Talk:Adi Da/Archive 15

Tao 2911 Refusing any discussion or dialog in making article changes, removing of cited material etc., not just language changes
Tao you have gotten quite manic. You are removing specific cited information under the justification that you are only changing wording. Very specific information from cited materials has been removed. It is not just word changes. You accuse other editors of bias as justification.The fury in which you go about editing this article reveals a strong reaction and bias in you. This has been pointed out not just by "pro Da" editors as you suggest, but by several neutral editors and you have been addressed by formal Wikipedia editors about this as well when you were banned for a period.

Other neutral editors have also continued to try to point out to you that in fact you are not just changing language but removing specific facts for cited material and you ignore them as well. I will in the next few days list specifics. Again ,since you have a long history of ignoring any dialog, conversation or consensus before making edits this does constitute lack on consensus and edit waring.

One get's the sense that since you refuse again to discuss ANY edit in talk (as you have asked others to do) that you intention is simply to edit to your own bias. Again I would ask that you slow way down and ANY changes in language you put into the discussion BEFORE you make changes in the article.You cooperation would be appreciated.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bring up the specifics; I don't think you are reading carefully (see above please; respond). You're just making blanket allegations.Tao2911 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Be Bold"
"Be bold!

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator." Be bold and drop your opinion there. It is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly."

There were/are things wrong with this page, though not many now to my eyes. I came back, spotted them, made adjustments. I have clearly not been reckless. No, I am not going to clear every edit with Jason Riverdale, the arbiter of all things Da. I will make edits, argue my points, win some, and lose some, as I've done for going on two years now probably with this page. So buck up, Jason, quit whining, and make your points. Do not, however, just "undo" my careful, explained-in-each-case edits.Tao2911 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BRD. Undoing can be part of the process, too. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

of course. But often not a good idea when its of an edit opened for discussion and carefully explained in talk. As in Jason's recent flurry of undo-ing.Tao2911 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

...... Please put up in discussion points to be changed or edited BEFORE putting them in article. There are some changes you made I can agree with but it is kind of pointless when you continually already bypass the discussion part. Discussion after the fact. Goethean does have a good point that in lieu of an editors ignoring and bypassing a Wikipedia principle over a long history, undoing may be necessary at times. Are you willing to revert changes, after saving them, and enter into a dialog discussion before posting them in the article? As I said some changes I can live with, but not without discussion prior to changes into the article. There will be some points I will agree to and others we will have to have some more discussions. Some of that I am sure will be heated but maybe we can maintain a a cooperative disposition and come to consensus. This also will require you to slow it all down, also addressed by other editors.Hopefully if this occurs we can bring the article to settlement. Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a good idea, too. Why don't you stop censoring sources to suit your bias. Ta da! Seriously though - The edit you seem to be upset about I've completely demolished your argument against, and shown that you censored sources. Was I supposed to get you to agree to that? I don't frankly find you nearly as reasonable as you seem to think you are. Moving on. Just discuss the actual points, for Da's sake.Tao2911 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

... ''replaced conveniently edited end of Ford Greene quote that used to be there. You're unbelievable, Jason.)''

Tao, as far as I can tell I did not edit Washington Post Ford Greene's full statement out from citations. I think that what might have happened was when I added the information in the article abut "two lawsuits" I might have re-added just that part of the quote from the paper citing "two lawsuits" as well as the quote in citation from SF Newspaper that said "the case was dismissed by Superior Court Judge" to support that statement.In other words it might have been in citation twice. Once with simply "two lawsuits" and then a second one with full quote from paper. Perhaps with the reverting of that section the second full quote from Washington Post (which included Ford Green's statement) got dropped. But again I don't think I took it out intentionally.I think it was in there twice.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * well, its just odd, because you once argued how "he handled three such cases" didn't mean that he "handled three such cases" re: Jones/Da, but that using special powers you intuited the writer to mean that he handled three cases unrelated to Da (one would hope that a lawyer would - have handled three actual cases in his career that is). However, the sentence is pretty hard to interpret any way other than he handled three cases against Da settled out of court (which would make a lot of sense - one often leads to the other in such instances.) I mean, that is what the sentence plainly says.


 * So then, mysteriously, that part of the sentence in the footnote disappears, replaced by the hanging "..." and you edit the section to remove text supported by three sources saying that there were several lawsuits, to only two, diminishing them at that. As I describe above. It's just convenient, is all I'm saying. ;)


 * its clear you'd like everyone to believe that since there are only two filed lawsuits that you have quite vigorously attempted to find the records for (even adding the lawyer's address as a footnote - lol), that there are no others. By this logic, all mention of the suit threatened by Adidam against apostate followers should be removed. However, it is mentioned in a source (that we can't confirm because it's not online, but the headline says it), as are threatened suits settled out of court. I don't care if you can't through your original research find records for them (if they are settled before being filed, there won't be any. We have three good sources, that you use elsewhere, that say they occurred. That's all we are here to reflect. Surely you can grasp this, as much as you would like to just sing Da's praises.Tao2911 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article protected
Because a content dispute seems to have broken out again, with accompanying reversions, I've protected the article for three days. Hopefully this will allow editors some time to negotiate without worrying about who's doing what on the article. Protection can be removed or extended as necessary and if a consensus edit needs to be made in the meantime, you can request it using editprotected (instructions at the link). EyeSerene talk 09:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * fine by me. I stand by the edits I've made, everyone explained in tag lines, most just style, grammar, punctuation (and accepted by JR). I've quite thoroughly made my case about the single specific problem asserted by Jason Riverdale, and shown his qualms to be completely (dare I say) "without merit". Sure wouldn't mind some lurker acknowledgment of that fact.Tao2911 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously I can't do that and continue to act in an admin capacity, but I think it might be worth asking for more outside editors to get involved at the two WikiProjects listed at the top of this page (Biography and Religion). The article seems to attract a large amount of pro- and anti- WP:SPA activity (just to clarify, I'm thinking specifically of you, Devanagari108 and Jason Riverdale). EyeSerene talk 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the objectivity, which is more than can be said for another admin who got involved here, paving the way for a strongly regressive Da-ward slant. Clearly the vast majority of my editing efforts also have gone toward this page; it is why I even began editing WP in the first place. I'd bet most people start because they see a page they think needs balance or correction. In the process I have unwittingly become (dare I say) an Adi Da expert (quelle horreur) having read most of the sources that discuss him (a short list) and a number of his books. But I have regularly contributed to other pages when I come across something that seems off or inaccurate. I do not have the time or energy to get into the thick of it on other pages. I just want to see this one be the best it can be. I strongly suspect Devanagari was the newbie who at first used his own name as editor tag - a quick google search revealed testimonials, pictures, and videos of him on Da websites. Called on it, he changed to the current tag, but has kept his Da-love on his sleeve (he's honest, I'll give him that, though utterly unable to write in an objective voice - or use comma/semi-colon properly). Jason Riverdale is an admitted Da devotee/admirer with a consistent record of slanting the page strongly, proselytizingly pro-Da, even to the point of manipulating and censoring material (as shown above.) Nonetheless, both have made some decent contributions. I'm not sure those have outweighed the persistent tug toward devotional bias they've thousands of times revealed in their edits, and I hope they can restrain the urge to bully other voices out again (no matter the specious wounded-bird pleas for understanding and consensus). I'll say one thing - neither is as utterly mad as David Starr1.Tao2911 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was involved here a while ago, so perhaps it's me you're thinking of from before :) Regardless, I don't have any particular problem with editors concentrating on an article that interests them as long as all edits comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V etc. Even so, I think that confining one's edits largely to a single article is a mistake, as it prevents one gaining a wider appreciation of how Wikipedia operates and how other contentious articles are written. It also, of course, reduces the suspicion that editors are here for the wrong reasons - advocacy, promotion, debunking, etc.
 * That said, one way of achieving balance is by editors of opposite viewpoints working towards a compromise. Both you and the others here seem reasonable, intelligent individuals so I hope this will be the end result. I'd just advise you to go a little slower when making mass changes to allow time for a response, and to avoid accusations as to the motives of other editors unless you have very good evidence. If you have specific concerns about certain edits, provide diffs and I'll be happy to take a look (or perhaps take them to ANI). No-one has much patience for editors who appear to be here solely to protect an article or whitewash its subject, and I'm quite prepared to use the admin tools to exclude those who do so. EyeSerene talk 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

... Thanks EyeSerene for you mediation. It is very useful. Your continued involvement is appreciated I think that we need to cool charges back and forth here. While admittedly I am a fan of Adi Da I feel that blanket statements "consistent record of slanting the page strongly, proselytizingly pro-Da" are not useful nor completely true. Everyone including Tao on this page have bias and disagreements I would say that Tao has strong negative feelings about the subject as well and neutrality is not always there as well. I could pull all of that language out of past discussion as examples but let's move on beyond this. When there is consensus building and civil dialog Tao has made some excellent additions to the article. Some I may not like but I do respond to neutrality and lack of bias. What I would ask for is that there be discussion in the discussion section BEFORE posting. It is hard to respond to 75 or so post (some of which was wording & grammar changes etc, but requires checking it at least) in two days when they are already posted in the article. I rarely if ever revert article content and instead prefer to discuss in with others first.I did revert a few this last few days out of frustration that there was literately no dialog possible until after the fact of it being in the article. So if we can agree to post in discussion prior to putting material in the article that would be appreciated. I will be posting in discussion my responses to Tao's article changes. It may take a few days as my work load is heavy right now. Eye Serene is you want to comment on these that would be great and appreciated. Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jason, once again, hyper-rational sounding, but this stance is belied by the fact I caught you (not for the first time) fabricating a fictional account of a particularly contentious aspect of the page, and you lost your shizzle. You censored material and manipulated sources, in a few places. I think you should recuse yourself. Of my "75 edits", only maybe 3 were of any real content significance, and all were explained here. And no, I don't have to run them by you for approval first. Especially when you are demonstrably going to battle in favor your own biased concoctions. Still waiting for a response to that, btw. Go ahead, make up a rationalization ("er, uh, "several" sometimes means "one" and, um, "many" sometimes means "none," and "lawsuit" means "vacation" and..." ). Maybe its taking you a couple days to get that one in order.


 * as for my "bias" I have shown over and over that I can take glowing pro-Da worshipful dreck and turn it into concise, readable, objective prose, and that I can take flaming critique and contextualize it drained of rancor. Not only that, I was finally driven to actually read all the tertiary material on this guy (the first here to do so) and construct a factual biographical timeline - one that Adi Da himself did much to try to hide later. Earlier versions bounced back and forth from mythology to diatribe. I've been fought tooth and nail by his followers every single step of the way - though there have been some periods of relatively benign cooperation for which I have been very grateful. Still, I remain eternally amazed at how forceful and subversive "believers" remain in the face of naked facts, and reasonable argument.Tao2911 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Tao edits last week
Reading through the article I think it is in pretty good shape. Very, very close. Tao has done some very good work in what he has done. There are a few issues still for me but not a lot. Because these issues have been a source of contention between Tao & I, don’t particular want to dialog for ever on them. Eye Serene if you or other official Wikipedia editors want to make a ruling on the few contested issues I will abide with whatever decisions are made.

I would ask that in the future we move more slowly and put all suggested changes in discussion BEFORE posting in the article. This is standard wiki policy. I will make every effort to respond in discussion, be civil and avoid personal attacks etc. If there are contested issues which cannot be resolved, we will have to submit to arbitration. Hopefully after this there are no more major issues to debate and if Tao feels no more need for significant edits we can bring the page to rest. In responding to Tao’s comment about the periods of relative cooperation, I too would appreciate finding a way to do that again.

