration to sort it.Tao2911 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Divine Emergence" passage

I just take this line by line, but I won't with further passages, at least not now. Only saw Starr's points above after this.

"There were persistent accusations of him abusing his power as a spiritual leader.[8][46][47]" Ok - well sourced, not in dispute (tho you said earlier that this was only from chatrooms. I could keep adding ref's if you need.

Next line: "In 1985, visible tensions emerged after a number of ex-devotees allegedly requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them.[48]" we have a ref., that as I've said, stories have been used in other places from this source in the page. It's not the NY Times, but I think its passable. Plus passage says "alleged". It's in keeping with other reports of Jones/Da being unavailable and unwilling to entertain criticism. I could cite those news stories if you'd like.

"As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church." Ok, that's a fact, no dispute, explicated at length in legal section, but needs mention in chronology in bio, per other WP precedents. Mention in bio, explain details in separate section.

"Adi Da did not personally address any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond." This is true - he did not personally respond. A fact. No dispute.

"He emerged from apparent seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a near-death experience that he found especially significant, calling it the “Divine Emergence.”[49]

Ok, he was in apparent seclusion. This is supported by adidam accounts that can't be sourced here. Don't see much controversy in this. He had a breakdown, a near-death experience. This too is widely discussed by his devotees. He called it the Divine Emergence. Another fact. Ok - so what's the problem. The inclusion is the last independently reported event until 2007. I've called for more info if found a few times to fill out chronology. I have been working really hard to please you devotees. I wish you'd do your due diligence.Tao2911 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Description of Rudi in Bio

Tao,I have no objection to mentioning that Rudi was an oriental art dealer. I think your choice of it's placement(in the beginning of that section,perhaps having to do with your own bias,is odd. Yes the work Rudi did took place in the store sometimes (sometimes not) but Adi Da did not go to Rudi to study "oriental art" He went to study the particular form of kundalini yoga Rudi taught. That's what it was about. So a request to change the wording to take this into account is reasonable and appropriate.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

you are seeing bias in very strange places. I'm feeling quite besieged by the Da-ists. Saying he was an oriental art dealer is now biased? That was his job. he held all of his meetings in his gallery/shop, at least the ones Jones attended. Jones describes it at length and often in Knee - never describing meeting anywhere else, talking about weekly sessions in the shop and hanging around. They actually met for the first time on the street outside the shop. His father would visit. Nina worked there. Plus, sources phrased it this way in synopsis. I even think Rudi WP page says this. In no way does the passage imply Jones studied oriental art. I will see about rephrasing it tho to try to suit. Weird.

However, I do appreciate you voicing your concerns here and asking me to make the change since I wrote the passage. A good approach.Tao2911 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentions of "Controversial" Material Proportionate to Available Information

From guidelines: "Wikipedia's intent is to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources, original research and ideas are therefore excluded...content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources...Neutrality requires 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."

'Original research' has now been completely removed. I see no more examples of this once prevalent problem on this page.

The main thing I want to address is proportionality. Starr alleges that description of critical views and controversial events are excessive and violate NPOV. I do not believe this to be the case, as can be demonstrated by the proportion of TERTIARY information available on Adi Da. A large proportion, perhaps as much as 90%, of the independent tertiary information available on Adi Da concerns the controversy surrounding him, and everything t least mentions it. This controversy was not isolated to a couple of lawsuits in 1985, as Starr asserts. Those lawsuits were part of a much larger pattern of controversy that related to Adi Da's philosophy, activities, and "teaching methods" that spanned at least a decade, his culturally most influential decade at that. This controversy and the subsequent reputation Adi Da acquired are the signature way he is regarded in the culture at large, if we are to use available tertiary sources as guide and rule - as guidelines indicate we must.

This means that we do not evaluate how Adi Da or his followers wish him to be seen. As he himself clearly states as reflected objectively in the entry, he wished to be viewed as the Promised God Man, as the only method of 7th stage realization, or rather awareness of that stage since only he would ever realize it. This is not how any but possibly 2000 claimed (not verified) followers view him. The way he wished to be also kept changing, as his name changes and declarations of new manifestations and revelations testify - as do the radical edits his books were subject from one edition to the next. Again, this makes him or his followers untrustworthy sources for information in most cases.

Therefor, the entry must reflect the available tertiary information. With this as guide, the page could arguable contain a much greater proportion of so-called "controversial" information. I have been quite sensitive to the desire of devotees and followers in my editing process. I see Adi Da as sharing some significant similarities with other figures of his generation, many of whom he reports having crossed paths with. Ram Dass, Ken Kesey, Carlos Castaneda, etc. In the era in which he came to prominence, drugs were not seen as problematic or negative, as Starr seems to now consider them. They were an expected initiation, and unfamiliarity with them would have been seen as suspect. They played no more, and certainly no less, role in his trajectory toward "enlightenment" than Ram Dass, Tim Leary, Castaneda, or Kesey. In this way, one short paragraph synopsis of his drug mentions through multiple chapters in his autobiography is not disproportionate. Not having mentions of drug use in bios of these others figures would be seen as patently absurd.

As for the first line Starr claims is "disproportionate" ('praised for ideas, but criticized for...') it was precisely proportionality that had me construct that sentence in that way. Most authoritative voices on the topic have said exactly this: he had some good ideas, but his controversial behavior has overshadowed those ideas. This cannot be in dispute. This is reflected by available information, as any quick review reveals. Or an in depth one. This is precisely what I have discovered in 18 months of reviewing sources and working on this page.

Therefor, I will reiterate, that proportionately, if anything there could be more detail concerning the controversies and criticisms of Adi Da. But I am not arguing for this. I think as the page stands, it reflects relatively proportionately how this figure has been discussed by reliable sources at large in the culture (not, again, among his followers who are relatively few.)

