Talk:Adi Da/Archive 13

Book section: keep/discard discussion (Continued)
Just to clear this up: the legal disputes section is NOT a controversy section. The lawsuits in many cases stemmed from behavior that started 10 years earlier, and is placed in relation to that info in a time line. The lawsuits and media attention are not in themselves 'controversies.' They are facts, and reported here as such, no commentary or opinion. It's a watershed moment in the church history, and is followed by, and the alleged cause of, 'Divine Emergence.' See the whole picture. Its like a puzzle, all the pieces interlocking. Pull out the middle piece and the whole thing falls apart, and that section itself doesn't make sense any more. it would take radical rewrites to fix the page, and I think to its detriment.

Again, the books section reflects important info. Your argument that there is no precedent for that info has more to do with the unprecedented nature of Da's writing and publishing habits than some WP rule (of which there isn't one in this regard - every page varies from every other. You see I suppose what you want to see). I am not arguing against that bibliography anymore. you got that, as problematic as it may be. The book section is all the more necessary now. Chas already removed the lines, pro/con. The rest are facts. I know you don't like them. But they are well sourced and NPOV.Tao2911 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. Adi Da's control over his publishing, without any editorial oversight, is unprecedented. Recalling and burning Garbage? This has to be mentioned, and better in this section that in the bio. Its not an allegation. Its a sourced fact. The changing of Knee so radically, along with other books? Sources discuss this at length. How can the page ignore it? Why the desire to keep readers in the dark about this? Also, there is now mention that Dev wanted about the definitive corpus of Da books being organized, albeit not with the detail he'd like. There is a link to the adidam page. This seems clear, thorough, and fair. And really interesting!Chaschap (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about deleting any of the sourced material, Tao-and-chas. We were just considering rearranging it a bit. -- Diannaa TALK 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dev and Dianna on suggestions for book sectionJason Riverdale (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have no problem with moving 'controversies' to a 'controversy' section. Except there aren't any, and there isn't one. There used to be a 'Controversy' section here, but veteran editors pointed out guideline that that language is not preferred, instead substituting 'reception.'


 * as for books, where is the opinion? I see only sourced description and summary.Tao2911 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tao you are misrepresenting the question that Dav posed. He is not suggesting that the book section be left as-is. He is suggesting moving all of it except a bare-bones "Adi Da was a prolific writer, with over 60 books to his credit, and founded a publishing house to print them" type of statement. Now we have three editors who want to make the change, and Tao-and-Chas who want the status quo. -- Diannaa TALK 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, reread - I don't know how to make this more clear. Where will you put the info you are hoping to move?Tao2911 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have lifted a short blurb about the books from a previous version of the article and placed it in the "Works" section. I have moved the paragraphs with criticism and analysis to just above the bibliography.  I think this is a good solution as the discerning reader will then know to take the following bibliography with a grain of salt.  Comments??  I think this is a good solution if I do say so myself.  But I am not prepared to mark this discussion resolved until everyone posts their feedback. -- Diannaa  TALK 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)  OOPS!  I made a bad cut, and repaired it without logging in.  More coffee, please -- Diannaa  TALK 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianna, I greatly appreciate your work. I think the Books section looks as it should now. But I don't agree with the moving of it before the Bibliography. Why do people have to take the Biblio with a grain of salt? I list every single edition of the books next to each entry. Isn't it self-evident there were numerous editions, that even underwent title changes, along with Adi Da's own name changes? I don't see this kind of analysis and explanation happening in other article. It reads much better than before, but I still question it's necessity in this article, especially when hardly anyone has analyzed his ouevre, definitely no scholars aside from Kripal (if you can even call Kripal's writing about it an analysis at all).--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is NOT a big precedent for this kind of criticism of a spiritual teachers writing on Wikipedia. Certainly most other controversial groups that have articles on Wikipedia do not include "critiques " of the organizations books. Fine there are different versions of a books, and the style of Da's writing has unusual grammar and punctuation (although some scholars like Kripal actually appreciate it)... fine. Literature and poetry has a history of new types of writing styles, approaches that in their time perhaps was not look upon favorably in the authors life.But there is not a big precedent on Wikipedia to this kind of critique in this area. So I still feel the section is not appropriate.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had to move Jason's comment here, he posted it in the wrong section below. It keeps showing me unsigned next to it...just letting everyone know.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry to be out of touch for so long; a busy day. The reason I moved the paragraph rather than dropping it was because Tao2911 was adamant that the material be kept. I notice he did not edit today. I am in favor of dropping the paragraph altogether, too. Let's leave it until tomorrow and if no one raises objections to its removal we will get rid of it. Thank you for the constructive feedback on my proposition. -- Diannaa TALK 04:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, why wait? I think three is enough for consensus?! -- Diannaa  TALK 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I think the opposing argument has been made clearly enough, and the consensus among 3 editors is that it still should be removed. Straightforward enough to me. Thanks for your help with this article, Dianna.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel like The Littlest Hobo. -- Diannaa TALK 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More like the littlest text thief/editing bully/Adi Da apologist. Chas and I were both against these edits - consensus is not 'lets see if the editors who disagree with us take a day off so we can do what we want!' I will be proposing the re-inclusion of some of this sourced and cited NPOV info that you removed without consensus or addressing my concerns.Tao2911 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam
I just noticed this clever biased insertion into the Adidam section:


 * Though earlier manifestations were a clear if experimental variant on Advaita Vedanta, recognizing the naturally enlightened state of all humans,[136][137] over time Adidam increasingly became a messianic version of the Hindu tradition of bhakti yoga, promising salvation only to the select few who completely submit to Adi Da as satguru.

This is ridiculously biased material, and Tao editing at his will in this article. "Freewheeling" edits all over the place, with no discussion, or mention of them in Talk. Basically, no input necessary from any other editors of this article, just Tao as senior authority. I will not allow this to continue.