Changing of title headings in article

Fine. Some of them seem awkward to me, but not worth bickering over.

Changing of order of article and moving of Controversy up higher in article

Ok, don’t think that it was necessary, but see that Tao wants to show a chronological article. Fine

Removal of first two paragraphs of Divine Emergence Section and insertion of  re-written version

Ok, it is neutral and works. The reason the extended first paragraph was put there was that the first time it was inserted to the article some of the writing taken from critic Scott Lowe (“he died and came back all the way to his feet” ) was without any further explanation and seemed to me and other editors confusing to the average reader. So I worked with other wikipedia editors, using ALL sourced material to be more descriptive. All that being said, I think the re-worked paragraph by Tao is better, clear & neutral. Avoids all the issues that were there Thank you Tao.

Removal of two lines about “Illuminated Birth" at beginning of Bio

I still feel strongly that it should be there. Not because of a "great proclamation of uniqueness" but;

It is a key theme in Adi Da’s bio and a key element in his early life and in the later development of his philosophy and teaching. (The Knee of Listening)

It is discussed in almost all tertiary sources.

The argument against placing this information at the beginning of the bio, is that it is already mentioned later in bio. The argument I would pose is that since it is an important theme it would be useful to introduce it up front in the bio first and then it would be related to later examples where this is described. We don’t need to have a lot of Adidam language (which Tao rightly pointed out several months ago) as in past insertions. Just a simple statement at the beginning of the bio to introduce it, and that then can be related to a few lines later in the bio where this theme is shown.

Here are two of the cited sources and context in which it is mentioned.

Feuerstein, Georg. (2006). Holy Madness: Spirituality, Crazy-Wise Teachers, And Enlightenment, Hohm Press. ISBN 1-890772-54-2, pages 146-147. ''This pre individuated superconscious condition Adi Da explains began to recede in his second or third year, and he became aware of himself as an individual facing and objective world. It was the loss of the “Bright”… or preconception ecstasy, which motivated him to recapture that paradisiacal state of wholeness. … He was preoccupied with finding a way back to the primal condition he enjoyed from infancy. He desperately wanted to understand the psychic mechanism that blocked the experience of the “Bright.''

There is more to cite here to back up the intro statement of this.

Gordon/Baumann. Religions of The World- A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO Ltd. (2002). ISBN 1576072231, page 3. ''In his autobiography he asserts that he was born in a state of perfect awareness… but sacrificed that reality at the age of two in order to identify completely with human limitation…. Jones spent his college and subsequent years in a spiritual quest, which led him to Swami Muktananda and other gurus in that lineage. He reawakened to his true state in 1970.''

Here is the suggested paragraph to include at the beginning of the Bio, with just two lines commenting on this theme.

''Adi Da was born Franklin Albert Jones on November 3, 1939, in Queens, New York, and raised on Long Island.[22] In his autobiography he stated that from the time of his birth, he existed in a unique state of spiritual illumination. He stated that he therefore spent his time in college and subsequent years in a spiritual search to discover what obstructed this in human beings and what would be required to realize this state permanently.''


 * It simply reads like crap. it doesn't fit the bio. There has been in the past reams of this sort of back and forth - Da reinterpreted every event in retrospect. You don't bracket a factual bio with the fact that later Da sais he was enlightened the whole time. It is mentioned in his "philosophy." That is the place for it.Tao2911 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Switching another paragraph in lawsuits section back to previous paragraph also written by Tao

From this:

''Two weeks later, to a local reporter Adidam threatened to file its own lawsuit against O'Mahoney, as well as five others who had been named in stories and interviews making allegations of abuse. Adidam charged that their allegations were part of conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement. The suit was never brought to court''

To this:

''Adidam countered with its own threatened lawsuit against the former member for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Adidam charged that their allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement''

Certainly details of suits against Adidam are there. No reason why the threatened countersuit should not have some more detail. Again this is a Tao written paragraph, quite neutral, fair, and to the point. Prefer it, more succinct.


 * I made this point above - find a single source that says this (any details of suit against followers). We have a headline of an article that we can't read, simply saying Adidam threatened to sue. Also, we know this suit was never brought to court, and as far any source says, it went nowhere. I think this is clear. No payments, no case, no nothing. THIS is why we reduce the mention. I could easily argue for removing it altogether, using your own standards, Jason. We have no confirmable source for even the threat of a lawsuit. What I strongly suspect from watching and reading all the coverage of this time, was that with threats of suits against them, Adidam lawyers said to the media that they were going to bring suit against former followers in order to counteract negative media image, and scare at least some of the followers into silence. This is absolutely standard tactics. They would have had little basis for this "extortion conspiracy" allegation, and it never went anywhere - I doubt it was ever considered a real possibility, at least not by lawyers. All this said, it comes down to sources - find something and we can discuss. However, again, a threatened suit without settlement or court filing, no mention, vs. a dozen sources talking about lawsuits and settlements against Adidam? Please do the math re: "proportional coverage" (how many times do I have to go over this one?)Tao2911 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Controversy (Lawsuits)

Ah yes… the dialog and debate on Wikipedia in this area almost as bad as the Adidam lawsuits! If we can reach consensus and agreement on this we will have accomplished a lot.

I think Tao and I would agree that the following source is one we have battled over and interpreting. Here, in its entirety, is that source:

Lynne Duke, “Deep Throat's Daughter, The Kindred Free Spirit", Washington Post, June 12, 2005. Joan Felt is a devotee of an unusual and controversial self-proclaimed guru who,in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago, was accused of sexual abuse. 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

Another newspaper cited source for this is:

The San Francisco Chronicle/June 16th,1986, page 12 by John Widermuth ...a Marin County judge ruled that (Beverly)O'Mahony had no legal basis for bringing the action (lawsuit)

Here, as the contentious issues we have debated and argued about:

1)How many actual lawsuits were there?

2)Distinguishing between actual lawsuits and threatened lawsuits?

3)How long did these lawsuits go on for?

How many lawsuits were there and distinguishing between actual lawsuits and threatened lawsuits?

The Washington Post clearly states upfront in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago.

The two lawsuits  was omitted in recent written insertion last week. This was also brought up by another neutral editor

How to interpret Ford Green handling three such cases brought up as suggestion there were at least three or more lawsuits ?

The “three such cases”, is not written or spelled out relative to how many actual lawsuits vs. threatened lawsuits. We can bicker but it is to me, still not clear.


 * it doesn't have to be. We say it like the sources say it. "Several, suits and threatened suits."Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We do however have at the beginning of the article a definitive statement by a reputable newspaper saying in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago''


 * yeah fine. Only we have other sources too. Not just the ones you want to use.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How long did these lawsuits go on?

Again from the Washington Post, The lawsuits and threatened suits that dogged the group in the mid-1980s...

Just clarifying that this occurred in the 1980s without language that gives the impression of a continued issue.

I would say the Feuerstein was not privy to legal information. So the newspapers are our best source.


 * who says? You? I think this is an absolutely ludicrous statement.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So…… here is what I propose in change to be used in this section.

Copy inserted last week:

''O'Mahoney's suit was dismissed in March, 1986. Other lawsuits and threatened suits against Adi Da and Adidam in subsequent years were kept out of court with confidentiality agreements and cash settlements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.''

Suggested copy most of which are from newspaper quotes mentioned above:

''Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County in 1986. The other lawsuit and subsequent threatened suits were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements.''

I have not included the Georg Fuerstein material negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially. This comment seems out of context and odd here. This whole section is about charges, counter charges, lawsuits, and threatened lawsuits. That is covered quite adequately. Who knows if bleeding the organization financially is true. Seems like they paid for a lot of things in the 80s and 90s, bought land, published books, etc. Certainly Feuerstein was not privy to information about finances of the church. Yeah, I suspect lawsuits and heavy media attention could be disturbing to members of any organization. But… not necessary or pertinent to this section.So I feel that this should not be included.

Ok, that’s it for me. Like I said the rest of the article as it NOW stands is fine with me.Tao you can respond with what your arguments are. Again, anything you and I cannot come to agreement on I personally would appreciate if EyeSerene and or other official editors would rule on these. Again I will abide on their decision on these issues.Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made this abundantly clear, and you just aren't addressing my main points. Re lawsuits, I wrote the sentence to include both "lawsuits and threatened suits" to cover any vagaries. The only question you seem to have is what made it to court and what was reported; you wish to draw conclusions from your own suppositions, theories, original research, and guess work. That is not our standard. Our standard is to reflect sources - like Greene, who says he handled three cases against Adidam (your persistent willful misread of this astounds me.) And (neutral/pro edition, Adi Da confidant/insider) Feuerstein, who says "several suits and threatened over many years" which is in line with all accounts, allows for all news stories - your argument that he "is not a legal expert" is completely irrelevant. He's the most informed first-hand witness and expert on Adidam we have, and you are quite happy to use him in 50 other instances to support the points you want to make. He doesn't hedge here, he doesn't say "I don't know about this its vague." He's unequivocal. He says "several lawsuits over many years."This is not to mention New Religions, which echoes the same points, even more clearly. Having one line saying how suits impacted the church is not only simply good reporting answering an obvious question, it reflects the sources. Your desire to leave it out is just your wish to minimize all this. Which is obvious.Tao2911 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bright" birth mention
With some trepidation, I moved a reconstructed bright birth mention to when he first says it (in a public forum), in Knee. I think it reads well, is clear. Now, let's head off something right now. We all know that there could be a complex theological discussion about how Da renounced the bright by choice to initiate the whole cosmic drama of his enlightenment etc. We do NOT get into this here. it is implied all over the place. Even Diannaa found herself uncomfortable with aspects of the profoundly subjective nature of all this stuff. The mention is succinct, its good in that context, and reads well. Its got all the footnotes and citations it had before. You're welcome.Tao2911 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Citations
Jason Riverdale has added some peculiar citations and sources - for instance, to support his (highly contentious) desire to include "dismissed without legal merit" re: the O'Mahoney case, he cites "The San Francisco Chronicle, June 16th, 1986 page 12 by John Widermuth." Not only formatted unlike anything else on the page (you don't need a page number for a newspaper citation, though it does show it was hardly front page news), there is no writer by this name. Google shows there is a John WiLdermuth, but no article can be found for this date. Where did you get this information? And why, if the case was dismissed in march, is it being reported in the middle of June? What is the name of the article? And what other information is in it, if you have access to it, that you are not volunteering? Riverdale has a proven track record of finding source material, and cherry picking to suit his bias. If support material is not forthcoming, I suggest the citation be removed - we'll have to find another source for this dismissal fact.Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not every citation has to have a web link. Not every news article is online. Do not remove citations just because they 'sound fishy' to you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * there is just cause to question this editor. He has removed contentious material and (actually verifiable) citations and parts of footnotes to manipulate content and justify bias. It is reasonable to ask for verification of this source, especially as everything else on page is verifiable, and/or footnoted with quotes from source. Plus, I'm not saying get rid of info. I'm saying find better source.Tao2911 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because it does not have a web link does not mean that it is not verifiable. It is reasonable for you to verify the source by locating a copy of the newspaper. It is not reasonable to remove a source because you are too lazy to find a copy of the periodical. The appropriate policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can keep ignoring my points and being snarky, but the citation in question is irregular, and questionable. Just because its there doesn't make it stick. And, I think laziness re: this page is hardly my issue.Tao2911 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content from cited source relative to lawsuits
Seems that some of the information from cited sources has been removed from Reference;

The Marin Superior Court reference with docket # etc for the dismissed O' Mahony case

Content of article that describes time Two lawsuits" and "in the 80's" Joan Felt is a devotee of an unusual and controversial self-proclaimed guru who,in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago, was accused of sexual abuse. 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

Hmmmm where did it go?Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See footnote 107. This quote is right there, never left. I haven't touched 'reference' section. I did go through all the footnotes and removed some material that was irrelevant, redundant, excessive, or not in contention. The case # (plus Greene address etc) you refer to info was an uncited footnote, wasn't wholly necessary (as news articles discuss case) so it was removed. Read talk please. If you have the case info, I agree it could possibly be in reference, but we'll have to look at precedents and guidelines for that. Right now it's all books. Can you add researched legal records to references? I don't know. But I hope that we agree on the two lawsuits thing. The citations are there. There is no question about those two cases. Or about there being others "threatened and settled out of court."Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes footnote # 107 is still there but the beginning part, which we have had disagreement on is edited OUT now. What you were accusing me of. And if there is discussion about a Court Docket #, then put it in discussion first until resolved. This is also something EyeSerene was suggesting in terms of slowing things down. I am trying to work cooperatively with you, but it is hard to have discussion when something is already removed. I am not "asking for you to have my approval" I understand how sometimes you feel your a "only voice." But these kinds of edits don't help develop trust. That's why I felt on this issue we may have to have some help from a wiki editor. There is disagreement. We are polarized here. Some other areas we have been working together. So maybe we need a formal Wikipedia editor on this to decide. Would you be willing and also willing to abide on whatever ruling they made as I stated as well.