I think Starr's desire to excise certain information stems solely from his bias as an admitted "appreciator" if not devotee. I do not think he is accurately assessing the proportion of independent information of Adi Da, or how that information is reflected in this entry. I believe the NPOV tag to be unnecessary and unwarranted, and I don't think that Starr engaged in this process consistently, thoroughly, or patiently enough to make this assessment, refusing to counter my arguments in favor of sources or phrasing, and failing to familiarize himself enough with the sources in question before undermining the hard work of numbers of editors over past weeks without consideration.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Citations

Lake County News

Lake County News: I called the LCN today. They are NOT a published paper. It is a online newsletter owned, operated,written and edited by one person. In other words self-published. Via wikipedia policy there has to be some editorial oversight for quoting sources. A one person operation simply cannot do this.

this is hearsay. Review the material on its merits, and as reviewable by a general audience. I do not find this compelling evidence. What I do find compelling evidence is a series of stories, including an interview with a devotee, and a balanced sympathetic story about Da's death, reflecting balanced POV. But I can see that this issue is going to be relentless, so I am going to rewrite that passage using indisputable sources. This may involve moving some of that info to another section - however, lawsuits and allegations of abuse need mention in timeline, despite more complex exposition in separate sectionTao2911 (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you post the additions in the article please submit here in discussion so we can avoid debating issues in the article itself. ThanksJason Riverdale (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, I put some tags on a Lake County News citation. The tags are now gone, but no new info has been added to the citation. What happened to the tags? — goethean ॐ 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Here they were removed by User:Tao2911, with an edit summary which explains exactly nothing. Do not remove tags from the article. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake - I was trying to find the info and didn't mean to delete.Tao2911 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount San Antonio College Philosophy Group

Mount San Antonio College Philosophy Group: I have called several departments at the school none of them know about this publisher. I can find NO address for the publisher or phone number. Searches for the publisher on Amazon.com bring up no results. When the actual book title shows up there is no ISBN. While not conclusive yet, certainly, this is a perhaps questionable as a third party source. I will continue to research this by talking to our local librarian about how one determines or identifies if a publisher is not self-published.I will make no changes to the article until this is completeJason Riverdale (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this issue was solved. Goethean has weighed in in favor of inclusion. Librarian is not WP authority. Why are you trying censor this source? You have not addressed any of my arguments in support of including it, instead persisting in this effort to censor this material. Please review my arguments in favor on inclusion, and address my points. I'll make it easy for you:

1) Lowe's is the only essay cited, and he is not editor or publisher, or associated with Mt SAC.

2) source is authoritative, PhD asian religions prof who actually lived in Da community, not involved in lawsuits or other wise associated with stories from 1980's.

3) comments are contextualized as critical, not used as NPOV source for general info.

4) press has published other titles, that you already said were convincing. Book was independently reviewed by another university journal, by another religions professor/scholar/author.

Man, ya'll are determined, aren't you? No seein' the forest for that big ol' devotional tree. Please read my comments above, re: proportional info. I will keep adding indisputable ref's to back up the page in current form.Tao2911 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have supplied an ISBN from WorldCat in the biblio info.[12] — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok on the Lowe book :) It just seemed odd that there was not pub address etc. Promise no more questions on this one!

Tao I am not asking for material to be removed in this particular case. With LCN it is simply a questionable source with no editorial review. That is just plain wiki policy.You have requested the same compliance yourselfJason Riverdale (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Rearranged Sections, removed disputed passage - tweaked 'art'

Ok - considering the view of Starr, and the disputed passage re Divine Emergence, I made some changes, not much in substance, mainly in arrangement of page. It was deeply problematic having a separate section for issue that then had to be alluded in bio but not covered etc - so I just cut the divine emergence thing, since I only wanted it there for something more in bio. It was just disputed, who cares, ditch it.

So then I moved the disputes section up to time-line, tweaked it to fit, moved some info from garbage passage to better fit in media/legal. Starr still isn't going to like it, but it completely reflects the proportion of info available. As citations show.

I added some sub headings since the bio was so long and needed some sectioning.

Moved art mention in bio per Starr request to art section, found better tertiary refs, and made info more accurate. I removed Venice Biennale mention, just solo show in venice and florence (same show) - it's way too complicated to explain that he wasn't IN the biennale, despite all the Da press trying to give that impression. So let prestigious curator mention be enough.Tao2911 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed over your re-arrangements. Already looks significantly better. Once again, appreciate your hard work here, Tao. This is shaping up, I may make a more detailed comment later on once I read through the article again.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted this. We have a consensus here that we will not do major edits without consensus. I have met that agreement and am not going to have to completely redo all of my arguments around the issues regarding this dispute just because someone sees fit to change the article any way they want while others have spent many many hours relegated to the talk page without a single edit to the article as a way of showing our good faith regarding this dispute. If you want to make a major change like this, bring it here to the talk page first as I have done above with material that I have challenged, then we can all decide together whether or not it works. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on Starr - many of these edits were made with you in mind! Devanagari, an admitted devotee, is down with the changes. I just worked my ass off to try to address numbers of the issues YOU BROUGHT UP, and you reverted them. I didn't change substance, only order, in order to reduce redundant mentions of controversial info FOR YOU. With the backing of another editor, I'm reverting my changes for other editors to review. if they say no, then back we go to the version you are happy to just slap with a label and leave to die. Wait for others to weigh in - please.Tao2911 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean already did the revert. My hero. Let's check this out, folks. I think this new version makes a lot more sense...Tao2911 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I can now edit at will. Yoo Hoo! David Starr 1 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you a broken person?Tao2911 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Made various changes to lead and bio

Made various changes to the lead and bio sections. Cleaned up the language following WP:NPOV, using disinterested tone etc.

Thanks Tao and Goethean for making substantial changes without a consensus, and reverting me for asking for said consensus, and for citing WP essay don't revert for consensus. I can now finally edit the article, Yay. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

David Starr Vandalism

I made some changes to sections that I had largely written in order to move page toward Starr's opposing view, with a number of my edits specifically doing what he had requested. I did not significantly change content in any way, except to accommodate Starr and some suggestions by others (removing an entire offending passage, moving sections, softening allegations, explaining use of "crazy wisdom" from sources). I hoped that these changes would then be reviewed by editors and see what the new take was, with further changes possibly going from there. This was supported by two other editors (neither of whom have a track record of often agreeing with me).

Starr then went and removed numbers of cited passages that are under dispute, in a clear act of vindictive vandalism, stating that this was carte blanche for him to "go crazy". I am going to try to find some way to get admin here ASAP. I feel like I am able to work with the other editors here, despite differences at times - you guys want to weigh in? Tao2911 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is to just say that I am notifying David Starr that I believe his behavior constitutes vandalism, and that if he doesn't cease I will report him to WP admin, per guidelines, which state that he needs to be clearly notified first. I'm posting a message in his talk page too.Tao2911 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr removed this notification from his talk page until I directed him to replace it.Tao2911 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on Tao, basically what you are doing is blocking me from editing here. Your allowing yourself the opportunity to edit at will without consensus. But every time I try and make edits here, you revert me and start an edit war. In the middle of a POV dispute and after I spend several hours going over in concise detail my objections, you go and completely rearrange the page making my hours and hours of discussion mute.