The problems with this passage are numerous. The use of the word "messianic" is heavily biased, and should not be used in this article. The point it is trying to make is already made in this article here:


 * Distinguishing his teaching from other religious traditions, Adi Da asserted that he was an avatar embodying a uniquely liberated state beyond all dualism, and as such was the sole source of this realization for humanity

And is all over the Teachings section. I know this is the number one favorite point of those who are negative on Adi Da, that he said he was the only one, and all must worship him, etc. Fine. I have never argued about that being true, nor have I argued about its inclusion in this article. It is stated plainly in more than one place that this is what he says about himself, and this is what his devotees practice. Yes, they believe Adi Da is God, yes they worship him, etc.

The Adidam section as it was before was completely fine and agreeable. Also, the emphasis on the guru in Adidam was made since Adi Da's first talks, if you look in The Method of the Siddhas, he talks about "satsang" and how the relationship to the guru is the only way. So I will be reverting this edit on the basis of there being no discussion, no input from any other editor except the one who made this edit, use of biased language such as "messianic", and an altogether biased edit. This section was simple and straighforward before. Everyone knows what Adi Da said in this article, it does not require constant mention in every section. It is stated clearly, everyone will read it and understand. You don't have to worry.

It is becoming impossible to keep up with the constant edits to this article. Sections that are found to be agreeable should not be constantly edited without discussion with the rest of the editors among whom there is current consensus. For example, the sections I and it seems everyone else find to be currently agreeable are "Lead, Biography, Teachings, Legal Disputes, Art, Bibliography, and Reception" and now that I reverted Adidam back to its original state, it is also fine. These are sections of the article that everyone has agreed upon, and there are no disputes happening with it. Please if you want to make edits discuss them first among other editors, who hold consensus on these sections.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If things in a particular section of the article have been agreed on,stable for some time,those sections should not be changed in any significant way unless consensus is reached in discussion.Too much sweat and blood by all editors to rehash consensus agreed sections.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * these things are all cited directly. I believe you, JR, introduced the use of New Religions encyclopedia to this article. This language is quoted from it, and directly attributable to it. Messianic is a precise, descriptive definition. Mirriam Webster: "of or relating to a messiah." "Messiah: a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause." So what is so biased about this? Source uses it - def is here. Simple.Tao2911 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it is in tertiary sources, etc., the material itself is biased and an unnecessary addition to this section. It reiterates a point (rather negatively) that is already made in this article in a few places. It is clear enough. No need in this section. Furthermore, it is biased, and I disagree with it on that basis. Just because a source is tertiary and mentions something does mean it is a valid automatic insertion into the article. So I just disagree with this insertion and find it to be biased. I was very happy with the way the section looked before, and I thought everyone else was too. Can we just keep things simple and avoid these back and forths on agreed sections? It is getting tiresome. The problems with this article are in Divine Emergence and Books. That's it!--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reasoning with you. I hand you the actual definition of messianic on a platter, completely inoffensive and sourced from a encyclopedia on the man, and you still are in hysterics. The passage barely changed - except to make it more informed from an expert source. I thought the passage leaned too credulous. I simply adjusted 2 passages according to two sources that are neutral and un-invested in any desire to make the object of your devotion seem more noble. With citations and footnotes, so you can check the source. Sigh.Tao2911 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think I changed those passages. Chas did - bringing the passage even more in line with the source. YOU don't have the source - and you removed the footnote with the quote. It was not one word - it was an entire passage or two that were straight from New Religions, with less interpretation than I had made when I wrote that.Tao2911 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I got on your case, Tao. I really don't mean to be difficult. But this section was doing just fine, and I saw no reason for those edits, which came across very biased. The New Religions source is highly negative in its language, it's fine to use it, but it must be paraphrased and neutralized. We aren't supposed to be posting exact quotations on this page, as part of wiki policy.


 * I would like to see this section as it was before edits were made. If other editors are in favor of this edit, and it weighs that way, then fine we'll do it. I will have no problem with it then. I just don't like the sneaky approach. Chas just showed up on this page, he needs to take into account other people's work on it, and post things in Discussion before plunging forth. A lot of work went into that section, and then it just got edited, when I thought it was perfectly fine. That's the real issue. Other editors here can weigh in on this now, and that will determine it. Please state if the section should remain as before, or if this new edit is good. Consensus rules.


 * So for now I have reverted the section back to how it stood when there was consensus. If there is a new consensus that this new edit should be in there, then it will go back in. Until then, I think it's fair to keep it as it was before, until this new edit is agreed upon.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of the text as it now stands. -- Diannaa TALK 13:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation of Adi Da's participation in Venice Biennale
There has been much debate as to whether Adi Da was in the Venice Bienalle or was a collateral artist etc. etc. I have reinserted “Venice Biennale” in the article, with a direct link to the catalog for that year and the page in which Adi Da is listed several times. Collateral exhibition debates aside. This states plainly that he was in the Venice Biennale. Sufficient citation for stating this in the article as well.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here about it, JR. I agree with this change, and recommend you go ahead and put it in the article. Maybe post the citation here for other editors to see. This seems straightforward enough.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have improved the refs and replaced some material that was deleted. -- Diannaa TALK 05:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to improve the caption to the illustrated work, Orpheus and Eurydice. Does anyone know the medium used, and the year it was created? -- Diannaa  TALK 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will add this to the caption. Also, I feel like this section could contain more about his art. I have a magazine article about his art, that could be used to add some more information.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Diannaa, Thanks for cleaning up and simplifying the the art citations.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeez Louise the photos are gone
Four of our photos have disappeared overnight as they apparently did not have proper licenses. Dev as you were uploader of some of the extant photos could you please review your collection at home and see if you have any suitable replacements? Other editors, do you have any photos you personally took? On the Commons there are a few which do not appear in the article: -- Diannaa TALK 14:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dev had the contact at The Dawn Horse Press. I suppose I could call their 800 number and talk to someone there about permissions. What is the email for wikepedia permissions for photos? It looks like it is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that correct?Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. I am relieved someone knows what to do. Thanks Jason you're the bomb. -- Diannaa TALK 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The guys at the Press said they were going to email the permissions. I spoke with them again, they said they forgot, so I asked them to do it today, and they said the email will be sent giving permissions for those photos. Should I re-upload?--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like between Dev calling and me calling today The Dawn Horse Press got those permissions in!:)Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done lads :) Tomorrow I will try to get some more references formatted in the afternoon. -- Diannaa TALK 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting citation for Saniel Bonder quote