Also is it necessary to have a actual playboy bunny page for Julie Anderson.I think the source you initially put in is fine and has never been contested by me or other editors. Seems a bit "sensationalist journalism" on your part here.It is never been a contested issue by me at least. Consider perhaps that it may not be necessary. She is a living person and there also may be some Wikipedia rule about this. Consider how necessary this extra citation is.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Playboy bunny material is minor, is not sensationalistic, and should remain in article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, let it be!Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I only just realized today that the "playmate" (bunny's are the ones in the bars) in question used an alias, so I added it. It linked in WP. Why wouldn't we link it? She's clearly a "notable person" in whatever regard. What - she's alive so she can't be mentioned? (Where do you come up with this stuff?) I think there are a couple other living people referenced on Wikipedia. One or two. And Playboy is hardly sensational anymore, to anyone but the Amish.


 * Btw, the whole Anderson/Kaine "spread" as it were can be found free online - gotta love mid-70's playboy. Hoo boy. I know you're googling it Jason.


 * As for removing the case info - as I said before, a few times now, the prob is the source. Or rather, that there isn't one. Cite it, or find a precedent for it to be included. In the meantime, the article isn't altered in any way by it being there or not being there. You say there is a dispute. What dispute? I keep asking, over and over, for you to either acknowledge my points above - in short, that the current version about lawsuits is accurate to sources - or give new reasons why it isn't. Frankly, I know your arguments; I've shown them thus far to be specious, and simply driven by a censorious bias. Is there still a problem? If so - get to the points here. Please.Tao2911 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no prob with the info in the first part of that footnote. Only that "Joan Felt" has nothing to do with entry. If you want to add that, I suppose you can. It doesn't change substance of line in question. It just perpetuates the unprecedented footnote madness on the page. Again - more than two total lawsuits and/or settlements. That's all.Tao2911 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess "we are going to have to agree to disagree" and put this up for mediation. Let's see how that happens and goes. Our points and counterpoints are there so...Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

dude - no, they aren't. You haven't responded to any of my points. What?Tao2911 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale needs to make a case
There is only one ongoing specific point of contention here. Riverdale wants to say that there were only two lawsuits and threatened suits against Adi Da. His argument is that he (Riverdale) can only find court records for two cases. He therefore wants to dismiss whole sources, or the parts of sources he doesn't like (while using other parts), that say that there were "several suits over many years," most kept out of court (so clearly there will be no court records.)

Riverdale is willfully not addressing this. And now says he's made his case and we're done, time for "mediation" (it's not, btw). EyeSerene has put a block on the page - though Riverdale did not just engage in edit warring, and I certainly haven't (in fact I've welcomed him re-adding info). I understand the caution. However, Riverdale needs to put up or shut up. There is no dispute if Riverdale simply doesn't like something, but makes no case.Tao2911 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this clear. From above, here is my argument to which Riverdale has yet to respond: ''"Re lawsuits, I wrote the sentence to include both "lawsuits and threatened suits" to cover any vagaries. The only question you seem to have is what made it to court and what was reported; you wish to draw conclusions from your own suppositions, theories, original research, and guess work. That is not our standard. Our standard is to reflect sources - like Greene, who says he handled three cases against Adidam(which you removed from footnote when you changed entry to read "only two")... And (neutral/pro edition, Adi Da confidant/insider) Feuerstein, who says "several suits and threatened over many years" which is in line with all accounts, allows for all news stories - your argument that he "is not a legal expert" is completely irrelevant. He's the most informed first-hand witness and expert on Adidam we have, and you are quite happy to use him in 50 other instances to support the points you want to make. He doesn't hedge here, he doesn't say "I don't know about this its vague." He's unequivocal. He says "several lawsuits over many years." This is not to mention New Religions, which echoes the same points, even more clearly. Tao2911 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC): "''

EyeSerene, you can remain neutral and still evaluate claims, or at least encourage action.Tao2911 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we characterize it as "According to Feuerstein and Greene...there were three such cases" or "According to Feuerstein, ther were several, and according to Greene there were three such cases...", or something like that? That way, the article sticks to only claiming what the sources claim. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the urge to try to placate Jason; however, stylistically that is highly problematic. Also, its completely contradictory. JR wants to use the first half of the ford greene sentence, that says there were two cases in court in CA (one handled by Greene no less), but not the second, where nothing less than the Washington Post says he handled three cases. it doesn't say "he claims to have handled 3 cases." It's the Washington Post, for god's sake. Also - Feuerstein is used throughout this page, mainly the early pro-Da account from 1992 (as in this case). We demonstrably are trusting this source, all editors are, all over the place; we are not bracketing everything he says with "Feuerstein says". That would make no sense (and would be ruinous to page). Also, New Religions says this too, using numbers of sources to support it. These sources are all major - they have multiple editors, reviewed so as not to be libelous, fact checked etc. Our work is done for us. We don't have to couch or hedge. We have three sources saying "several cases over many years." There is no issue here. Only a documented record of whitewashing. This is not a paragraph of contentious material. This is one line, summarizing three sources.Tao2911 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tao, I have made my case and responded several times, you just don't agree with it. Fine. There is a direct most reputable source, a newspaper, required to check their facts, with editorial review, which says of an unusual and controversial self-proclaimed guru who,in two California lawsuits and several public statements 20 years ago, was accused of sexual abuse. 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 casesAlso that this took place in the mid 80's and 20 years ago This time period is given by Ford Green himself. How much plainer can it be. Not going on for years and years as you put in. It is plainly stated here, which you have ignored. The article was published in 2005. Certainly Ford Green who made the statement saying 20 years ago and the 80's has the most accurate information. Newspaper checks it's facts and it is saying that there were two actual lawsuits. I am not contesting other threatened lawsuits. Nor am I contesting the settlements out of court. That's why I suggested the following written statement takes into account all the facts

There is no disagreement. I understand you perfectly. You just keep ignoring my arguments. Greene says those dates, in one source, in half of the whole sentence - the rest of it says that he handled three such cases against Adidam. New Religions and Feuerstein (that you want to ignore) say "several" suits were threatened for "many years". Who says that Greene was the only lawyer who ever handled a suit against Adidam? This is what you assume, and it's crazy (I feel like I'm dealing with a child here). I'm not disputing your one source - I'm saying there are two others. We know there were suits in the mid 80's. We have two other sources saying they went beyond that time. I keep phrasing to include all sources. You do not. You can't cherry pick for your bias, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

''Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed by a Superior Court Judge in Marin County in 1986. The other lawsuit and subsequent threatened suits were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements.''Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

''Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.''Tao2911 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * sources discuss at length how these suits impacted Adidam. This is important info - your persistent removal of it is whitewashing. You want to downplay all this. We get it. Just own it, and stop.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed to above inclusion! Thank you. Consensus here. I have a few other language things I would like to discuss with you. Please keep the language between us civil, free of irony and attack. I am trying to work with you here Tao so. Goethean if you want to pipe in from time to time that might be useful. You do comment on both sides here so that is useful. Tao I have a client to go see so I will try to simply address a few other language issues later. Not a lot.Your patience would be appreciated.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to attempt civility. You can help this effort by actually addressing my specific, reasoned points instead of just playing old busted records over and over. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is civility, I'd hate to see incivility. Please take it easy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

talk about pots and kettles! ha!Tao2911 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Edit
consensus on adding this line "Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially." last line of "public controversy" section in Biography.Tao2911 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just between clients...so a quick response. I would prefer that we not put ANY changes in till all disputes are resolved. I have no intention of revoking consensus on this. But, given the history of battling here I think working through any other disputed language etc. without changes in the article would benefit us all. We have a week to work through all this and I for one appreciate it. Let's see if we can continue this cooperation!Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with lock on page, welcome it. However - let's move on points agreed upon. I don't want to see backsliding, or negotiating this point for that, or any of the possibilities - that your latest statement raises a concern toward. We agreed on this point. Let's get it changed. Bring up others, and let's keep it locked. I trust Eyeserene to monitor objectively. Tao2911 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * for clarity: "Agreed to above inclusion! Thank you. Consensus here... Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"
 * Above comment is a cut and paste extract of an edit by Jason Riverdale from the "Riverdale needs to make a case" section. It was added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC), comment was struck by Rambo's Revenge (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) in a misunderstanding (see below) and later changed back by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC). Rambo's Revenge (talk)  10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Please check that I have woven the references into the above sentence change correctly. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changes reverted in light of more recent revelations. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * note: Rambo here falsely accused of un-Wiki activity, for which I was blocked for five minutes until another admin stepped in. See below for the record of my supposedly "dastardly" deed.Tao2911 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - only the first citation I still have questions about. For one, at best, the writer is misspelled. Two, my list of issues I outlined above about this source hasn't been addressed. But then, they never are by Riverdale. oh well. I'll bring it up again later.Tao2911 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording disagreement
Tao please review the wording I actually agreed to. Here is the content from the Discussion that shows what I agreed to

''Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.Tao2911 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to above inclusion! Thank you. Consensus here....Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)'' The above means the above.

You, BELOW all this part of the discussion added language NOT there in the agreement. Changed it to this "Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986.....