I disagree with your using making substantial changes as a tactic to render my arguments mute, and then reverting any edits that I make. You do not own this article, and while I find your methods pretty offensive I am sure that we can find a way to work together. But as it is your just bullying me all over the place and having your way as it were with the article and blocking me completely from making any edits whatsoever.

I think that I have been very patient with you over the past week in which I have not made a single edit to the article. Then you come in and make sweeping changes on your own. And then you revert me when I try and make some edits and call it vandalism. So is that what you want to be? The one hogging all the toys in the sandbox? And calling me a broken person? C'mon Tao, can't we work together? Or is it your way or the highway? At this point I am blocked from editing here by Tao. If I try and make edits, he goes straight into reverting everything I have done and tries to start an edit war. Can I get a witness? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, its not. What? His changes were all disputed material that I'm arguing favor of. All the changes I made were to accommodate Starr, and you in some cases. I wonder about you dude.Tao2911 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"making substantial changes as a tactic to render my arguments mute" I think you have a clear idea of how you want this page to read, despite citations or facts. I didn't make changes to "neuter" you. I made them to accommodate you, and start to move toward consensus. You already have a couple of "witnesses" - they supported the changes I made. Many of the changes you keep trying to make I have responded to at length. You don't respond to these explanations. You just keep saying the same things, and doing what you want. I have a record here of working with people - I can be a pain in the ass, but Devanagari, Jason, and even silent Goethean can attest that I work with people and we find the middle way. As my edits making allowances for your views show. So, let this version settle. Bring up your points again later (like, tomorrow! or next week!) And let's take it slow. Again, my changes did not change content, only order. I removed an entire passage you didn't like, etc (see above. I'm sick of repeating myself to you.) Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking Starr to read and respond to my long-ish discussion of "proportionality" re: mentions of sex, drugs, and abuse in Adi Da page, above, both here and in case he misses it on his page (I just feel like he doesn't read what I say for some reason.) I think this is in many ways the crux of our disagreement. I of course think I'm right. But I have been bested here before, and made allowances for it. Like, earlier today, yesterday, last week...Tao2911 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Starr's concerns are very valid and need to be taken into account, Tao. I think your response to him is good, taking it slow, and working together. This article isn't perfect. I have been agreeable lately, but it's because I don't know what else to do in terms of fixing things, and I don't have sources to support what I would like to see, so I've just accepted the biased leaning of the article (in some places), as a whole it is not that way. I am very happy that you removed the Divine Emergence paragraph, since that was highly disputed. That is a good policy to have, and I am very glad you are working with other editors here and we are going on the basis of consensus. We should take things problematic sections and post them here, and go through it with each other on what the concerns are, BEFORE any edits are made. That is really the only way to go, otherwise there is a constant back and forth, each person defending their own point of view about it. So let's try this.

That means no edits from Tao, Starr, or any of us! Can we agree to this?

At this point, I will mostly be offering opinions and feedback and speaking up if I need to, but I'd rather have Starr come to the forefront. He has many concerns, which I agree with, and I would like to see both you and him work together, slowly, on this. Looking forward to it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no wish to make any changes, except in some cases to clean up some references. I won't change text. promise. I'm wiped out. And I'll just say that you may not be able to find sources for many more "positive" changes because we have been exhausting the few tertiary sources out there, and proportionally (my new favorite word) the page may indeed be pretty accurate.Tao2911 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, while I have really appreciated your willingness to dialog and make changes in the areas I have addressed, it is clear that all editors here, including you, have biases that we are trying to work through. So let's try to not deny this fact Tao through irony of cynical remarks. None of us would not be working so hard and putting in so much time here unless we all had strong feelings for this subject and how it get's communciated.

In many places the article reads much better due to your edits. This is appreciated. That being said I do agree with Dev that Starr has good points to make and merely dismissing his suggestions as "vandalism" is not the answer. I too have felt very frustrated by the way in which you have sometimes in the past gone and made changes without discussion and the way some things got "unintentionally" erased during those heated dialog. When you do these things, it creates mistrust and that creates reaction. So I think we are ALL in agreement that NO changes without discussion. There are sections I still feel need some very small changes which we should be able to have a debate or have a discussion about.You get frustrated and cite how much you have worked on this article. But so has everybody else as well. If we can agree to slow things down I would appreciate it as well. You are exhausted and I have a bulk of work ($$$) coming in and need to focus on this. When I can I will start putting together some minor suggested changes and post them for discussion. Thanks again Tao for the areas you have cooperated on:)Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am up for small changes, as you say. I have been all along. I am touchy to many changes, because there has been a persistent impulse by devotees to mess mightily with this page. I have wrestled like Jacob to get this page into some kind of reasonable representation of reality instead of the the straight up Adidam.org cut-and-paste job I found here 18 months ago, much of it created and viciously defended by Starr (citing and misrepresenting WP guidelines in a particularly obnoxious fashion, pasting endless rules on my talk page (I noticed someone told him that in itself is against WP guidelines recently which I found ironic).) Then Devanagari showed up and tried to do the same thing, until he digested enough WP protocol and got enough Tao in his craw to get some idea he couldn't do that. And you JR have also tried to turn this page into something resembling a Da mouthpiece at times. And I just won't have it. Together, we've found what we do best here, how we can contribute. I've put people through paces, and been put through them. But this page is close now to sane fair and straight up citable - as you say, small changes now. All for it. I am happy to take them case by case. What I won't do is let Starr just show up out of the blue a decide he's going to take this page back to the form he created and defended before, discrediting all the work we've done in favor of an ideal all we have to do is go back to the record to see. He clearly doesn't want any mention of critical or so-called "controversial" material in any detail here, or in some cases stuff he just doesn't like (psychedelic use for instance). he has even just recently said that all allegations of controversial behavior are only from chat rooms and disgruntled divorcees. Pardon me, but that dog don't hunt. The facts say otherwise. So, bring up a line, and let's kick it around. I'm game.Tao2911 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives?