 * I noticed today that the Saniel Bonder quote in "Reception - Otheres" still has no citation. I think Goethean pointed this out several weeks ago. It is in the Wikipedia "Adi Da quotes" but carries no citations. So it would be good for whomever put it there to correct this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am removing Bonder quote. The request for citation has been there for several weeks. If citation is found it can be added back in.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have traced the source to Wikiquote but the quote is no longer there. Their source was www.wakingdown.org but the quote is no longer there, either.  -- Diannaa  TALK 04:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving issue: Divine Emergence
This is I think the last area Dev wanted to work on before we remove the POV tag. Let's begin discussion on how this section should be improved. -- Diannaa TALK 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianna, I have crafted a draft of this section, incorporating edits from 3rd party sources. I just did this today, so your bringing this up is very timely. I will post that draft, and then we can discuss?


 * Also, the last area before POV tag is gone, will be Biography. There are some things to address, which we can do after Divine Emergence. Dianna, if you could shed light on the placement of "Legal Disputes" in the middle of Bio, that would be great. I don't see this kind of formatting in any other article, and I am still finding it a bit weird in its current place. It doesn't make sense to me. And this is not a biased move on my part, I am not proposing a single edit to this section, but am questioning its placement in the article, and am wondering if there is a corresponding wiki policy, or something about article layouts that would be informative, rather than mere opinions.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good; i look forward to seeing it. As you may have realised, I have little knowledge of the actual subject matter, though I do have other skillz. I only came to notice the article whilst reading the WP:ANI in the middle of February.  Another area that needs work is the footnotes themselves.  As you may have noticed, many of them include lengthy quotes from the sources, some of which duplicate the material presented in the article and are thus redundant. I will trim them as I format them.  But only doing a handful every day so people have a chance to review so nothing valuable gets cut. Also a top-to-bottom copy edit is my specialty, looking at matters of grammar, punctuation, and style.  Re: the biography, I agree we do not necessarily present the material in chronological order.  -- Diannaa  TALK 13:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These footnotes were put there to keep biased editors from continuing their pattern of instantly removing any fact that they found distasteful; it worked to do so, after months of seeing lines instantly disappear if devotees didn't like them. Do not remove them - or the cycle starts all over again.Tao2911 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have noticed that you do not have knowledge of the subject matter, which is actually better in my opinion. I have too much knowledge, and a positive bias, which I admit openly, and am liable for. Other editors have the opposite bias given their knowledge of the subject. I find you to be a very neutralizing force as a result, since you have nothing emotionally invested in this article. So I really appreciate your feedback and judgment.


 * Regarding Biography, is your opinion that we currently do not present it chronologically, or that we do not have to? Unclear from your comment. I am proposing moving Legal Disputes out of the Biography, into Reception or something like that. I agree about footnotes, and the pace at which you are editing. I am going to post my draft of the Divine Emergence section below.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the section "Legal disputes and media attention" to the bottom of the article
I have finally located WP:Layout guidelines, and WP:Manual of Style (biographies), neither of which dictate a chronological order for the sections in a biography. However, Neutral point of view indicates that the material should not be moved if the only reason for doing so is to minimise the impact of the material. To wit: "A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other". This implies chronological order may be the way to go. Editors, please review the links and any other guidelines you may find on this issue and post your comments if you are interested in commenting. -- Diannaa TALK 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, read the links and am still confused. Maybe you can just give a clear stance, based on this info, should Legal disputes remain in the Bio or as a separate section? It still seems very odd to me in the middle of the Biography, really interrupts the flow of the Bio...--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am burnt out on this. I do not want to continue to argue these points. I do just want to finally say, again, about this section: it was once a separate section. It was very confusing - essentially David Starr had minimized and made vague every fact about the lawsuits and allegations, and overplayed the details of the suit brought by the church - which apparently went nowhere. The only citation is an inaccessible, unverifiable article. In any case...

I did a lot of research on that section, and found out the actual timeline, read all the stories, watched the today show reports etc. So I made the section not only more accurate, but I moved and removed other info that didn't fit in the timeline, once the section was moved. It was moved because the timeline was mentioning, alluding to, that at a certain point all these lawsuits happened, and it really influenced everything - but then there was a separate section saying it all over, but with more detail. Starr had a conniption about this, so I moved it and altered it to fit timeline, to avoid saying it all twice. I also shortened lead mention, twice. The lawsuits are alleged to have lead to Divine Emergence, and been caused by behaviro going on earlier. So its part of the biography time line. Etc.

It is not a "legal disputes" section now. It is a chapter in a bio. I will change the heading to keep it from being confusion for you. However, those are the events that were signiciant at that point - as refelcted in source coverage. It got the most press (hence "media attention.") I don't understand how to make this more clear. I've said this all about 32 times, and yet you never seem to acknowledge this. You may disagree, in which case it would great for you to say so. Instead, you just keep saying how you don't get it.