Very dishonest here. Very disappointing. Not a way to build consensus. We are close here Tao,don't blow it like this. It would be nice to bring this to a close.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only change I made was to say "adi da and the church" instead of adidam. The suits were against both him as individual and the org., not just the church. So sources say. I caught this and fixed it before your mistake was added to article (which happened very fast, just after I caught this), and I said as much in the history record tag line - nothing was hidden. This is completely minor, changes nothing of substance, and its accurate to sources. In fact, it is how the mention once accurately read, before you gutted the facts in favor of your whitewash version (that Eyeserene has called you out on). I'm hardly defaming your god man here. As my grammy'd say, don't get your panties in a twist.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, we had an agreement, consensus, on specific wording,you changed it and snuke a few more words in there without further discussion. Your points you make below about why you changed the wording is not the point. We had consensus and agreement you changed things without discussion. Not necessary nor helpful in building consensus and cooperation. Too bad we are so close. This kind of thing does not help. Discuss things first and make changes by consensus.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you are confused. I didn't "snuke" anything. You make more defamatory complaints, but again don't deal with the issue at hand. Do you have a problem with this text? Do you think that the suits were only against Adidam, and not Adi Da? Please go review sources. I think you will see my TWO WORD change is totally innocent and benign. Tao2911 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Source 1 (Marin Independent Journal): "A $5 million lawsuit has been filed charging a San Rafael-based international sect and its leader with false imprisonment, fraud, involuntary servitude and physical and sexual abuse. The suit, filed in Marin Superior Court, was brought by a former member of the Johannine Daist Communion against the group and its leader, known as "Da Free John"."Tao2911 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Source 2 (SF Examiner): "the suit accuses Da Free John, a native of New York and former student of the late Swami Muktananda Paramhansa, of "clergy malpractice...Also named in the suit are Vincent Goddard, Larry Hastings and John Andrews, who along with Brian O'Mahony are named as members of the JDC board of directors. They are accused of breach of directors fiduciary duty."Tao2911 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Source 3 (actual suit doc): "M. MILLER, an individual vs. FRANKLIN A. JONES, an individual"Tao2911 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That do it for you? Was this really necessary? When you cry wolf, shit hits the fan. Maybe you get off on it, it gives you a sense of control, I don't know. But my correction is clearly harmless.Tao2911 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't change content of what I posted in Discussion as you just did.

from Tao Changed wording after agreement and consensus was reached to Disagreement over wordingJason Riverdale (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all just ridiculous. I removed some of the cut/pasted info from above thread here that didn't pertain to your issue (you failing to replace it shows it didn't matter) - you chopped a whole passage and put the whole thing here, leading I felt to confusion by newbie admins to page (it was certainly confusing, maybe even for you). Plus, your headline was simply defaming me for a minor misunderstanding on your part that is discussed in this thread - the issue of which was masked by this smoke-screen defamation. I must ask you to spend less time defaming me here and on other admin pages (of which you are leaving a lengthy somewhat pathetic trail) and simply just get to the point. Once again, you are spending a lot more time (misguidedly) pointing fingers, dithering and calling me names, while continuing to not deal with issues - this is an ongoing problem. So - respond to the above point, concerning adi da being a plaintiff in lawsuits, and my completely innocent inclusion of that fact, so we can just...move...on. Sheesh.Tao2911 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward
Ok, so let's try to move forward here. Let's get some agreements as well between us.


 * No change in any language after agreements on copy without consensus


 * When the article is unlocked any changes in the article (outside of grammar, sentence structured etc) that either one of us wants to make is posted in Discussion (as is wiki policy) for discussion and consensus BEFORE put into article. Slowing it all down helps a lot and has been suggested by EyeSerene.This is a good way to do it.


 * Civil language. We both get frustrated with each other. You feel my responses sometimes are not answering you points and I feel that I have answered them. There is disagreement. But no caustic language. Let's try to keep discussing till consensus. I am trying to avoid mediation and would rather work things out between us, but on some issues we may come to that.

ok... so if agreed we can settle this lawsuits things quicklyJason Riverdale (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add to your list:
 * Stick to the points. Quit negotiating to allay your emotional sensitivity. You could just answer the points, instead of OVER AND OVER laying out your case against me personally. Once again, you seem to want to hold the page hostage until you get verbal foreplay. I don't want to play these games. You overreacted to a minor correction, and we now have three thousand more words describing a completely inconsequential issue - it's no wonder admins come in and get confused (especially after you go to their talk pages and say what a monster I am - over and over and over and over. Maybe question this tactic. It's not really helping the page get resolved).


 * So, don't hold the page hostage. Stick to the points. Deal with them as they arise, point by point. Read more carefully. Consider whether you are overreacting. Now lets get on with it.Tao2911 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ps I don't want any response to this: an apology, a counter, more complaints, an agreement, nothing. I just want you to deal with points in the article, in this case, saying that phrasing is fine below.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da separate Defendant from Adidam organization
So, can we agree on this? '"Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church'' in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially." '''


 * Source 1 (Marin Independent Journal): "A $5 million lawsuit has been filed charging a San Rafael-based international sect and its leader with false imprisonment, fraud, involuntary servitude and physical and sexual abuse. The suit, filed in Marin Superior Court, was brought by a former member of the Johannine Daist Communion against the group and its leader, known as "Da Free John"."Tao2911 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Source 2 (SF Examiner): "the suit accuses Da Free John, a native of New York and former student of the late Swami Muktananda Paramhansa, of "clergy malpractice...Also named in the suit are Vincent Goddard, Larry Hastings and John Andrews, who along with Brian O'Mahony are named as members of the JDC board of directors. They are accused of breach of directors fiduciary duty."Tao2911 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Source 3 (actual suit doc): "M. MILLER, an individual vs. FRANKLIN A. JONES, an individual"Tao2911 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The only difference from version Riverdale already signed off on is in italics (previous version inaccurately said just "adidam"). Three sources for this phrasing are above. Clear?
 * If this is fine, Riverdale, you should post an edit request (see above for formatting.)Tao2911 (talk)


 * Ok on wording of entry. Let's not stack references. Just use Source 1. That will be sufficient.Jason Riverdale (talk)

there is no need to add any citations to entry. They are already there. These are just here to prove to you accuracy. However - you need to fix and standardize the "widermuth' citation. it needs a title, correct the name spelling (wildermuth), and since you didn't address my questions about that source before when I asked maybe do that: where did you find this, what is the substance of the article, what is its title, why if it is ref'ing March suit was it printed in June etc?Tao2911 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am out of town for about a week for work. When I return I will again have access to info of the SF Chronicle article above and will give requested information.Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
The following paragraph has consensus and can be inserted into the article

''Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially''

It should replace the current paragraph in the article which reads

''O'Mahoney's suit was dismissed in March, 1986.[103] Other lawsuits and threatened suits against Adi Da and Adidam occurred for years, but were kept out of court with confidentiality agreements and cash settlements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially.Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) ''
 * I wouldn't call the agreement of just 2 editors a consensus. I'd like to see a few more people express an opinion before I action this request. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are only two editors active, esp. re: this passage. I'm actually fine with the passage the way it reads now, and don't care about this change - it was hashed out merely for Jason Riverdale, who battled hard for a short sentence addition. But no other editor is active now (save Goethean, sort of). Especially on this passage. I suggest reviewing talk, and seeing if you can grasp the point (which is really actually quite simple despite reams of idiotic dispute.) Or just read the sentence, current and proposed. I think you'll see it's not a big deal, we agree on it, and we represent the poles of opinion (he's a devotee of profiled figure, I am not). I think holding off does the process here a disservice.Tao2911 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jason Riverdale's suggested edit here and feel it is much more balanced.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Summary
Hi everyone. I have not been following this discussion terribly closely, but I certainly want to weigh in and give some feedback on the current state of the article. I will do this section by section.

Lead The Lead looks completely fine to me. I have no suggested edits here.

Biography Suggested edits:

"For over a year, Adi Da (then still Franklin Jones) lived with his girlfriend Nina Davis in the hills of Palo Alto. While she worked to support them, he wrote intensively and meditated informally." I think that more could be said about this then "he wrote", since in The Knee of Listening (even the first edition) he describes this "yoga of writing", and the process of self-observation that he was engaging at the time. This is a very minor point, so not a big deal if other editors disagree. Just something to consider.


 * I don't want to see this expanded. The original Knee (as even quoted by a SF Chronicle article I just read) also said he smoked weed daily, along with ongoing use of other drugs in Palo Alto, while Nina "did all the work, both in the house and out of it" (Bubba's words). I imagine you don't want to include that, and I'm not arguing for it though I think it paints a vivid picture. He wrote. That's enough mention.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think its fine, it's not a big point for me really. Just a suggestion that came up as I was reading it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Having studied a number of spiritual traditions, including "The Work" of G.I. Gurdjieff and Subud, Rudolph was then a follower change "follower" to "disciple" of Siddha Yoga founder Swami Muktananda...". I am suggesting changing "follower" to "disciple" here because it is a more accurate term, whereas "follower" while also accurate can carry unnecessary connotations that could be seen as negative. Again, minor point.


 * I changed 'disciple' to 'follower' as former is specialized, credulous terminology, and has been removed in every other instance in entry (even following Adidam wishes regarding their "followers.") Term is excessive, interpretive, and too particular. 'Follower' is more neutral and dry, and in tone with entry now.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree with your logic.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"As a student at Philadelphia's Lutheran Theological Seminary in 1967, Adi Da described undergoing a terrifying breakdown. Taken to a hospital emergency room, a psychiatrist diagnosed it as an anxiety attack." I do not believe this is an entirely accurate characterization, and no contextualization is provided.
 * it is straight form the horse's mouth, Knee early edition account. Read the source.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da describes this as the "death of narcissus" in the original Knee of Listening, and that theme has been stripped in this biography. I think it would be good to describe more of what was happening here than just a "terrifying breakdown", and what the psychiatrist said. He did see a psychiatrist, and it was diagnosed as an anxiety attack, that is fine to stay in this paragraph, but it should also be mentioned that Adi Da felt this was the "death of narcissus" or the death of separate self, and described it in those terms, albeit in conflict with medical diagnosis. The following sentence is good, but I feel there needs to be some "meat" in between.


 * much of this interp. came later. Again, this is deeply credulous interpretation, not in keeping with current tone of entry. It alludes to esoterica that then demands more material, and it simply is helpful or necessary - it quickly leads back to Adidam pamphelteering hagiography. It says in entry he found it insightful, and it led to further events. Enough.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, good enough logic for me.-Devanagari108 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For "Public Controversy", I think as it currently stands is fine, with the change that Jason suggested above incorporated.

I think the bright birth mention is in a very good place now, and works better there than in the beginning of the Biography. This is an encyclopedia entry after all. So very good edit, Tao. Also, the Divine Emergence section is SIGNIFICANTLY improved, I am very pleased with how this section turned out. Very good edits again, Tao. So that's all from me on the Biography.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. Happy you approve. I thought it was a good compromise too.Tao2911 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy
"Self-contraction" seems fine. However, I am not sure about this pseudo-chart in "Seventh Stage Realization". What does it really communicate? It seems that it would be better to use some of Scott Lowe's description of the stages of life, rather than this non-descriptive chart. Also, there is no real source for this chart other than Adi Da Up Close, and I have seen descriptions of the stages of life in some third party sources. I think we should use them. That is my only suggestion for this section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I came in here totally unfamiliar with this stage model. While current form raises questions, I find it clear, comprehensible; it indicates the model, and i really don't think the entry is the place to get into it more. There is a link to adidam, and a massive bibliography. That last version with all the esoterica was an attention killer, and killed the rhythm of the page. As I say below, let's keep it bare. I think the whole picture is there, quite clearly. The most important feature of his teaching was or at least became his 7th stage realization. That is what is rightfully emphasized. I think that section is pretty good as is.Tao2911 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree this entry isn't the place to get into it. Perhaps another article focusing on this is more apt, leaving this summary and concise.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate entry is a good idea, very much in keeping with WP precedents (see Leary's 8 Circuit Model).Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception
Everything else looks fine until Reception. Under "Others" there is mention of criticism of Adi Da's writing being difficult, because of puncutation and capitalization, etc. I think there should also be mention of how others such as Kripal found this to be the uniquely positive aspect of Adi Da's writings, so I suggest adding this from the Knee of Listening Foreword: "What sets the twenty-three Source-Texts apart is the fact that they were written in English, and that this English idiom has been enriched by a kind of hybridized English-Sanskrit, and that a new type of mystical grammar has been created, embodied most dramatically (and, to the ego, jarringly) in Adi Da's anti-ego capitalization practice, in which just about every grammatical move is nondualistically endowed with the status once imperially preserved in English for the non-existent "I "."