I get that fans of Da don't like the plethora of cited "controversial" facts. I get it. However, all of these are backed up with 5,6,7 or potentially more citations. Facts are facts. He took drugs. He directed group sex. he had 9 wives. He could be a brutal tyrant, he said in the name of enlightenment, but he never denied this according to accounts, some quoting him in the page. SO WHAT?

If the plan is to fight to remove these cited facts, that frankly is just not going to happen - the citations are just too numerous and indisputable. I suggest everyone go read the news stories (they're online). There are not just a couple of allegations. Again, Mill Valley spent months investigating, and they dug deep, had many sources. In fact, they did so well, that the church was forced to admit to everything, just saying that they didn't commit any crimes - all was consensual and spiritually inspired. Numbers of indisputable sources cite all of this. Then there are other authoritative sources (Feuerstein, Lowe) who report on all the "crazy wisdom" activities, etc. I mean, why else would Da have called it crazy wisdom. Get a copy of Garbage, read Knee 1972 on Beezone. HE never denied he used radical methods? Why are people here?

What I want to know is, what will you provide to counteract this depiction that you find negative? You can't just wish he looked better. You have to find the sources. Who said he was...whatever you wish him to seem like. Which is what? What do you want him to look like. The facts here are not in themselves positive or negative. They are facts. They are painting a picture you don't like. What is the picture you would like? What will you do if you cannot find facts to support your ideal view? Will you simply resort to vandalism? Will you just keep returning periodically to slap POV alerts on the page? No one is proposing an alternate view, with alternate tertiary citations. No one is actually addressing my points, just saying "bias bias bias" without proving it.

be proactive - show us what you want, with tertiary respectable citations to back it up. That's the challenge.Tao2911 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal

Wow! That Gurdieff Journal sure is packed full of information![13] In fact, this article is becoming increasingly reliant on it. No page numbers, of course. At all. Let me say that Tao's sourcing is extremely problematic. Has anyone ever seen a copy of this document, or is this another cut-and-paste job from an anti-cult website? — goethean ॐ 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23731995/Gurdjieff-The-New-Age-Part-IX-Franklin-Jones-Rudi-Part-I Here ya go - part one online. It's racy - look out.Tao2911 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it has an entry in WorldCat,[14] so I will consider it a source. However, it is troubling that so much of the article is sourced to this document. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll say yet again that the only reason I used it was that it is the only tertiary source compiling and synopsizing the autobiographical info from Knee and Rudi's book. I think the source is really only used through the Muktananda encounters. I'd be fine with sourcing that with something else if it exists - however, I've read the sources (Knee 72 carefully, Rudi in parts) and have made sure that info is indeed accurate as far as those two sources go, without any apparent bias. Also, the bio section contains no discrepancies against other contemporary accounts - for instance, stories of early days related by Sal Lucania in SF Chronicle interviews - some of the only tertiary accounts of early days from someone other than Jones himself. Later accounts/Knee edits by Jones/Da, of course, change story significantly.Tao2911 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go here: [15] , you can see that he says he is the founder and editor, which is another way of saying that I have no editorial oversight. Just based on the lack of oversight as well as his being the publisher and the writer of the article(s), this source would not satisfy WP:RS. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is resolved. It's got your Lib of Congress listing. What - the editor can't write for the magazine he edits? Your logic makes sense to you, I know, but its not an objective "rule." You're just making things up to suit your position.Tao2911 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Resolution; POV guidelines

David Starr - please go ahead and again point out the specific issues with NPOV you have with this page so they can be addressed. Some of your points have been addressed already, including removing passages you contested and other editors reaching agreement on sources you questioned.

You did this without consensus and without discussing first. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So POV tag can not remain indefinitely on page with no allegations of bias being put forward. Anyone know of a policy regarding time tag can remain before contested passages are put forward for discussion? Personally, I don't think Starr will ever accept a factual balanced page, but we have to address his points first before we can move on to arbitration.

I think arbitration is a good idea. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro line I know you have problems with is completely compatible WP guidelines re: POV; in fact its almost textbook: "In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community." Followed by 4 citations of people leveling these exact assessments. This is a spot on assessment of Wilbers, Feuersteins, and others opinion.

I stand by my arguments as they existed before you made recent changes without consensus. I can't be expected to renew my arguments here on the talk page every time you make non-consensual changes , act abusively, ignore the comments and sentiments of other editors, revert my attempts to edit here and creating sections on the talk page titled "David Starr's vandalism" just because I try and make few edits to the article. And then you say "What I won't do is let Starr just show up out of the blue a decide he's going to take this page back to the form he created and defended before, discrediting all the work we've done in favor of an ideal..." Predictably, the attitude that you project onto me is exactly what your attitude is. I am not bullying anyone or demonizing anyone but I really can't take any more of this abusiveness.

From WP:TEND

== Signs of disruptive editing ==

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

I am finding that you are fulfilling almost every one of the descriptions above. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We were doing just fine until you arrived, and the talk record attests to much compromise and solutions reached. This isn't helping.Tao2911 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below."

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But 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. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation."

So come on - this takes care of a goodly portion of Starr's qualms. Let's get to it.Tao2911 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to build consensus, then I suggest you rethink your tactics and instead of trying to be the bully, try and see that we are all actually on the same team. As I have said before, I respect your POV and in spite of what you keep saying, have never tried to keep critical information out of the article. I have only tried to keep it neutrally presented without undue weight. I know that you feel that the article should be just as it is now, as it reflects your POV perfectly. But your POV is not supreme, just as mine isn't. Your changes as well as your comments have only rebuked my arguments for the most part and they were done without discussion in violation of our agreement.

No the page doesn't reflect my POV - I have worked with others and often written from others POV in order to find consensus and a neutral voice. My POV also is completely informed by available info, having read most it, not Adi Da accounts/books - therefor I think my view is a better reflection of that material because I am not an insider - as I've said over and over. Your characterization in completely unfair and simply untrue, as records show.Tao2911 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed issues of undue weight and we disagree as to the proportionality of coverage. As an example, if you go beyond the headlines of mainstream news articles and read the body of the articles you find that most of the articles contain more neutral paragraphs containing basic biographical information than critical paragraphs associated with the allegations.