I don't like some of the recent changes, but I can't fight Adi Da devotees for the rest of the year. It's still a vast improvement over previous versions. I will keep an eye on it, and i hope that devotees can keep from rolling back more factual info that they simply find distasteful. Tao2911 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. I just reclassified periods - they are less even, but I always thought the Garbage mention should be clearly related to lawsuits/media. So now it is. No text change - just headings.Tao2911 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tao2911 for your proposal. I have reverted your edits for the time being, as the matter is still under discussion on the talk page. -- Diannaa  TALK 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi D- let the others see the changes. There is not change to text, only headings, and this will not be clear unless seen. This resolves the issue in a way that should address all concerned, and that I will not have to protest.Tao2911 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tao2911 for your proposal. I have reverted your edits for the time being, as the matter is still under discussion on the talk page. Please do not turn this discussion into an [WP:Edit war]].  People are clever enough to visualise your edits without you actually having to do them. -- Diannaa  TALK 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I created the categories myself, and essentially wrote the entire bio - I thought the sections made sense. They seem to have not done completely. So I am changing them again myself. Please do not undo a third time.Tao2911 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The matter under discussion is to move the section; Tao2911 has changed the headers of two sections. The matter for discussion is still open.  Should the section be moved?  Comments by other editors are welcome. Dev, in response to your comment, I too find the guidelines ambiguous and unhelpful.  That is why I did not yet give an opinion.  -- Diannaa  TALK 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, now as you can see, it is not a separate section. All those mentions of lawsuits and media attention are attached to dates (1984-86), and those dates relate to other dates (before, in crazy wisdom 1973-83 - and after, with Divine Emergence, 1986), in the time line. I made this more clear. It's a false distinction. There is no separate section - only facts that bias POV editors wish to compartmentalize and thus minimize by moving to bottom of page.Tao2911 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of my bias, it's a matter of a flowing Biography. I understand the chronology argument. I appreciate your research Tao, and yours as well Dianna. I would still prefer to see this at the bottom, as it is in most articles, but I can also see Tao's point of view. However, I still don't think it works, when I read the Bio it just sounds weird having all this legal language all of a sudden. But I'm willing to accept whatever the consensus is. So it would be good for other editors to weigh in on this. I would like to point out Chogyam Trungpa and Osho as examples for this. In Trungpa's article there is a special "controversies" section. In Osho's article, all controversies are addressed with subsections within "Reception". This is a good model, in my opinion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, we need to look at precedents in wikipedia articles which cover NRM's. Chogyam Trungpa and Osho are two examples where the controversy is not part of the bio so I feel Dev has a strong argument for this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No. How do you propose to completely rewrite the bio? We already did this. The legal stuff just a couple lines, amidst a bunch of other material. Its not compartmentalized.Tao2911 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is resolved. There is no problem. The page is cohesive, and better organized than many of the examples being brought up as alternatives. The only motives for making these changes are purely for biased altering of material to minimize that which supporters find distasteful.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Divine Emergence Draft
This is my draft of the Divine Emergence section, only the first paragraph. The 2000 event is not covered in 3rd party sources, and I will post a proposal of edits for that afterwards. I have put footnotes here, that may or may not be necessarily included in the article, just for people's information relative to the sources for this draft. It is the same source that was used for the content as it now stands. Editors should offer suggestions for edits, or cast a vote in support of this change.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "In January 1986, exhausted by his many years of unconventional teaching (see Crazy Wisdom) during which he said he dealt with the "shadows" of his disciples psyches, Adi Da suffered from a sudden collapse. He described it as a “literal death experience". This was one of many experiences of this kind that occured since his days in college. However, Adi Da invested special significance with this particular incident, greatly elaborating on it, and calling it his “Divine Emergence”.


 * He explained that most enlightened beings “incarnate only partially” into the body. Adi Da said that in this event he descended fully into the body, becoming “utterly human”, yet without foregoing his enlightenment, a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga. As he sees it, his body became a “perfect vehicle” for his spiritual transmission, so that it was sufficient for disciples to simply meditate upon him to “participate in his enlightened state.”


 * Following his “Divine Emergence”, Adi Da shifted his focus from teaching to “blessing”, becoming increasingly silent in relationship to his devotees. He said he worked in silence to help diminish the world's negative forces.