 * well, basically we have been seeming to move toward limiting a quote per person. This proposal is really wordy, awkward. I can work on a capsule line version to add to Kripal maybe. But I'd be more likely to agree to removing the negative mention than add anything at this point. I was just reading the entry on iPhone, and it still is a bit too long really, which becomes even more apparent there. I've been working at just paring it down to the most pithy and succinct version we can get to. Bone-y. Anorexic even. No dressing it up, few quotes, everything rephrased from sources and even a bit terse. it makes for much more convincing reading - you start to trust that the opinions have been drained out.Tao2911 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can agree to removal of negative mention.--Devanagari108 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So those are all my comments. I think this article is really good now, and these are just minor edits that I am suggesting. I am otherwise quite pleased with how things turned out.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildermuth citation
Jason Riverdale has added the following footnote/citation: "Wildermuth, John ,"Sex Guru Touts Celibacy", The San Francisco Chronicle, June 16th, 1986, "Jones won the opening round in November when a Marin County judge ruled that O'Mahony had no legal basis for bringing the action (lawsuit)..."

First, thanks for cleaning that up - the previous citation had problems (discussed above.) I'm streamlining it slightly. Second, though, I still wonder what the rest of this article says. I can only find a single dead-link mention online to this article. I'd like to read it. Can you provide a live link? Thanks.

Also, I just caught a discrepancy. We have a court record saying the O'Mahoney case was dismissed in March of 1986. This article says November 1985. I removed the date from entry, but it makes me wish to see this article even more.Tao2911 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Polygamy"
"po·lyg·a·my (p-lg-m): n. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time." For some reason, this word really bothers Riverdale and Dev. However, the passage wasn't clear that Jones/Da's partners (during G&G period mention) were not sequential, but simultaneous. This practice, in English, is called 'polygamy.' I used the adjective form "polygamous". No value judgment is implied. Please do not censor due to preemptive interpretation.Tao2911 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The added language constitutes original writing. No where in the ANY source is that language or wording used WP:OR It should therefore be removed. The following more than adequately paraphrases the source citation.


 * He had nine or more partners during this time that he called his "wives", including Playboy centerfold Julie Anderson, aka "Whitney Kaine".[86]Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale says "The added language constitutes original writing." There is a rule against original RESEARCH - there is also instruction to REPHRASE and summarize sources. There is not, nor could there be, a rule against "original writing". Would be funny if not so infuriatingly stupid. This entry, as in every other, is often, if not mainly, "original writing." Argue your point against use of this particular English adjective, please. What is the problem? Reread the definition I've provided for you, control your involuntary knee movements, and make a case. Mine is that he practiced polygamy, ie he had multiple simultaneous wives. Did he not? Are you saying he didn't? And New Religions and others use the term in any case - please reread.Tao2911 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the addition of the word "polygamy", because I think it is beyond clear that it was simultaneous as it read before. "Nine or more wives during this time" is very clear that they were all at the same time. I think the addition of "polygamy" is mostly just unnecessary. It's not necessarily a negative term or anything, that is not my objection to it, but I can see why Jason might feel that it has negative connotations. I think its just better avoided, especially since the passage is clear as is. I would suggest not monkeying with this level of things that is already agreed upon. Would be good to reach some sort of consensus about the whole article relatively soon.


 * Relative to Tao changing the year, I think that is fine. I have not reviewed the changes made to lawsuits in any detail, so I won't comment on that yet.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"the passage wasn't clear that Jones/Da's partners (during G&G period mention) were not sequential, but simultaneous." Now it is, due to one useful word, that you admit is not in itself defaming or controversial.Tao2911 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale confusion resolved
Tao we just went through and long and extended discussion about this lawsuits paragraph. Agreement was reached and AGAIN you choose to ignore this. Number of lawsuits and time (dates) were what was being contested between us. So we agreed on a way to include two sources. Not really interested in your "so called- logic" or "it is a minor word change" on this as clearly you are unable to maintain even consensus agreements.

Agreed consensus ''Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed in 1986''

Changed without consensus today ''Two lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and the church in California. The O'Mahoney suit was dismissed.''

We also had an agreement that we would work via consensus BEFORE posting changes. Putting changes in and "reasoning" it out at same time IS NOT consensus. I really have tried to work with you here. But .... Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I simply took out "1986" because we have two sources conflicting. Read talk above, PLEASE. YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS "1985". Why do you insist on having these fits over completely inconsequential edits? When we figure this out we can reinsert the RIGHT date if necessary (it matters little either way in context). Speaking of which, please address my questions above re: the source you cite.Tao2911 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is a live link, but I was able to get a copy of the article. You are welcome to do the same.Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * simply took out "1986" because we have two sources conflicting. 
 * I see what your what your saying. The article was written in 1986 the case was dismissed  November 1985. Then let's change date to reflect that.   My mistake, sorry. If you could, as agreed simply bring things to Discussion first  before changing things in article that would make things less complicated.[User:Jason Riverdale|Jason Riverdale]] (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly right (but you'll get there)- your June 86 source says case dismissed Nov 1985 - another source says it was tossed out in March 1986. This is all above, explained simply and carefully in talk - please read this stuff first. This is like the 20th time this has happened. I make it as clear as I can, and you fly off the handle without reading talk (or something). I keep asking...and I edited this (yet another) talk section headline defaming me to reflect your acknowledgment of your mistake. You see a pattern here?Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I added 1985 simply to previous line, as in when the lawsuits were filed. So there's a date, and no conflict in citations. There's usually a simple, non-hysterical solution somewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please allow for discussion of edits
Tao, I would like to suggest that you please allow for discussion of edits to take place. You are making many small changes within the article and they are not reflected here in discussion. I agree it is tedious to post something about every small change, but I think it will be useful if you can give some overview of your changes afterwards. I do check the History, so it does not bother me so much, but you often edit very fast making very many changes, and I think it will help everyone here if you said more here every now and then, especially regarding what may be a controversial edit. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dev, I have no expectation that when you change some caps, or add the word "simply" as you just did, that you have to come to me here in talk to ask for permission. If I don't like your changes, I will come here and say why, or just adjust to split any difference I can discern. I carefully label each of my edits in the tag line. I always read 'history' tag lines to see what others have done, then check talk, then consider the edits and how they hold up. I expect the same from others. Riverdale has again and again shown himself to be, I feel, unreasonable and a poor, sloppy, biased, weasel-y editor, and I am simply not going to discuss grammar and punctuation to get his approval. I know how to craft a sentence. I haven't been making any significant edits that warrant consensus. I have come here over and over and over and made requests to JR, and given explanations of my edits that seemingly go completely unread or acknowledged. If you review 'talk' carefully, you will see this, and how we ended up having two blocks over issues that made very little sense or difference to the page. See the section just previous for a classic example.Tao2911 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, this seems fine and reasonable enough to me.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Dev you will see that Afterwriting came and (once again) corrected most of your edits for WP style. I didn't want to do so for fear of setting either you or JR off. You might want to be careful before you start wading in again.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed this. I thought I was doing the right thing, I had no idea that it was already correct per wiki style! You should feel free to point that out. I honestly just didn't know. I also don't plan to be "wading in again". I am ready to finish up this article. You are the one making daily edits, so I am just waiting for some kind of grand consensus to be reached. I don't have any points to make.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * and if you, Tao would simply put word changes in Discussion before you make the edits in the article... as several editors, both non-wiki and official wiki editors have requested then that would make this process easier and trustable. Removing or adding some word changes are not always "minor" This is not caps or punctuation.Putting it in discussion BEFORE making edit would avoid some of these issues. Not AFTER the change in the article either as occurred. That too has been requested over and over again. You even agreed to itJason Riverdale (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

blah blah blah. any actual substantive issues to bring up - like yet another single word choice we can belabor with a 10,000 word debate before you realize you're "confused"? Again? As far as I'm concerned, I don't see anything else to deal with in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * JR, the best thing would be for you to carefully watch the History, since you often find Tao's word changes to be controversial. If you notice something in History that you disagree with, feel free to bring it up here in Discussion, and challenge the point further. It is not reasonable to ask Tao to articulate every single change he makes here--that is the function of History. It is true, Tao can often make numerous edits, and it can take some time to glance through History, but I think it is not so complicated if you want to review his changes.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

After review of sources, fixed a few problems
There were some holes in the story - namely, jones' visits to Muktananda in 1970, and then in 72, both hoping to getting the thumbs up as "mahasiddha". A non-starter (surprise) for Swami Muk. Also, I moved the book burning from critique to its rightful (original) place in the G&G section. It is a fact in all accounts, including fan Kripal, who is cited. As is Feuerstein. Also, there is much emphasis in sources on G&G book's critique of marriage - makes the polygamy more explicable in context. Devotees won't like it, but its all sourced, factual, and helpful. As were reworkings of drug use and time with Rudi. Numbers of sources, including various editions of Knee (ie Jones himself), say he took a lot of drugs for 3-4 years. This was tippy-toed around to placate terrifically non-neutral sensitivities. We have the sources. So we just say what they say.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

.Gurdjieff Journal is self-published without editorial review
Regarding the citation from the Gurdjieff Journal, it is a magazine self-published by the owner and without editorial review. Therefore it should not be used as a source for Wikipedia. This was discussed about six months agoJason Riverdale (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This was/is disputed, and never reached consensus - I simply found better sources that said the same things, and still this didn't satisfy critics. I believe it was Goethean who sided with me saying it was a valid source - only David Starr discounted it, and he was a completely biased and uncooperative editor who had arbitrary notions of what he wanted to see included in this article. This source is cited by other valid pub. references, including Scribd. Your standard does not hold water. Journal is respected in field, cited in other journals, and author/editor in chief is recognized authority in field. It's a glossy, illustrated magazine that publishes other writers, on various topics, and is carried by university libraries. Not only this, but the article in question is balanced, well written, well researched, and footnoted using many of the same sources used in this entry. No whole events or facts in entry rely solely on this source. It's a good article, one of the most thorough on the topic and one of the best researched, and it should stay. Your choice to discount it reflects your ongoing bias on the subject, and wish to remove any mention of what you perceive as controversial or potentially "negative."


 * Once again, I request that you bring up the points that you have issue with, so that these can be shown to have sufficient representation in sources. I think you will find that they all have more than enough, and represent tertiary coverage more than proportionally and fairly.Tao2911 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So while I do not wish to belabor this issue too much... the reason I brought it up is that I did see several copies of this journal and all the key articles in them were written by one editor. Are there any other links to other issues of the magazine that show other editors writing articles?Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't see how this is an issue. How is the material biased or in some other way unsuitable? I have given a list of why I find the source fine. I was backed up in the past by another editor (Starr contested it because he didn't want any mention of Scientology, drugs, scandals, court cases et al; he fought newspapers too - calling them, in fact, "tabloids"). What's the problem? The article is excellent - (again) fair, neutral, and well researched. It's a useful source/citation.Tao2911 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Relevant discussions: &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

David Starr by any other name would smell as...
Before this goes too far...

Norm DeClavier's user page: "Hi. I have an academic background in philosophy, religious studies and music, so will probably gravitate toward those areas when editing. I was motivated to join Wikipedia by disappointment at the biographical article on the spiritual teacher Adi Da Samraj. Though I have had a long-term interest in his work, I am not affiliated with the Adidam organization. The name Norm Declavier is similar to a nom de plume."

David Starr's: "David Starr is a pseudonym I made up referring to the Star of David. I contribute to Wikipedia by editing at Adi Da as it is a subject I am familiar with. I am a fan of Adi Da, but I am not an active member of his community. I agree that all points of view should be heard, and that balance and fairness are key. I am not an employee of Adi Da's church."