Your complete lack of specific examples continues to make progress impossible. I can't seem to get you to show me examples - and the ones you do provide I explain carefully how they reflect available sources and you do not respond, except to try to remove sources or edit war. The so-called 'negative' info you find objectionable is (again and again I say) always qualified and framed to reflect source and context. You do not want any detail of controversial info, for example, despite its presence in dozens of articles of all sorts - analysis, criticism, admissions by the church, Da books, and dozens of news stories, all of which use specifics allegations because otherwise the stories wouldn't pass muster. Your choices for what you what to censor, and your edit history, simply prove you to be a devotee who doesn't want a neutral overview.Tao2911 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So I strongly disagree that reliable sources focus on negative assertions about Adi Da. Fringe sources, self-published by other controversial gurus do focus on negative issues regarding Adi Da, and I am sure that there are specific motives for this. That is why they are not simply neutral sources reporting on the facts, and therefore would most likely not be considered reliable sources. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

please, no preaching. And you've already been called on the template pasting thing and asked not to it, by more than one editor. I am addressing the undue weight issue - that's all I'm addressing, over and over and over...and over. I'm not seeing a fruitful engagement possible with you. You are refusing to bring up specific points, instead simply attacking me and repeating the same (misunderstood or interpreted) guidle-lines and accusations against me. I'm feeling no choice but to just go to an mediation request.Tao2911 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished manuscript of Knee of Listening being used here as a source

Here is an example of the first edition of the Knee of Listening: [16]

There isn't even a picture of the cover, certainly no content info.Tao2911 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice the date of publishing and number of pages in the comments section, 1972 as the year, and 271 as the number of pages, CSA press as the publisher or here [17] same date and number of pages.

your own World Cat link here has the list for the 1972 edition as "Publisher: [Los Angeles] Ashram [1972]", I assume Ashram meaning the bookstore that Jones founded with Lucania - the venture that would quickly become DHP; no mention of CSA. None of these links are even saying what you are saying they do.Tao2911 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here at Beezone.com [18] we find a copyright of 1971, a year before the first edition was published by the CSA press. And the page numbers found at the bottom of this page at the last chapter, [19] go as high as page 616. So this is the evidence that this is not the first edition of the Knee of Listening, but is actually the unpublished manuscript of the Knee of Listening . Unpublished manuscripts have the highest protection under copyright law and there is no "fair use" that would involve posting the entire book online. Even fair use for excerpting is highly controlled and limited legally to a case by case basis. Just the fact that Beezone is posting it is highly irregular. But the main problem is that there is no way to verify this text since it is not available through any other source other than the self-published Beezone.com. So I don't think this would qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS, and there may be serious copyright issues for Wikipedia. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to independently verify your information. This is all original research on your part, and pure hearsay. '71 could be typo - there are others there. I have the book. It's the same text. Beezone shows copyright, and cover of edition. You can't copyright an unpublished book, can you? You may simply not have the first edition. Show me an independent authority saying that version is a "unpublished manuscript" (why on earth would they have such a thing?) The source is a pro-Da devotee sight. You are grasping at straws, totally out of gas on this. What is your problem with the text? Jones clearly wrote it. You aren't even denying that...WP entry isn't quoting the Beezone site either. It's citing the book.Tao2911 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, I have the book in my hands right now, and the quoted text is not there. And if there are typos, then all the more reason to suspect the source. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry Starr, but I wouldn't trust your testimony here if it came notarized. Maybe if you get around to it you could let us know, in what way is the page misrepresenting Knee accounts - in "your" version?Tao2911 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Adi Da suit against followers excessive

Considering WP guidelines regarding "undue weight", I feel that detail of the suit against da-abuse accusers is excessive since it is not proportionate, to sources, or accusations. The passage about the suit against the 6 former followers is completely from one single source - it is cited 4 times, for each line of accusation. The suit and accusations of abuse against Adi Da cites 12 sources, with more possible. Dozens made accusations in interviews, in more than a dozen articles all of which cite numbers of accusers and detail lawsuit. Church only threatened one lawsuit. I think the JDC suit should be reduced to a sentence or two. Either that, or accusers should get more space. I'm not arguing for that, however - just a shorter synopsis of threatened church suit. The detail implies some kind of balance - in fact JDC suit paragraph is longer. This has bugged me for awhile. I think it should be addressed.

It now says:

"Adidam charged that these allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement.[18] Adidam said that the former members, (some of whom appeared on the Today show report)[54] "met several times to discuss, conspire and scheme to obtain extraordinary sums of money from Adidam under the threat of destroying the church".[18] Adidam alleged that before the negative media campaign, they had received a letter from the former members demanding $5.2 million dollars; if this demand wasn't met, they might undertake to destroy the movement.[18] Adidam then filed its own suit against six former members for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit further charged that these individuals tried to deprive the movement of its "constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion". Adidam sought $20 million in damages.[18"

It could simply read:

"Adidam then filed its own suit against six former members for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Adidam sought $20 million in damages.[18]"

I watched this passage develop. It was padded by biased editors to try to overshadow the allegations and lawsuit against Da. Again - completely excessive and not proportionate.

Also, I think the passage should include that the plaintiff was a 9 year devotee and wife of the president of JDC. That, or remove Wood divorce mention altogether, which is again disproportionate detail relative to accusations.

Tao2911 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since, no protest, I made these changes - there were repetitions re: the "legality" of "consensual" activities, so I removed one, that also didn't fit into JDC lawsuit mention.Tao2911 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You are minimizing the church's claim of extortion and removing the fact that they were sent a letter demanding 5.2 million dollars or the ex-followers would destroy the church before any of these claims were made and before any of the newspaper articles happened. So in doing so you are tipping the scales in favor of your POV and removing the balance and removing information from a newspaper source so that the reader has no opportunity to make up their own mind about these issues. I believe this may be a biased edit and should be reverted for NPOV. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please counter my argument regarding proportion of coverage. If you insist on keeping all this, its an invitation to then expand coverage of allegations, sources for which outnumber JDC suit 12+ to one. And I will then insist on them. All these extraneous explanations for why they brought their suit are just that - extraneous detail, per your own concerns in other sections. Also, you keep trying lump all the allegations of abuse or misconduct under an umbrella of some single lawsuit or threat of everyone against Adi Da. The allegations were from many sources, many in no way shown to be connected to suit/alleged "plot". The suit was from one individual, which the passage makes clear. It gets one line. JDC suit still receives three.