 * I personally don't like the "(See Crazy Wisdom)". I would leave that out. That's my personal preference.  If the reader has gotten this far, they have read that section for sure. "a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga" I dunno, I would cut that.  It is possibly synthesis.  If a third party source makes the comparison, leave it in. I like the last two  sentences; that is new, and very informative.  -- Diannaa  TALK 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was feeling funny about "see crazy wisdom". Let's take that out. As for Aurobindo, a third party source made that comparison, but I'm not too crazy about it either. So I agree with those edits. We'll see what others have to say.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole period is complex to write about...esoteric stuff. The difficulty with the earlier version is that it does not make it easy for those reading the article to understand. Quotes like "down to the bottoms of My feet" are not enough to clarify.This latest proposal is much more of a fuller paraphrasing of Feuerstein description, who has experience writing for the general public about yogic processes. So I am in favour or Dev's draft. I do agree with Dianna that "a claim similar to Sri Aurobindo of Integral Yoga" is not necessary.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely horrible devotee credulous pabulum. This is not accurate to sources. I will gut this if you try to make these changes.Tao2911 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * this section, as is, is straight from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America." When there were complaints about it being too unclear, I brought basically everything from that source into the section. This is the way that an independent encyclopedia with multiple authors and editors chose to present this info, heavily researched and cited in their book. This is our model source. Dev is a devotee - he believes this man to be god. So he believes that everything Da said is gospel. Again and again, he brings this insider awareness and esoterica to the page and can't see that what he proposes is ten times more confusing than what is already there. It makes nothing more clear to a general audience. And it transparently wishes to elevate and ennoble Adi Da, and make all his actions justified and religiously inspired. They may or may not have been. We don't have to decide - we present the info summarized in the voice of the page. Dianna in her infinite wisdom and complete lack of knowledge of the subject or history of the page is supporting the triumph of biased editors wishes to minimize or remove sourced info that they just don't like. It's annoying.Tao2911 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tao I disagree. Feuerstein's (who is a critic of Adi Da)writing here is neutral and attempts describe this aspect of Da's life in understandable terms. Most of it is in plain English. What specifically in what Dev wrote do you have problems with. Let's work it throughJason Riverdale (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference. Holy Madness, the GF source, is a detailed book on esoteric spirituality. It presupposes some understanding of this topic, at the very least by reading preceding chapters and subsequent in his book, and I think the way he writes about it reflects this. He's a useful source in many respects, but I think New Religions presents the later events in a perfunctory manner for a lay person. We do not need to get into Aurobindo and Adidam theology to explain what the hell he thought he was talking about. This is not some objective reality we are talking about, about being in his body/not being in it, feet to head etc - these are highly eccentric individual interpretations that have no objective validation or explication elsewhere. He developed/made this stuff up. So I find this descriptions perfectly suitable - we have the source. New Religions uses GF, summarizing it suitably for a lay audience.Tao2911 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If readers want more info, they have the sources and references to find out more. The mentions those event in DE section receive no more or less attention than any other single event in bio. There is yet another push here to load up certain events that JR and Dev want to pad out with Da-ist apologetics. Each time, I have to fight to keep it to sourced cursory facts.Tao2911 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev's interp of source is ridiculous - why change 'burned out from months of partying' to 'exhausted from his years of unconventional teaching' - that is not the source. You are making that up, totally biased. The rest reads similarly. Also, years of silence in last years? Dianaa may like that, but that is not in any tertiary sources that I have - though I know its the Adidam line. I could argue the truth of it - but in any case, that is not what the source says. Again, if you want to get into this, this could fare badly. We could get into more salacious and abusive behavior in last years, more allegations of drug abuse, and the verbal tirades against his devotees he was prone to, some of which are quoted in New Religions. Really - you want to open this up? We have sources. I have not fought to put this stuff in. And there is more of it for every section if you want to go this route. I am not pleased about the removal of quite a bit of sourced info, and now this latest attempt to bend sources to POV.Tao2911 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the footnotes. It is a direct paraphrasing of your favorite, Georg Feurstein. If you want to include burned out by long months of partying then fine. Look at the sources, read the footnotes. This is a near verbatim paraphrasing of Feurstein, simple, straightforward, and factual. And neutral. You are never going to like it, because it doesn't agree with your own personal vendetta against Adi Da. Who cares. I certainly don't. I am upfront about my own bias liabilities, but I work together with other editors, and if there is a consensus against my own POV, then I accept it as the consensus. You are not even willing to work with people here, and only give angry replies to any proposed edits. If this continues, we will have to request further Admin involvement, perhaps Arbitation, Mediation, I don't know what. Perhaps Dianna can give some recommendations.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no real improvement in the version that Devanagari108 is presenting here. I think the section now is perfectly clear, NPOV, and a fair summary of sources. I think the changes proposed are in some cases transparently attempting to lean POV more positive; though a line or two added are possible, I don't see any as actually necessary.Chaschap (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I strenuously reject any of the changes that Dev proposes as biased, unsourced, and not factual. The section now is perfectly clear and a faithful summary of encyclopedic source.Tao2911 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Books
Tao is already editing again without discussion. He has re-added analysis of The Knee of Listening, for which there was already a consensus that such analysis was irrelevant, and that this section in its minimal overview was agreed upon and sufficient. This was agreed upon by editors, and Tao has already changed it, with no discussion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he will make edits every 20 minutes or so in an attempt to elicit an angry response. -- Diannaa TALK 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate, and should not be tolerated. He is more than welcome to participate like the rest of us.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. -- Diannaa TALK 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You gutted the section, removing dozens of cited mentions - I did not agree to this, and despite Dianna's sudden appearance as your cherished ally, I still am responsible for much of the content of this page, I know this material inside and out, and my editorial input is important. I replaced small mentions that you'd removed, that are neutral and in no way demonstrate any POV whatsoever. I'm fine to not get into "criticism" - however, Knee 72 is not Knee 2005, and that needs to be mentioned, however cursorily.Tao2911 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am ok with this and the way it reads now the inclusion of info on the Knee does seem to not be POVJason Riverdale (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It does not need to be mentioned, regardless of your emotion for how important it is that Adi Da "changed" his teaching, and wrote an "auto-hagiography". That is your personal opinion, and you will easily find it corroborated in 3rd party sources, so you feel like you can freewheel this article. Not true. Editors reached consensus that this section should remain as is, your editing of it, and posting an aggressive reply here, does not justify this edit. Again, you do not own the article. It is about consensus. No need to have a personal attack on Dianna either, she is a valid source of input here as anyone else, especially because she has no emotional attachment to the content, but can come at it from a purely encyclopedic point of view. You cannot continue to violate consensus, and post aggressive replies in Discussion, Tao. It's gone on long enough now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The info replaced is NPOV. Look, JR agrees. Tho he removed the comment - I replaced it. Shouldn't censor talk, JR. Consensus, if it violates POV and Wp guidelines, removing cited and sourced info, is not consensus, or carte blanche to get the page you want. I have worked with all of you - the only active editor without a pro-Da bias. So muscle-ing through your edits with a majority of two is not consensus. It's bullying.Tao2911 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was paragraph about Fiji moved into Controversy Section ?
''In 1983, he moved with a group of about 40 followers to the Fijian island of Naitauba, purchased by a wealthy devotee from actor Raymond Burr.[91] He called it his "hermitage". Travel to the island is restricted to devotees and invited guests.[92] It was Adi Da's primary residence until the end of his life.'' I think,although I may be mistaken that the above use to be in the bio,now it is in "Controversy" This is odd. Why? It should be at the end of the bio.Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It didn't move - its not a 'controversy' section. Its about the period from garbage through lawsuits. Does no one else actually read this page? He didn't move to Fiji at the end of his life. he moved there in 1983. Its in order chronologically, the same place its been for months. Seriously? can you not figure out how 1983 comes after 1974, and before 2000?Tao2911 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * JR, this is in order of Chronology. Since he moved to Fiji in 1983. The lawsuit discussion just happens right after it, chronologically. There is no "controversies" section. Just discussion of lawsuits in the Biography.