I expect to start hearing some very familiar (ill informed and biased) arguments (as we already have, above) - in other words, attempts to whitewash the entry. I hope to not have a return to past behaviors. EyeSerene, can you keep a serene eye on this, please?Tao2911 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just read the comment on my user discussion page aswell. I'm not quite sure how a "watch your activity in terms of whitewashing and sockpuppetry" works, but it sounds pretty scary.  Honestly, how can there be any proper discussion on this article when someone is operating in this belligerent, bullying way?  I can assure you, Tao2911, I have no connection whatsoever to David Starr and I am not a sockpuppet.  This is my first foray into editing at Wikipedia, but with a welcome like that I'm not sure if it will last very long.  There is no need to get over-excited, I have no intention of changing anything in your article unless there is a proper consensus. Norm Declavier (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should assume good faith until proved wrong :) Norm Declavier, there has been a history of partisan editing on this article that causes new accounts - especially those that might appear to be single purpose accounts - to be viewed with some suspicion. This is an unfortunate consequence of advocacy across many areas on Wikipedia and no slur on you or your motives. As long as your edits are balanced, neutrally stated and reliably sourced, there won't be a problem. With controversial articles like this, talk page discussion is generally the best way forward; your acknowledgement of our practice of editing by consensus is very welcome and does you credit. All the best, EyeSerene talk 08:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good faith assumed; good point. Sorry if my alarm bells went off. It's just that Starr used to hammer these exact preferred points, with almost the exact same wording, with the same mistakes and the same bias. Then the profile descriptions sounds like one was simply re-written from the other. My apologies if I'm wrong. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you were a devious enough person to use a sockpuppet, why would you re-write your profile description from the profile you were pretending not to be? Aren't you trying to whitewash your own over-reaction?  Norm Declavier (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably best to drop this; Tao has acknowledged the point and further accusations will lead nowhere good. Norm, you'll have to accept that the advocacy of some former editors has poisoned the well somewhat. Your declaration of a possible conflict of interest was obviously enough to set Tao's alarm bells ringing. We can't let Adi Da become an attack piece, but neither will we permit it to be 'spun' or whitewashed. WP:BLP states that contentious material is perfectly acceptable as long as it's sourced to the highest standards and it's written in a neutral way. Discuss this by all means, but you'll need to be careful about appearing to rehash dead discussions and will have to make a particularly compelling case to overturn the current hard-won consensus. EyeSerene talk 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made one brief comment supporting one proposition by Devanagari and opposing a link to "anti-cult activist" Rick Ross. This is described by Tao2911, in his 'acknowledgement', as "Starr used to hammer these exact preferred points, with almost the exact same wording, with the same mistakes and the same bias."  This was preceded by threats of administrative intervention for whitewashing.  Perhaps other editors would like to comment on whether the removal of Da Plastique and the inclusion of the Rick Ross Institute is merely rehashing a dead discussion and part of a current hard-won consensus.  Since Tao2911 has made very loud accusations of sockpuppetry on the basis of a superficial similarity between my profile description and that of David Starr (rehashing this point in his acknowledgement), the question inevitably arises: if you wanted to sockpuppet, why would you base your profile description on the profile you were pretending not to be?  Thank-you for granting me the assumption of good faith, but I still have a problem with the excessive and somewhat irrational aggressiveness of the reaction, and wonder how meaningful discussion is possible if this modus operandi is somehow acceptable.  Norm Declavier (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Probably best to drop this; Tao has acknowledged the point and further accusations will lead nowhere good. Norm, you'll have to accept that the advocacy of some former editors has poisoned the well somewhat. Your declaration of a possible conflict of interest was obviously enough to set Tao's alarm bells ringing. We can't let Adi Da become an attack piece, but neither will we permit it to be 'spun' or whitewashed. WP:BLP states that contentious material is perfectly acceptable as long as it's sourced to the highest standards and it's written in a neutral way. Discuss this by all means, but you'll need to be careful about appearing to rehash dead discussions and will have to make a particularly compelling case to overturn the current hard-won consensus. EyeSerenetalk 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)" However, it was very like David Starr to obsessively repeat these kinds of whining complaints. No offense.Tao2911 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * and by the way, Rick Ross has remained more or less constant link since creation of page, through many cycles of editors pro, con, and otherwise. That is consensus. Adidam.org has all Da site links, including plastique, as discussed. Review points above.Tao2911 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone is still interested in this thread I have made a further comment on Eyeserene's talk page. I am starting a new section below to respond to Tao2911's points re external links.Norm Declavier (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Language of Lowe's involvement in Adidam
Tao,I feel that the language on Lowe's involvement should stay as I put it. It was simple, accurate via two sources,and seems odd that you would change it. Both sources say "briefly" and "a few months". Rather than make that complicated,as far as adding lot's of verbiage, I kept the language pretty much as you wrote it. Just added "briefly" and "1974" to account for cited sources.No change to any content of commentary. Your edit:

Asian religious scholar Scott Lowe was a follower of Adi Da in the 1970's

My edit based on two sourced citations:

Asian religions scholar Scott Lowe was briefly a follower of Adi Da in 1974

Seems pretty straight forward. Thanks. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The passage is about his account and critique (its in critique section). Your wish to add "briefly" is clearly to diminish credibility - as you've consistently done. I simply removed that word; I left the date. Yes the word is in a source, but that doesn't ever make something automatic. In his own essay, he says he lived their perhaps "briefly" (a phrase up for interpretation) in 1974, but interest and study started earlier. I adjusted the rest of the passage to show his essay is based not just on time spent in the community, but also on later analysis, which is simply more accurate. Again, this comes down to one word. I don't like it. The year that you added is there (happy for accuracy), and I feel this is a good compromise. The passage as a whole is now also more clear.Tao2911 (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked more carefully at the footnotes you added to the passage, and they demonstrate complete and transparent bias (surprise). You used a biased source who himself was trying to diminish Lowe's credibility because he was writing a glowing blurb about Da is his schlocky travelogue, and you isolated one phrase out of context from Lowe's book (which is already cited and properly formatted, unlike yours) saying that he lived in the community for a "few months". It was an editorial statement barefacedly trying to say "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about! See?". Yeah, I think its pretty clear, but not so "straight forward".Tao2911 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to post a response to you this am and agree to compromise you suggested. Unfortunately I also had to read your personal attacks before you removed them. Please let's keep civility. Let's both try to avoid personal attacks. Thanks.

''I just looked more carefully at the footnotes you added to the passage, and they demonstrate complete and transparent bias (surprise). You used a biased source who himself was trying to diminish Lowe's credibility because he was writing a glowing blurb about Da is his schlocky travelogue, and you isolated one phrase out of context from Lowe's book (which is already cited and properly formatted, unlike yours) saying that he lived in the community for a "few months". It was an editorial statement barefacedly trying to say "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about! See?". Riverdale, you simply have got to be kidding me. Anywhere you can chip away in favor of the Da-man, right? Yeah, I think its pretty clear, but anything but "straight forward." More like crooked as a snake.Tao2911 ([[''

Also relative to bias... the sentence that was in before suggested that Lowe was a follower of Adi Da in the 1970's suggesting maybe years etc.

he (Lowe) says he lived there perhaps "briefly" (a phrase up for interpretation) in 1974

The actual quote from Lowe is "been involved with the guru for only a few months back in 1974" That is specific and not open ended. That is a perfectly justified clarification. I am assuming since you used this source you too saw it was time specific not open-ended in the 70's before you wrote in what you did. At any rate having the "1974" is better and fine Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * wow, you got me! How petty. Honestly, I DO think you have shown yourself many times over to be a biased, untrustworthy editor, willing to do pretty much anything to slant the page in favor of your god-man. Just so we're clear. So again, no substantive issue here, JR - just more petty bickering. Run cryin' foul to an admin page. That's your usual modus.Tao2911 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Book stores
I had added, and now just removed, mention of there being more bookstores than just in LA and SF. I have seen mention of one I think in Amsterdam, maybe London, but I can't find sources for this - when they operated, where. We do have sources that are clear that in 1974, Dawn Horse closed in LA and moved to San Fran, to be closer to Persimmon. Followers likewise moved, most but an inner circle to SF, 'chosen' ones living at Persimmon with Jones. Bookstores other than SF had to happen after 1974 - my mention had them around 1973 (which is clearly wrong). So if we can find a source or record of other stores and when those happened, we can add that.Tao2911 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I hope no-one minds if I offer some broad guidance regarding links? In general, external links are only useful where they are directly relevant and add value to an article over and above what it would contain if it became a featured article (see WP:ELNO item 1). This criterion is deliberately very restrictive to prevent Wikipedia becoming a link farm. Where possible, it's better to use the link as a reference and write any relevant content into the article. This obviously has the corollary that if a site is used as a content reference, it shouldn't also be listed separately as an external link because the link is already available as a cite in the refs list.
 * It might not be possible to write linked content into an article for reasons of space, article focus, copyright etc. For example, an article about a document might be unable to reproduce the text of the document for legal reasons or simply because it's too long, so might link to the original document instead. In the interests of remaining neutral and WP:UNINVOLVED I haven't really looked at the links discussed above. However, it seems to me that the artwork site is similar to the example I've used. EyeSerene talk 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * So I will have to insist that this remain accurate. It is very easy to misunderstand, so I am not blaming you or anything.
 * I don't actually think it IS that complicated. I don't see how the passage now acutally reads differently than what you are saying here...Tao2911 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

See also link to "All the world's a stage"?
I was thinking of adding a "See also" link to All the world's a stage, since Jones's "Seven stages of life" may be a reference to Shakespeare's Seven ages of man, which are delineated in the "All the world's a stage" speech. Thoughts? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * The testimony of an anonymous Wikipedia editor is also unacceptable as a source. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * As far as Wikipedia policy goes, your research really doesn't have any bearing on whether the press release is valid as a source. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


 * Call whomever you want. But your word (or my word, or Jason's word), regarding who you called, and what they said is not admissible to the debate over this article. It's hard to understand how you think that it could. Maybe we could make a list of sources which have been deemed invalid due to Tao2911's detective work. Is that really how you think this works? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * You can check, too. Do your job.
 * My job is not to play Sherlock Holmes. My job is to write an encyclopedia. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

The goal of human life
The Lead foreshadows the discussion of Adi Da's teaching with this sentence: "His philosophy was essentially similar to many eastern religions which see the ultimate goal of human life as spiritual enlightenment." The problem with this is that Adi Da consistently taught that spiritual enlightenment is not a goal, and that the tendency to treat it as such actually has a causal role in the persistence of un-enlightenment.

Three sources (Forsthoefel, Chryssides and Daniels) are given for the sentence, but when the idea is repeated at the start of the Philosophy section a different source (Gallagher) is given. Why is this? The first three are the same ones used for the sentence that the current one replaced: "He expressed a teaching, similar to eastern religions, that seeing oneself as an individual separate from a divine, unitive reality is an illusion and the cause of unhappiness" (removed June 15). A significant distortion of meaning has occurred (it is described as 'simplifying' in the edit summary), but the sources remained unchanged. An even earlier version had this sentence: "He taught that the search for liberation from suffering only creates suffering and is a fundamental impediment to enlightenment" (removed June 2). This is virtually the complete opposite of what is currently there, but again the sources are the same. The changes were unnecessary, misleading and questionably sourced, yet they were never discussed or queried. It is difficult to understand why.

Any source that describes the essence of Adi Da's "philosophy" in terms of spiritual enlightenment being the goal of human life is guilty of lazy generalization that borders on complete misrepresentation. Wikipedia then becomes guilty of the same thing. The characterization deviates so fundamentally from everything in the primary sources that these secondary and tertiary sources, if they do say this, should simply be ignored. Referring to the primary sources in this case would not be original research because the assertion that Adi Da taught that enlightenment could not be a goal is not an interpretation. There is no ambiguity about this: it is there in all the literature, it is there on video and audio. Not only could countless statements be quoted to illustrate it, but the dictum that the spiritual process is not goal-oriented, is not a matter of any form of seeking, that enlightenment is not something to be achieved or accomplished but is a present Reality, can be considered an essential foundation of the entire teaching argument.