also, this page is not a legal proceeding - consideration of "people making up their own mind" confirms my conviction that you are always here to make a case for Adi Da. I am not here to make a case against Adi Da. I'm here to try to help get this page to proportionately and SUCCINCTLY represent the known tertiary coverage on him. If people want to "make up their mind," this page gives some indication where they can find more sources, for every position/stance.Tao2911 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The single source for the Da lawsuit info does not appear to be available online - for a paper the only proof I can find ever existing are the articles reporting abuse allegations on Rick Ross, and in TV interviews with its reporters on youtube (interesting watching btw). So it cannot be fact checked. All the more reason mention of this suit should be minimal. I've found in reviewing other sources that many mistakes or misrepresentations can occur. In this article for instance, one could safely assume that there would be further exposition on the ex-member allegations, in some sort of proportion that we can't evaluate. So the sort of weight leaned on the crutch of this one un-verifiable source is deeply problematic, to the point of it breaking and the case for any of this info falling on its face. I'll grant the mention as is. No more.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NBC also mentions JDC suit - in one half sentence, about two seconds, of a 15 minute report. I think this is an apt encapsulation of the "relative weight" of this story in the media.Tao2911 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao,I just now got to this issue today. Please slow it down a bit as we agreed. As I said I can't work every hour of the day on wiki right now as some work as come in which requires less wiki time. I understand the points you are making but I disagree with your edit. Can we revert your changes and I will make a suggestion taking into account your comments. Thank you for your cooperation.Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal disputes is now balanced, proportionate to sources. Undue weight was given to JDC lawsuit. The passage now

1) brings up that media coverage brought to light allegations of abuse, and admitted "experimentation" that occurred up to time of said allegations.

2) it's said that not all members witnessed such activities or engaged in them (which I added.) This mention is proportionate with reports, the bulk of the bodies of which mainly focus on accusations of abuse.

3) Mahoney lawsuit is now given a single mention, followed by single mention for JDC suit. I left extortion allegation. That says it all.

4) follow up includes balanced accounts of denial of sex activity, reports that they still occurred, admission that they still occurred, justification for such activity.

5)wrap up citation from Ford Greene, and lawsuit dismissal (I'd maybe like to know which one - this is unclear.)

"Accusations of Adi Da abusing his power as a spiritual leader garnered international attention in the mid-1980's.[8][54] Adi Da and Adidam (then known as Da Free John and The Johannine Daist Communion) were subjects of almost daily coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Mill Valley Record, other newspapers and regional television news over several weeks.[22][55] The story reached greater attention with a report on The Today Show.[56] In investigative reports and dozens of interviews, ex-members made numerous specific allegations of Adi Da forcing members to engage in psychologically, sexually and physically abusive and humiliating behavior, as well accusing the church of committing tax fraud. Others however claimed to never witness or be involved in such activities.[57][58][59][60][61][62] In 1985, Adi Da and his organization were sued by one of these former members for (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery; the suit sought $5 million in damages.[19]

Adidam countered with its own lawsuit against the former member and five others for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Adidam sought $20 million in damages. Adidam charged that their allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement.[20]

Though spokespersons for the church stated controversial sexual activities had only occurred during the mid-1970's, former high ranking members claimed they had continued up to the time of the lawsuits and interviews, but had been kept hidden to all but an inner circle.[63][64] A spokesman for the church then issued a statement to a church group and press that "sexual experimentation" was not abandoned in 1976 as they previously claimed, saying "There have been incidents up to the fairly recent past."[65] However, the church said that no illegal acts took place and the movement had a right to continue experiments in lifestyles.[66][67] A Washington Post article reported that "The lawsuits and threatened suits that dogged the group in the mid-1980s were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases."[18] Another lawsuit was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County, on November 1985.[68]"

I swear, if you can't see the balance in this, it is simply due to outright willful stupidity.Tao2911 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I must be outright willfully stupid then because this is one of your most biased edits yet. Censoring valid well sourced information from a local newspaper that printed information about the churches claim of extortion. This is information the reader needs to know in order to make an informed decision. Plus, this was not a consensual edit. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

again, not a court case. WP not about "making informed decision" (you are so off base with this. again, revealing your biased wish for good PR.) address one point: relative weight of coverage. One story (unverifiable) against 20 stories (all online). 2 seconds against 15 minutes in Today Show. WP only to reflect relative weight of coverage, not balancing viewpoints. Discuss.Tao2911 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Request Re: Adi Da page

I filed a mediation request, involving editors Starr, Jason Riverdale, and goethean, as well as myself of course. I did not involve Devanagari, because he is a devotee, the four editors requested seem like a good cross section of representative views without weighting a particular one; also Dev. seems generally ok with going along with consensus decisions. I figure he will likely find any resolution reached acceptable. Please say otherwise, Dev, if you wish to participate. You of course can enter at any time you wish.

I hope everyone can respond soon and we can start the process of finding a way to move forward with consensual edits to get the POV label removed.Tao2911 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind participating.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's go ahead with this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to go to mediation page and agree to participate I think. So far, only I (as requester) have 'agreed.' No word from Starr yet - this is only happening due to your presence, Starr. Please agree when you get a chance, or there might be an assumption you are only here to vandalize the page, and we'll be forced act on that assumption. Since you have been active since this request was sent, I assume are aware of it. goethean has (understandably) declined to participate. I still don't see Dev's participation as necessary, since more voices just means more complications. I don't think we should have excessive representation of pro-Da perspective. Let's see how it goes - if you find you need to get involved Dev, this can occur. I'm not opposed in principle, you seem generally reasonable and we've worked together fine - but as I say, too many cooks? JR strikes me as somewhat slightly less biased, if still Da-leaning. But then, you often accept reasonable edits more quickly than he does, so...? I'll just send you an invite. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I will participate, but with one caveat, and that is that we seem to be jumping ahead a bit in the dispute resolution process. That being said, I am just familiarizing myself with the process before I formally accept at the mediation page. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New List of "Problematic" Passages

I read this page and am frankly stunned at how balanced, proportionate, and reflective of sources it is - especially considering past versions. Examples of D Starr's problems - like the textbook balanced overview of a generalized assessment in the lead, now with 9 references? - simply boggle the mind. The drug passage has now been adjusted, with someone's secret help, but I think its better. I made other changes per Starr's requests that just made him more upset - but they included removing an entire passage he and others questioned, and removing some redundant mentions of abuse allegations, also per his request. Other editors approved of these changes. So what we started out arguing has changed.