 * Tao your tone is becoming very inappropriate on this page. JR was asking a simple question. Assume good faith.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia options

 * File a request for mediation: Requests for mediation
 * File a complaint for behavior: Wikiquette alerts
 * Request administrator intervention: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Court of last resort: Arbitration

Previous complaints against this user include: August/Sept 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive596#Outside_View? February 2010], February 2010, and February 2010

My recommendation would be to file a complaint at WP:ANI. Reverting, insulting other users, WP:Own, editing to prove a wp:point are all valid concerns. -- Diannaa TALK 05:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dianna. I posted a request here --Devanagari108 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK! I have added some more material to the notice board to support your case. -- Diannaa TALK 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for your addition. You are much better at this than I am!--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay Dianna! Help Dev make the page an Adidam pamphlet! Hooray! You're so good!Tao2911 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America
Here are some excerpts. These 5 volumes are comprised of comprehensive, fair, and thorough overviews of nearly every NRM in the west. Much of it is available online. Here are some of the things they have to say about Adidam, who seem to receive an especially frank appraisal:

"The religion of Adidam is doctrinally complex, confused, and confusing. Though it claims great originality, it appears to have been artfully assembled from bits an pieces of preexisting traditions. As such it is an accurate reflection of the thought of Franklin Jones, its founder, ultimate authority, guru, and god.

Like many NRMs, Adidam appears strange when viewed from the outside; however, again like many contemporary faiths, once its basic assumptions are accepted, it displays a measure of internal consistency. Simply described, Adidam is an exclusivist devotional religion based on the worship of Franklin Jones. In theory, practice, and theology it now differs little from traditional Indian guru bhakti, in its most sectarian forms. If one accepts that Jones is divine, - the avatar for the age, the “First Last and Only 7th stage adept Realizer,” omniscient and infallible – and that all of Jones’s actions serve to benefit his followers by leading them to eventual awakening, then the rest of the religion follows, more or less rationally. Of course, this stripped down version of Adidam is neither interesting nor attractive. Perhaps this is why the religion is rarely presented this way.

Perhaps the biggest current problem in Adidam lies in Jones’s attitudes toward his followers. Jones seems to have decided that his devotees are hopelessly inept…he projects every possible failing or weakness on them. They have failed to bring him world recognition and famous new devotees; they have even failed to become rich and successful. Therefor Jones feels financial constraints. In consequence, Jones has been lashing out with increasing ferocity… the devotees become paralyzed by devastatingly low self-esteem…

The future of Adidam is in question…in talk after talk, Jones berates his followers, blaming them for the failure of his world-saving mission…Jones frustration, anger, and megalomania are transparent: ''“So far, the organization shows zero signs. Devotees are frightened. You are afraid to stand up for the Truth, so you are giving me no alternative. I’m not here to be a joke. In your weak-minded approach, I end up being ignored. You must have concrete gifts to give Me…you have to vigorously counter the growing sentiment against gurus, which is fueled by the anti-cult movement…How can there be zero-growth with the Gifts I have Given, that you can’t succeed, unless you are hiding behind some false-belief, some lack of doing…because you are so weak-minded, after 30 years of resisting your responsibility, you are satisfied with maintaining a social and a phony scene that defeats everything real.”''

...Jones followers appear exhausted and many have become impoverished due to the religion’s insatiable financial demands...

Observers have long-remarked on Adidam’s complete disinterest in charitable activities. While Jones constantly demands more money and gifts for his pleasure, he has made no efforts to engage in social service of any sort, unless one counts his four private zoos. While many new religions place more resources into institution building that charitable outreach, especially in their first years, Adidam is extreme in this regard.”

Understandably, a number of editors involved here seem invested in minimizing the negative - that's why they are active, being invested in the topic. However, it seems to me that if there are independent print sources that are presenting this information in an informed, balanced analysis, that attempts to remove this stuff are problematic. The page right now is ok. But I see admitted followers and admirers of Adi Da simply trying to get him to look better by minimizing or removing a lot of material, or summarizing it inaccurately. The direction is clear. It's a real neutrality issue. I'd like to see some more of this material here reflected in the entry. Like the single line summary of Adidam - "Simply described, Adidam is an exclusivist devotional religion based on the worship of Franklin Jones. In theory, practice, and theology it now differs little from traditional Indian guru bhakti, in its most sectarian forms." That's a good line for the lead in.Kookookoojoob (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * hear hear.Tao2911 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support adding this ("Simply described...") to the lede. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with adding this as long as it is sourced. A suggestion would be to use the "Adi Da" name since that is in the title of the article.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Garbage Quote for footnote?
This is from pp. 106, 107

"Jones: The guru…makes the Goddess pull down her pants, and then you see her asshole. I shouldn’t be saying these things.

Devotee: perhaps you are out of line.