Here are a few typical statements taken from one talk:

"The way of Reality is not a search for a goal."

"The Way of the Heart is not a matter of seeking... it is about transcending the very act that makes you a seeker."

"Enlightenment is not about seeking Reality as a goal... but finding out why you are not already realizing it."

"Reality does not have to be achieved because Reality is always already the case." Norm Declavier (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the actual line: "His philosophy was essentially similar to many eastern religions which see the ultimate goal of human life as spiritual enlightenment." You're simply being overly literal, hung up on one word, and not comprehending the phrase in its total context. It's clearly written for a general audience, not for a reader of one of his texts (which are all listed for those interested.) The line in lead clearly just means that Adidam, like other Eastern religions, ultimately prioritizes (as in, "1st place" - or "7th Stage"?) a state called 'spiritual enlightenment' - which, btw, nearly ALL traditions say that actively seeking is problematic, then provide provisional techniques to encourage its realization (hmm, just like Adi Da. oh wait, that is what the passage, and all the sources, say!) It is even QUALIFIED with 'essentially similar' acknowledging that his teaching has (to him and its followers at least) unique features; which are discussed in...the "Philosophy" section, where it clearly states that "egoically seeking" that state is paradoxical, as you go on about at length ("[Adi Da] said that fundamentally, all efforts to unite with the divine from the point of view of a separate self were futile, since that separate self itself is illusory.[126]). Natch. Not perhaps as paradoxical as having to worship Adi Da in order to access a state that a priori exists naturally for everyone, but there it is - I will add that this is exactly the kind of issue that some of the sources you list point to as one of the contentious issues regarding Adi Da and his teachings. In addition, the lead/intro section once had all kinds of material that has since been removed, just as in this case, because it was redundantly mentioning material better discussed and covered in the article proper - as I've just pointed out. The passage is clear, has been agreed upon by editors with various POV, and accepted by Admin review for GA status.Tao2911 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So the 3 sources in question do actually say what they are cited as saying? Are you sure there isn't a bit of unintentional original research going on? You seem to have a very idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of the words "essentially", "similar" and "goal". Such an idiosyncracy is unlikely to be very helpful in an article written for, as you say, a general audience. The function of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to provide unnecessary opportunities for misinterpretation.


 * Since it is an essential foundation of Adi Da's philosophy, stated over and over again in a way that goes well beyond statements found in the traditions, that enlightenment is not a goal and that relating to it as though it is a goal is part of the problem, this sentence in the lead is an inept and misleading way to set the tone for the exposition of that philosophy. Even in the case of traditions that do have obvious similarities to Adidam (such as Buddhism and Advaitism) it is specifically indicated that the teaching differs from them precisely to the extent that they treat enlightenment as a goal. The sentence would actually be closer to the truth if "essentially similar" was changed to "essentially different". The previous versions, while perhaps not perfect, were at least close to being an accurate representation of Adi Da's philosophy. Norm Declavier (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Even in the case of traditions that do have obvious similarities to Adidam (such as Buddhism and Advaitism) it is specifically indicated that the teaching differs from them precisely to the extent that they treat enlightenment as a goal." This is simply wrong - in fact, the reverse is largely the case; for every Buddhist or Hindu who posits enlightenment as an "attainable" state, 5 spring up to say how and why that is absurd. In the case of Buddhism, this correction was first made by THE BUDDHA. Mahayana Buddhism hinges on one idea: "no attainment and nothing to attain." maybe you've simply never studied either tradition, or read the SOURCES CITED, which discuss this very point. We're done here.Tao2911 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The extent of Buddhism's or Advaitism's goal-orientation is of course debatable, but that is not the point. Even if this goal-orientation is only in certain aspects or certain philosophical principles (for example enlightenment might be seen in terms of seeking liberation from suffering or knowledge of the Self), to this extent, whatever it may be, Adi Da explicitly differentiates his teaching from them. It is part of a constant theme, found throughout his teaching, that enlightenment has nothing to do with achieving a goal, and that treating it as a goal is an activity in the realm of un-enlightenment. It is therefore rather odd, to put it mildly, to introduce his philosophy with a general statement describing it as essentially similar to eastern religions which see enlightenment as the goal of human life.


 * You haven't really answered my question either. Do the 3 SOURCES CITED (the ones that discuss "no attainment and nothing to attain") also say Adi Da's philosophy is essentially similar to eastern religions which see enlightenment as the goal of human life? This is what they are cited for: they are not cited for discussing the unattainability of enlightenment. If they were, there would be -no problem. Norm Declavier (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Norm, one of the goals of Tao2911's life is to make sure that as many edits as possible of the Adi Da wikipedia article are based on unsympathetic sources ("tertiary" if possible.) As a practical matter, that means that no one else beside Tao can edit the article. He will doubtless have a stinging rebuke for me, but my comment is borne out by the edit history. The Wikipedia article might theoretically be an appropriate place for a sympathetic summary of Adi Da's teaching, but you aren't going to be able to put anything of that nature there, Norm.  Sorry, Norm, your ego-mind needs to let go of this article. It cannot be fundamentally changed.  Happily, there is some material about his teaching there, even though the main focus of the article continues to be a handful of lawsuits filed many years ago by disgruntled associates (and swiftly settled out of court) which led to some untruthful (but undeniably "tertiary") media coverage. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * dear Da devotees: it comes down to legitimate sources and well-reasoned discussion - neither of which are yet in evidence.Tao2911 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * and @Tim: news stories are largely "secondary" sources. Discussions and analysis of those stories (as in the encyclopedic sources used for much of this article) are "tertiary". And nothing in the section describing Adi Da's behavior that led to the lawsuits that upset you so was in the end denied by Da or his church. Much of it is clearly documented in Da's own books, and by dozens of witnesses pro and con: the orgies, the porn films, the polygamy, the emotional manipulation - all techniques to "free" his "True Devotees" to be able to worship him more completely, succinctly summarized. Groovy. There are no arguments against the (redundantly and plentiously sourced) facts, Jack. The more salacious details (which abound) that were denied by the church are nowhere in the article. If the article were actually biased, it could be a whole lot worse.Tao2911 (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've answered you, clearly and to the (now painfully blunted) point. The sources point out that Adidam is similar to other eastern religious traditions that prioritize 'enlightenment' as a human value above others (among many other features, as explicitly clarified in the entry. His is a essentially a form of Bhakti-yogic, pseudo-advaitic Hinduism by another name - again as discussed by numbers of sources.) They say it. Not you. Not me. Sources, tertiary sources written and edited by accepted authors used throughout the page - including on the whole section I quoted for you above where this issue is clarified, just as you'd like. I've explained how your arguments are fallacious. You don't want to accept this. You think Adi Da is a unique avatar and universal messiah, and that this is not made clear enough. That's ok - the entry says how his followers believe this. But our standard is not to please you. It is to concisely summarize objective analysis for a lay audience. All the info is there.Tao2911 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you apparently failed to read this earlier I'll re-quote the entry: "[Adi Da] said that fundamentally, all efforts to unite with the divine from the point of view of a separate self were futile, since that separate self itself is illusory.[126])" Should I do that a couple more times?Tao2911 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do it as many times as you like: unlike the sentence in the lead, it is an accurate description. It also clearly points to what is wrong with the sentence in the lead. If it were not for your painfully blunted sarcasm I might think you were supporting my position. If Adi Da taught that "all efforts to unite with the divine from the point of view of a separate self were futile", what is the point of contradicting this with the misleading assertion that he saw enlightenment as the goal of human life? The contradiction is not explained away by an allusion to an unspoken paradox. It is explained by the simple fact that Adi Da did not see enlightenment in this way. His philosophy is essentially dissimilar to those eastern religions, whichever ones they might be, that do.


 * According to you, this is what the sources point out: "Adidam is similar to other eastern religious traditions that prioritize enlightenment as a human value above others". So not only does Adi Da think enlightenment is a goal, he now also thinks it is a "value"? A value or a goal among others, albeit a "prioritized" one. I can believe that the sources say enlightenment is "prioritized" in Adi Da's teaching (although I think "ultimately prioritized", as you expressed it earlier, might be pushing the bounds of comprehensibility), but do they really point out that he says it is a "goal" or a "value"? It is hard to believe that three serious, independent, reliable sources would all come up with two such inappropriate ways to categorize Adi Da's understanding of enlightenment. In any case, "prioritize" does not resonate at all with the words you use in the article - "ultimate" and "goal", both of which refer to an end, not a beginning; a last place, not a first place; a final result that might possibly be achieved at some point in the future, not a "prior" reality. Norm Declavier (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at Adi Da's actual teaching, you would see that he is extremely dismissive of those who explicitly "prioritize" or pursue "goals" or "values"--- especially those who pursue "ultimate" goals or values. He talks a lot about letting go of the idea of enlightenment as something you have to seek. He says that you can find enlightenment only after you give up the conscious search for it.  I do understand that you would have to go to primary sources (almost all of them  self-published) to see what he actually says, and of course we can't rely on sources like that here.  Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to keep repeating yourself - you've flogged your horse quite thoroughly. Passage is sourced, clear, and all points that you make are already in the page.Tao2911 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What a bizarre response. The 2 points I am making are 1. that the passage is inaccurate, and 2. that it appears, even from your own dubious version of what the 3 tertiary sources say, let alone what the primary sources say, to be not sourced. What exactly do you mean when you say these points are already in the page?


 * Well, I suppose the passage you quote above indicates the inaccuracy of the introductory sentence. And I suppose the fact that a different source is given when an essentially similar sentence introduces the discussion in the Philosophy section is a clue that it is questionably sourced. But if these points are made in the article itself, doesn't it suggest that something should be done about this introductory sentence? Norm Declavier (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

no.Tao2911 (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You answer 'no' to this question, and you have been maintaining for the last few weeks that the passage is sourced, clear and approved by other editors and admin review. Why then have you now changed "ultimate goal" to "ultimate priority"? This certainly doesn't make it any clearer, nor does it make it any more sourced, and it hasn't been agreed to by other editors.


 * I admit that "ultimate priority" is a very artistic solution, and it has a humorous, paradoxical quality that I like very much: I actually laughed out loud when I saw it. But is the introduction of a wikipedia article really the place for art and paradox? Unfortunately, it also makes it sound as though Adi Da thinks spiritual enlightenment is the first (or perhaps the last) in an undefined collection of human 'priorities', priorities which, I assume, are much like 'values' or 'goals'. If Adi Da thinks of enlightenment as a 'priority' (which I don't think he does in the sense you are using the word), then it is the only priority: he speaks of prior unity, prior Happiness, always already happy, always already present Reality, etc.