Starr seems to have trouble pointing out specific passages, and then proposing alternatives. I am officially requesting (again) that he do so here, so that mediators will have a current record of issues to "mediate." this isn't family counseling; I don't want to be friends, or reach philosophical agreement - it's about the page. Please, let's get to it.Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate these edits, the Biography is looking much better.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Dev - thanks for the affirmation on record. I was trying before to keep drug mention accurate to sources - but someone (goethean?) shortened it - I then went back and smoothed it out a bit. I think the legal section is much more sensible. That section has come a long way - it was really confusing before, tortuous and long, from a lot of battling in the past. As i said before, it read a few weeks ago like a bad tennis match. Through a series of edits, I think we got to a neutral proportionate kernel.Tao2911 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I still feel that the page is pretty heavily biased and relies too much on fringe sources. I would be happy to go into detail re: my concerns particularly since every time I make edits I am simply reverted and accused of vandalism. I cannot do even this, however, because Tao2911 keeps changing the article, without consensus. I already went over in detail all of my concerns 2 days ago,[[20]] but with an agreement in place of no edits without consensus, the article is already completely changed. So the points that I made 2 days ago are not only for the most part not addressed, the arguments no longer make sense, because the article structure has been substantially changed. I would rather see the article reverted to 2 days ago, but that will probably never happen.

Tao, we all are going to have to work this out, but I will only be a part of a civil discussion that sticks to agreements, and agrees to take all viewpoints into account. You already agreed not to make any changes, and then went ahead and made changes anyway. Comments like " sorry Starr, but I wouldn't trust your testimony here if it came notarized" or "I'll grant this mention as is. No more." or "if you can't see the balance in this, it is simply due to outright willful stupidity", comments like these do not help in terms of finding consensus. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, you can keep going around and around like this, or you can just get to the points. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Now please - you can just keep making these general assertions, or you can point out passages that you have a problem with and we can get to work. Your problem with sources is a large reason for my belief in mediation.

I have been backed up by other editors on the inclusion of Gurdjieff Journal, and we removed source and whole passage from one article you didn't like. You've failed to say what differences in the bio section that you have from some edition of Knee that you have, or prove any discrepancy, simply trying to discredit some website that isn't even cited.

I made changes in accordance with a number of your complaints, and you responded by taking out whole sections of material that you knew would provoke. That was straight up vandalism, out of frustration - I get it. Your allegation that I did what you wanted to somehow "neuter" you was kinda weird, but ok. I honestly don't think you know what NPOV is regarding Adi Da. I don't. So I am requesting mediation. I would like for you to concisely, with no WP template pasting, say what your problems are, allow me to respond, and let the mediators make recommendations. It is because of you that there is a POV flag on this page. So please start taking steps to help get rid of it.Tao2911 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraneous quote in 'Teachings and Philosophy'

I believe this quote from Adi Da to be completely redundant, and somewhat out of keeping with the way the page now reads.

“I Am the First (and the Only One) to Realize and to Demonstrate seventh stage Realization, which (now, and forever hereafter) I Alone, and Uniquely, Reveal and Transmit to all my formally practicing true devotees and thus potentially to all beings."[75]

I propose we keep the citation, but simply add it to the description that precedes the quote. The description says the exact same thing. Why say it twice? The Da quote provides no insight into the idea, and is not in keeping with primary reliance on tertiary synthesis or general overview. It was added by Dev I think at some point, back when this section contained much more of this kind of ephemera.Tao2911 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with its removal. Also, in reading this passage, I caught this: "Adi Da stated that only he would ever exist in or manifest this seventh stage, which he characterized as an uninterrupted condition of spiritual enlightenment called "The Bright" that he had actually existed in since birth."

That is not true at all. That is the common interpretation of Adi Da's "First, Last, and Only" proclamation. He is the first one to realize and reveal the seventh stage of life, the first seventh stage adept. But his point is that on that basis, through devotion to him as the seventh stage realizer and seventh stage revealer, devotees can realize the seventh stage of life. The controversy is not that no one else will ever realize the seventh stage of life, and that Adi Da said he is the only realizer, and no one else can even realize the seventh stage. That is precisely NOT what he is saying. He is saying that seventh stage realization can happen in anyone's case, but ONLY through devotion him as the unique means of revealing that state.

So that what is important about this quote. He is saying that he is the only one who can reveal and transmit this realization, in the context of devotion to him, so anyone could realize the seventh stage of life. In fact, the sentence just before that says, "He declared that only devotion to him as the "avatar of the age" or "The Promised God-Man"[71] could free people from the activity of "self-contraction" and reveal the seventh stage to them."

The sentence I quoted at the top is in contradiction with places in the rest of this article. So it should be removed. I feel the quotation is necessary for people to understand that anyone could realize the seventh stage of life through devotion to Adi Da. You could argue that the sentence I quoted just above this says that, but I don't see this quotation hurting anything to make it clear. It is from a book, yes, but it is okay to keep that as a source, the majority of this article is now tertiary sources, so I don't find that to be a big problem if one quotation is sourced from literature.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just gobbledy-gook. In the quote (and 1000 other places) he says that "I Am the First (and the Only One) to Realize" the so-called 7th stage, and says also that no one else "can or ever will" realize it. Devotees are not expected to "realize" it, in the way he uses the term - just get the 'transmission', feel his good vibrations. Their only access is through devotion to him. You are completely contradicting yourself, and Da's own statements. Which are in the section. Tho I know you think it makes sense, to you.