I think I am out of line. I shouldn’t say these things. “The Goddess is beautiful. Surrender and let her show you everything.” That sounds better right? “She has bracelets and necklaces and her vagina is adorned. Don’t let her turn to the Divine and show you her asshole. Let her face you with her breasts hanging out.”...What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me. I’ve talked to many people. I’ve talked to many teachers and none of them agree with me. They all tell me I’m undeveloped. So that must be so. All the books say…”surrender to the Goddess”. The Goddess used to say “Yield to me,” and I fucked her brains loose. I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have." Peculiar when combined with polygamy and abuse allegations. Anyway, I think the mentions of him recalling and burning Garbage/Goddess should be replaced, and this added as a footnote possibly. It's put forward by a number of sources as part of the reason he burned the book. This should be added after mention of him having 9 wives, as the end of the Garbage period discussion (it fits there):

"In 1973, Adi Da began a teaching phase that came to be known as "Garbage and the Goddess". Some followers at Persimmon reported having profound metaphysical experiences in Adi Da's presence, attributing these phenomena to his spiritual power as guru.[77] Adi Da began to increasingly employ a method of teaching he called "crazy wisdom", which included directing his followers in "sexual theater", a form of psychodrama[78] that often involved public and group sex, the making of pornographic movies, and other intensified sexual practices.[79] Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged.[80]

This was part of a radical overturning of all conventional moral values and contracts[81] in order to help "shock" students into insights regarding neurotic patterns and attachments so that they could more completely "surrender" to the guru and the community.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88] Members said that experiments in everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality were all in attempts to grow spiritually.[25][89] He had nine or more "wives" during this time, including Playboy centerfold Julie Anderson.[90] '''The activities and ideas of this period were documented in a book titled "Garbage and the Goddess" which sold out its first printing. After a second, Adi Da had all available copies recalled and burned."''' We have three sources for this event, and we could add sourced footnote saying these kind of comments were why he did so.(talk) 19:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa lying about edits, aiding biased editors
Regarding the books section, when I was arguing for keeping the material that has since been censoriously removed, this exchange occured:

"Again, the books section reflects important info. Your argument that there is no precedent for that info has more to do with the unprecedented nature of Da's writing and publishing habits than some WP rule (of which there isn't one in this regard - every page varies from every other. You see I suppose what you want to see). I am not arguing against that bibliography anymore. you got that, as problematic as it may be. The book section is all the more necessary now. Chas already removed the lines, pro/con. The rest are facts. I know you don't like them. But they are well sourced and NPOV.Tao2911 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "I concur. Adi Da's control over his publishing, without any editorial oversight, is unprecedented. Recalling and burning Garbage? This has to be mentioned, and better in this section that in the bio. Its not an allegation. Its a sourced fact. The changing of Knee so radically, along with other books? Sources discuss this at length. How can the page ignore it? Why the desire to keep readers in the dark about this? Also, there is now mention that Dev wanted about the definitive corpus of Da books being organized, albeit not with the detail he'd like. There is a link to the adidam page. This seems clear, thorough, and fair. And really interesting!Chaschap (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "No one is talking about deleting any of the sourced material, Tao-and-chas. We were just considering rearranging it a bit. --Diannaa TALK 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"I agree with Dev and Dianna on suggestions for book sectionJason Riverdale (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "I'd have no problem with moving 'controversies' to a 'controversy' section. Except there aren't any, and there isn't one. There used to be a 'Controversy' section here, but veteran editors pointed out guideline that that language is not preferred, instead substituting 'reception.'


 * "as for books, where is the opinion? I see only sourced description and summary.Tao2911 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Tao you are misrepresenting the question that Dav posed. He is not suggesting that the book section be left as-is. He is suggesting moving all of it except a bare-bones "Adi Da was a prolific writer, with over 60 books to his credit, and founded a publishing house to print them" type of statement. Now we have three editors who want to make the change, and Tao-and-Chas who want the status quo. --Diannaa TALK 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Please, reread - I don't know how to make this more clear. Where will you put the info you are hoping to move? Tao2911 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

'''The material in question was not "moved." It was removed,''' with Diannaa's blessing for Da-followers Tweedle Dev and Tweedle...Jason. I was told this info would not be removed. Also, Dianna then said "Tao hasn't been active today - let's make the edits." This is from an "aspiring administrator". I don't who I have report this to, but I'm working on it. I want this sourced, cited and footnoted material replaced ASAP.Tao2911 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is evidence of further collusion on Dev's talk page - he wrote Diannaa a private email of thanks for her support in his efforts to remove sourced material. She responded on his talk page, revealing the exchange. She then admits she is supporting him in his efforts to make biased edits.

"Greetings"

''Message received; Thank you. --Diannaa TALK 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)''

'':uh, message received about what? No record on her talk page - more indications of conspiratorial biased editing on Adi Da page.Tao2911 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)''

''::I received a message of thanks from this editor via e-mail for supporting his efforts and trying to help. I did not reply the same way since my e-mail address contains my real name. --Diannaa TALK 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)"''

Tao2911 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacing censored sourced 'Books' material.
This is the way the Books section read until biased editors removed most of it.

''Adi Da wrote prolifically about his spiritual philosophy. All his books were self-published by the Dawn Horse Press that he founded in 1972, and over which he maintained complete control.[146][9] Best known among these is his autobiography,[147][148] The Knee of Listening (1972), the 1973 edition of which contained a foreword by well-known author Alan Watts. Many, including Watts, praised it as an authentic and remarkable mystical testament. Subsequent editions have undergone extensive changes and additions, however, tending toward auto-hagiography and self-mythologizing.[149][150][151] For instance, mentions of his connection to Scientology are no longer included,[152][153][154] and there are added chapters, as on "the secrets of Adi Da's "pre-history"(before his birth in 1939)."[155][156] The first edition was 271 pages; the last edition is 840 pages long.[157]''

Adi Da likewise heavily reedited many of his earlier books in later years, reissuing them in "New Standard Editions" while developing a complex hierarchy of what he viewed as his primary texts (some of which were not yet published at the time of his death).[158] One of the signatures of his later writing was an eccentric use of punctuation and irregular capitalizing of many first letters of words, indicating special meaning or import ("The only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam is a Free Gift. But It is a Gift that Flows in the heart-relationship that exists between Me and each of My true devotees.")[159][160][161]

''Adi Da's third book, 1974's Garbage and the Goddess: the Last Miracles and Final Spiritual Instructions of Bubba Free John, sold out its first print run and saw a second that same year. It was perhaps the least edited of all Adi Da's books. However, due to controversy over its contents, all available copies were retrieved and burned at Adi Da's behest.[162][163]''

When the lock is off the page, I propose that the section is replaced. It is all sourced thoroughly, and when necessary, POV is represented both pro/con. Material was removed by admittedly biased editors, in collusion with recent editor unfamiliar with page or material. Edits made without consensus, after saying no material would be removed but only moved. Also, edits were pushed through admittedly during one day when editors against them were not active (see above). Material removed after inclusion of excessive and unwieldy bibliography that I don't agree with, but allowed, further demonstrating biased POV and lack of respect for opposing POV.Tao2911 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support this.Kookookoojoob (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * absolutely. Shouldn't have been removed.Chaschap (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Managing the content dispute
I realise that the article is subject to a current request for mediation, but until this has got underway I think some fairly tight restrictions on this article and associated talk page might be helpful to keep things on track. I can optionally extend the page protection if editors wish, though I'm reluctant to do this as it's a last resort; sanctioning problematic editors is generally considered a better solution where possible. EyeSerene talk 12:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All editors are reminded of WP:BLP: content changes require credible reliable sources, negative or contentious material doubly so, and positive material should not be written in a way that implies approval or puffery. Wikipedia has no point of view, and a reader of the article should not be able to tell where the authors' sympathies lie.
 * No personal attacks: any speculation about the motivation of contributors or discourteous comments directed to them may result in a short block on the offending account, increasing in length for further instances.
 * WP:1RR: page protection is due to expire in a few days, so any reversions to the article will be looked at very closely. Anyone found not following the guidance laid out at WP:BRD will be subject to blocking at 24 hours for the first offence; in fact I recommend that editors propose content changes on this talk page before making them and not revert the article at all.
 * Abusing multiple accounts: All editors must restrict their editing to one account only. There is a pending Sockpuppetry investigation awaiting resolution, but if required I can block suspicious accounts under WP:DUCK at any time.
 * Update: I've been over the contributions of and  again, and blocked both indefinitely per WP:DUCK.  EyeSerene talk 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with this and agree to conditionsJason Riverdale (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * this "problematic editor" is single-handedly responsible for keeping this entry from becoming an Adidam propaganda mouthpiece, and has done the most thorough research and editing here. What neutrality that is evident in the page is there because of my participation here, as editing record shows. I will continue to insist that sourced info be replaced that was agreed would only be moved - this is the only demand I have at this point.Tao2911 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I very deliberately named no names :) What I'm trying to do is provide a framework within which you as editors can undertake mediation and reach a consensus version of the article you're all reasonably happy with. As an admin, the best way I can do that is by ensuring Wikipedia's conduct policies are applied evenly and fairly across the board, and by preventing disruption on the article sabotaging the mediation process. As I mentioned at ANI, there are clearly two sides to the story here. EyeSerene talk 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for intervention here, EyeSerene. I appreciate the rules you stated above, and think it will help the editorial process of this article.


 * I do not see the necessity (or argument) for why this article should feature critical analysis of Adi Da's writing. I have not found an article about any controversial religious leader within which such a discussion occurs, most potently with Osho_(Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) (who wrote over 600 books). I am willing to accept what is currently in the Books section, although I still find such commentary to be a strange side note that is not necessary. The previous, more lengthy version, I am not in support of, because there is no reason for such an analysis in this article, and because that particular write-up has many bias issues.


 * Dianna posted some research above of wiki articles on religious leaders, who have a Bibliography, or a Books section, I am pasting it from earlier:


 * St Thomas Aquinas: a bibliograpy with no analysis
 * St Augustine: a paragraph titled "Works" with praise but no criticism; bibliograpy at the end
 * 14th Dalai Lama: a bibliography, no analysis
 * Chogyam Trungpa: A bib without analysis; a lengthy "Criticism" section, but it is not book related
 * Pema Chodron: A bib, no analysis
 * Swami Prabhupada: 4 paragraphs on the books, all positive; plus a bib
 * Ken Wilber: A bib sans analysis; a lengthy criticism section
 * Thich Nhat Hanh: No bib; nothing at all about his books
 * Mordecai Kaplan: A bib; no analysis or book section
 * Zaid Shakir: a bib with no analysis


 * Result: one with no bib; seven with bibs but no analysis or criticism of the works; two with bibs and book sections with praise only. So there is big credibility for the notion of dropping the "books" section altogether


 * EyeSerene, would you be able to comment on the necessity or non-necessity of having "Legal Disputes" in the middle of the Biography? Diannaa had done some research, but we were still unable to conclude anything. I still find it's placement in the middle of the Biography to be awkward, and would suggest something more long the lines of how it is structured in Chogyam Trungpa or Osho_(Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). In Osho's article, this is all included in "Reception", so the "Reception" part of this article could be expanded. In fact, that it what should happen.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Summa Theologica, City of God (book), Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, etc. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * These are all separate articles. That is fine. The Summa Theologica one is part of a series, all separate articles. The Wilber book is a separate article focusing on the book. That's fine if you want to go that route. My argument was that there was no precedent for having it within the article. If someone wants to create separate articles, then that's an entirely different story.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)