All I'm saying is that we could lose the quote, and say that it is only through devotion to da that anyone can have the 7th stage "revealed" to them (they will never "Realize" it - he is the only "Realizer" he says over and over, and over...and over...) But if it means you are going to start going all Dev. on this passage, padding it with more credulous contradictory Adidama, I'll pass.Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, I changed "exist in" to 'realize' per Dev's comments here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not just not true. You do not have a right understanding of this, and have admittedly not ready any of his books. So you should just try to understand what I am saying. Adi Da said that he is the first last and only Adept, meaning he is the only one who can reveal the seventh stage of life, and who will continue to reveal the seventh stage of life. The purpose of him revealing it is so that others can realize it. The catch is that you can only realize the seventh stage of life through devotion to him, through his transmission. But yes, devotees can perfectly duplicate Adi Da's realization, exactly. That's the whole purpose of the Adidam philosophy "you become what you meditate on". It is flat out not true that Adi Da said no one can realize the seventh stage of life, and devotees can just dig on his vibes. It is read this way, but that is a misunderstanding. Maybe "gobbledy-gook" to you, but it doesn't matter, that's how it is, and that's what he said. There is tons of literature on the stages of practice in Adidam, and how devotees awaken to the seventh stage of life, and go through the four stage process of seventh stage of life, "by his grace". So I have removed that line. It is simply not true. If it was true, then fine, I am not trying to hide the controversy. It is flat out there that the only way anyone can realize seventh stage is through worshipping Adi Da. That is plain as day in this article, stated in this section, in the beginning lead, and again in the Adidam section. So it's clear enough how it all works. I am not going to pad this section with anything, in fact, I don't want to do anything with it but leave it the way it is. I don't want to get into this. You don't have an understanding of Adi Da's teaching, and want to act like an authority, who has read 0 books. If you think this section would be better without the quotation, then let's remove it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't make edits base on insider "understanding." You can cite information and clarify based on that information. I'm not pretending to be an authority. I'm quite adamant that I am the only one around here who hasn't read Adi Da save through tertiary sources, save Knee now in two editions (I have two more on the way through inter-university library loans. curious about the changes. Also Garbage and Goddess is on the way...) As long as everything is consistent, cited, and accurate, I have no problems. All I'm saying is that if the info is present twice, and one of those is a quote, we should remove the quote, per WP style recommendations. We should aim for neutral synopsis if we have a source.

btw, I didn't write that passage about first/last realizer. I thought you did, and based my argument on the information given me. but I have read that sentiment in numbers of places. I question you removing it - was it cited? I'm looking into it.Tao2911 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

all hail the mighty google: "Also understand further. It is not about the first seventh stage Adept in the sense that there could possibly be more. There has never been one before, and there never will be another. It is not necessary that there be another. Now, there can be seventh stage Realizers—My devotees will have the capability of realizing the seventh stage—but there need not be any seventh stage Adept. Such a great Work is Accomplished once and for all." Ta da. clear enough now to me.Tao2911 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing legitimate cited material AGAIN without consensus

Well Tao, I started to do a suggested edit to discuss with you on the legal dispute. I was considering your comments on Adidam lawyer Wood etc and how to make an appropriate edit based on your comments suggestions. But given your comments and not waiting for discussion to take place before removing cited materials... so much for consensus, tendentious: civility and slowing things down so there can be some discussion.

Simply stated you have, over the last few weeks, changed and removed cited material without discussion several times. I have tried to cooperate, listen and consider your suggestions and work with you. I have been civil, avoided personal attacks, tried to bring up discussion before changing things (even when legitimate citations were removed) and in several cases agreed with changes to be made because to some of the arguments you have brought up were legitimate. However language like " it is simply due to outright willful stupidity" does not help consensus. Looking over your participation in wikipedia you seem to have a long history of inability to be civil with a number of editors.

Please restore the lawsuit cited material you removed so it can be discussed. It is not un-reasonbale and your refusing to do it violates wikipedia policy.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

address, please (same as above). (material's legitmacy in dispute, btw)

Please counter my argument regarding proportion of coverage. If you insist on keeping all this, its an invitation to then expand coverage of allegations, sources for which outnumber JDC suit 12+ to one. And I will then insist on them. All these extraneous explanations for why they brought their suit are just that - extraneous detail, per your own concerns in other sections. Also, you keep trying lump all the allegations of abuse or misconduct under an umbrella of some single lawsuit or threat of everyone against Adi Da. The allegations were from many sources, many in no way shown to be connected to suit/alleged "plot". The suit was from one individual, which the passage makes clear. It gets one line. JDC suit still receives three.

The single source for the Da lawsuit info does not appear to be available online - for a paper the only proof I can find ever existing are the articles reporting abuse allegations on Rick Ross, and in TV interviews with its reporters on youtube. So it cannot be fact checked...In this article for instance, one could safely assume that there would be further exposition on the ex-member allegations, in some sort of proportion that we can't evaluate. So the sort of weight leaned on the crutch of this one un-verifiable source is deeply problematic, to the point of it breaking and the case for any of this info falling on its face. I'll grant the mention as is. No more.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NBC also mentions JDC suit - in one half sentence, about two seconds, of a 15 minute report. I think this is an apt encapsulation of the "relative weight" of this story in the media.Tao2911 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New version of whole passage:

1) brings up that media coverage brought to light allegations of abuse, and admitted "experimentation" that occurred up to time of said allegations.

2) it's said that not all members witnessed such activities or engaged in them (which I added.) This mention is proportionate with reports, the bulk of the bodies of which mainly focus on accusations of abuse.

3) Mahoney lawsuit is now given a single mention, followed by single mention for JDC suit. I left extortion allegation. That says it all.

4) follow up includes balanced accounts of denial of sex activity, reports that they still occurred, admission that they still occurred, justification for such activity.

5)wrap up citation from Ford Greene, and lawsuit dismissal (I'd maybe like to know which one - this is unclear.)

make a case. Write a counter version here and I'll be happy to consider. I'm sorry if I acted to fast for you - you had been active, as had Starr since I posted the above request, so I moved. I'll be happy to consider something if you can show me an improvement - as always. I've made my case. make yours. I wish you and Starr would spend more time being specific and proposing alternatives than all this bickering.

Dev. is on board with my changes. Again, if you insist on keeping that excessive line, I will insist on detailing every allegation from every report in every newspaper and television interview.Tao2911 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this, I have not been paying attention to this part of the article at all, so I am refraining from any comments. I don't know how it looked before, what changes you made, and what the issue with all of it is, so I cannot offer any feedback either way. I am on board with the recent changes in the Bio to the drugs and removal of Divine Emergence paragraph. I have not been reading the Legal section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the earlier version is pasted above in the other section devoted to it. Or you can compare before and after in history.Tao2911 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So the big change I notice is the removal of Michael Wood from the Lawsuits section. Is there a reason for this?--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

please, somebody actually read my explanation for the change, and address my points if you have a problem. See above section, and this one. The Wood line was excessive detail - if you bring that in, I will insist on more detail about O'Mahoney being 9-year devotee and wife of JDC president, and more details of her charges against Da.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It was just a question, no need to get threatening. It's fine not being in there.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what the consequences of fighting for inclusion of that info, which some are "threatening" to do - I'd already said a few times why it was removed.Tao2911 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)