 * I think it would be better to simply revert to the previous version: "He expressed a teaching, similar to eastern religions, that seeing oneself as an individual separate from a divine, unitive reality is an illusion and the cause of unhappiness." It seems to be essentially true to the sources, primary, secondary and tertiary, and thus avoids potential problems in relation to Verifiability, No Original Research and Factual Accuracy. Also, I think not only the sources but even the page numbers given in the three citations are left over from this previous version. Norm Declavier (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to being "similar to eastern religions", Adidam is explicitly derived from those religions. I am not sure if we need to go into much detail about the teachings, however. Adi Da's teachings are basically available only in his own self-published writings. And little if any of the Adi Da's work directly addresses the central event (by consensus of the editors) of his life story (i.e., the 1985 lawsuits, and the resulting Today Show segments.) So, I do wonder if it is appropriate to even address Adi Da's teachings at all here in any detail. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your fundamental disagreement, and mistake, is that you maintain the Adidam position that what Adi Da taught was unique from other eastern religions. Our sources (multiple) point out that what he taught was in no way remarkable, with every aspect having precise precedents in many other traditions. Yes, we know he said his tradition and 'presence' was the first last yadda yadda - duh. As for "Priority", it is also used in another passage saying the same thing, that you've not contested and said you found preferable. As I have seen many times here, devotees will not be placated until the page fits (and promotes) their particular biased POV, despite the facts or source material. The paradox begins and ends with Franklin Jones, who (despite an admirable[?] force of personality) expressed an inconsistent, often incoherent, and derivative message, as analyzed by experts in the field. Nonetheless, one thing is clear - he and his followers "prioritize" a state of consciousness they call "enlightenment." Period. Let it go, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Timothy: thank you for a clear, pro-Da agreement of a point that seems obvious: that Adidam is essentially similar to other eastern religions, esp. regards its prioritizing "enlightenment." I have trouble believing that this has even been an issue - but then, this is not the first time the obvious has been misconstrued. To your other points, there is a section devoted to his "teachings" - which was the section heading until changed to "philosophy" which is more neutral. The problem both you guys are facing is that you haven't seemingly read any of the numbers of tertiary sources cited, all of which deal with his "teachings", his biography, and the scandals and publicity, each IN DEPTH. And I wouldn't say that anyone agrees that the "central event of his life" was the Today show report. Please do a cursory word count in the bio - that section, while CRUCIAL, is only given probably less than 25% of the total bio, and much less than that of the page as a whole. It bothers you, so it seems to loom gargantuan in your evaluations of the page (you bring it up every time to post here.) In the past this section has been much larger, and I have been involved in reducing it. It has been excised altogether, and I have been involved in replacing it. Remember: "proportional coverage." Right now the "sex scandals" section takes up no more (and probably less) space than it is given in the balance of sources.Tao2911 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Tao I apologize for not reading all those tertiary sources in depth, but unlike some people, I have a life. My user name is the same as my real name. If you Google me, as I think you may have already done, you will see that I speak the truth when I say I have a life. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have enough "life" free to go around the web removing material you find offensive regards your heroes (your recent edits to the Dennis Merzel page were completely unacceptable) then you should try to meet the standards of this community and exact due diligence when taking on the responsibility of editing here. You come here and propose opinions that are not based in facts, but simply your religious faith. Your faith is your business, but we use sources here. And I have no idea who you are, and perhaps I must have a life too, since it never occurred to me to google you. But I'd bet you google yourself plenty for the both of us. Let's keep things on topic, shall we?Tao2911 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like I am being verbally bullied. But maybe that is just because I am not a highly enlightened being. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Horrigan, your implication that those who regularly edit on wikipedia don't have "lives", contrasted with yourself, could perhaps be construed as less than civil. Your solipsistic belief that people care who you are beyond the confines of the wikiverse further betrays some measure of problematic self-estimation. I don't think enlightenment has anything to do with the matter. Please review wikipedia editing guidelines, and reserve this space for discussion of issues regards the page. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Rickross.com
In regard to rickross.com, I think the two links in this article to it should be removed. In particular, the link in the external links section, to the list of articles re-posted on the Ricckross.com site, needs to be removed as it directly contravenes the contributory copyright policy, as the works included there are, in themselves, copyright violations. Thus I've removed it again, as that one is fairly unambiguous.

The second link, to http://www.rickross.com/reference/adida/adida1.html, a transcript of an NBC Today Show interview, is a bit more problematic. It is used three times. The first time it is unnecessary, as there are two other references which support the point being made, neither of which has any copyright issues. The second time it is used, it is being used to support the claim "However, due to the controversial nature of its contents, all available copies were quickly retrieved and ritually burned at Adi Da's behest." However, the transcript doesn't mention the book at all. Instead, it seems the ref is being used to add the quote "Da Free John orchestrated bizarre sexual practices, forced sex, drug use. The church admits these things happened, but it was always adults involved of their own free will." This is unrelated to the paragraph where the reference is being used. Finally, the third use is to support the line "The story gained greater attention with a two-part exposé on The Today Show that aired May 9 and 10." It doesn't, of course, support the "greater attention" part of that, but it does support the claim that there was a two-part exposé on The Today Show. However, for that we can just reference the show directly. Given that it doesn't seem particularly valuable, such a transcript is a bit of a problem in regards to copyright, and it isn't official, it seems safest to drop that reference. - Bilby (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this. Especially since you are cross-checking other ref's. At one point we had a real problem here with a number of Adi Da defenders who wished to remove all mention of any of these possibly less savory aspects of his life, and these sources were needed to say "no, look, it says this, right here!" I can live without them.Tao2911 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! Just to clarify this, I have no problem with Rick Ross being used as a source where he is reliable and the work is ascribed to him. Nor do I have a problem with articles he includes on the site being used, as they are generally from good sources. My concern is just the use of copyright violations (which isn't the case for all rickross.com links) as convenience links - which means the content and reference should stay, but the link might need to be removed. :) In this case I'm not sure of the copyright status of the source - it is a tad iffy, but might be ok (a new transcription of a copyrighted show) - but as it isn't needed, I'm inclined to remove it. If it is needed to support content, though, then I'm happy to either get alternative sources or look into the copyright status of this particular situation. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you could check into the letter of the copyright situation, that would be great! Having that bulk of stories at one handy click has been extremely helpful, for the issues mentioned above and for sourcing the article. The nature of this page and the perpetual contentiousness of arguments regarding Adi Da make it worthwhile to see if as much secondary source material as possible can be kept in play. Thanks!Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked, and it seems the transcriptions of a show come under the same general area of reprints of lyrics. The show, and thus what was presented on it, remain the copyright of the owner, so a transcription is a violation of the owner's copyright. As it isn't needed to support any content except one comment, I'll replace it in that case with a reference to the show - we tend to rely on print sources, but I wouldn't have thought we were unable to use a televised show, where appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a past discussion on the Rick Ross site as well.It may in fact violate WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO The site has copyrighted material from newspapers and publishers without license. http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links Also it seems that Rick Ross is available for hire and the website may be acting as a commercial platform for this. http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness6.html Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't lose the forest for the trees - this issue has nothing to do with Rick Ross's potential sources of income. He lobbies against cult pathologies - we know that. As we've discussed, the usefulness of the link has been first-hand, easy access to stories that otherwise would have been only readable much less readily - certainly much to your greater pleasure, pardon my saying. But since the site has already proved it's usefulness in giving us confirmation for citations for many stories, the link to Ross has only been back up. All of our tertiary sources discuss the issues as well, but those stories provided details and dates that were extremely helpful in figuring out exactly what happened & when, and shutting down devotees who tenaciously fought to remove every mention of lawsuits and abuse allegations. Happily, facts keep triumphing. I'll look into this in coming days and see if there is any argument to be made for keeping it - after all, the Adidam site is purely promotional, selling the church, its books, his art, etc. As I've said before, there is no editorial comment on the stories or Adi Da there, and there is even a link to Adidam.com/org (whichever it is.)Tao2911 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, the only concern is the use of convenience links. Convenience links to copyright violations run afoul of WP:LINKVIO. However, this doesn't mean that the original source is a problem - only the reference. Thus my general practice is to replace links to rickross.com with links to the original article, as this is often online anyway, or to just remove the rickross.com convenience link and otherwise leave the reference and material in place. Other issues, such as whether Rick Ross is a reliable source when it comes to original work, are a different concern. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New Title Headings
New title headings with dates etc. is much better. Reads more like a biography. Thanks Tao. Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks man. glad you approve!Tao2911 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit Materials
Why is it that the details of the lawsuit were removed? There is extensive material on it, from the lawsuit itself (which can be referenced as a document since it was copied before it was sealed) to the extensive series of articles in the papers. This is a major period. The article from Humboldt County is also wrong. Mike Wood lied to the reporter about the disposition of the lawsuit that Beverly filed and the reporter did not check his facts. This is obvious because the file was sealed by the court. That happens when something is settled out of court. That does not happen when a suit is dropped. But even without that, this article needs to have the specifics of what the lawsuit was about. That lawsuit is one of the few public records that exist of what really went on inside Franklin's "divine domain." It wasn't pretty. Rape, false imprisonment, other stuff. Unfortunately, there are other things that will never see the light of day because the people they happened to were too devastated. That makes the contents of the lawsuit very important to have right there on the page. I am not going to make those changes now but I think it's something that Tao should make sure happens. 69.229.122.85 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Garbage and the Goddess
There are several second-hand sources which apparently serve as citations for a dramatic allegation that all the extant copies of "Garbage and the Goddess" were bought up by Adidam and burned. This may be a cited fact but it is also a dubious one, given that used copies are quite readily available, and given that he released other works with extremely similar titles. The book went out of print simply because it was superseded by newer works. It is no harder to find on the used-book market than any of his other works from that period. Also, the 1985 lawsuit is massively overemphasized. Right now, this is the main event of his life and everything which happened afterwards during Adi Da's time on this earth is depicted as an anticlimax. But, that last quarter century (even though it was scandal-free) was in fact the most eventful years of his life. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We go by sources here - preferably 'second-hand' and even third hand are (ie secondary and tertiary) since those are the recommended sources by Wikipedia. None of them happen to share your estimation about the "last quarter century of his life" which are little documented due to so few events of any significance, save a profound emphasis on his silence and solitude. And we have sources both pro Da, neutral, and more critical that all attest to Adi Da/Jones having Garbage burned. That doesn't mean copies don't exist. But Adidam also fails to include it in his official bibliography. Don't let your bias cloud your evaluation. We reflect sources - most sources emphasize the most active and media-attracting periods of his life. That would be when he was building his church and garnering attention from a small specific segment of the public as guru, and of course when the larger public became aware of him through scandals - which were extensive and widely reported (look at the sources, including the Today show: a two-part 'expose' that was totally damning.) By his own admission he retreated after that, after having a nervous breakdown/spiritual transformation, and was little seen or acknowledged by the wider public after 1986. The church stopped growing. This is what our SOURCES say. Not perhaps what his followers or fans necessarily wish to believe. The Garbage passage was banged out by editors on all sides (including Adi Da devotees), as was the rest of the page. The article has GA status, reflecting this neutrality and thoroughness.Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't care about the editors; I don't know you guys & I am not a member of your little club. I just care about getting the story straight.  And I think the story is far from straight the way it is.  But I am not sure if straightening it is possible.  But, I will ask: when was the Adi Da's "own admission" after 1986 and what did he say which you are construing as an admission of "retreat"? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You should care about the editors - they are the ones that write the articles and actually constitute the Wikipedia community. The quality of the editing exactly constitutes the measure by which an article can be evaluated and trusted. This version has been written, with considerable effort, argument, and research, by numbers of editors with many different points of view. It was subsequently reviewed by Wikipedia administrators, who approved this article's nomination for 'Good Article' status (the final reviewer in fact declared it "not just good, but very good")- at that time one of only 75 articles (of potentially thousands) on religious subjects with such a designation. Virtually every line in the article has been disputed at some point, hence each has at least one source citation if not several. Those sources have been compared with other sources, which often have been quoted verbatim in footnotes at the bottom of the page. If you read them, and check those sources further, most of your questions should be answered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that you made extensive biased edits to the entry without any sources whatsoever. This is not the first time. I am not the first editor to have to reverse such edits, which contradict existing sources. If such behavior continues, you face possibly have your IP address blocked from editing on Wikipedia. This page has faced contentious editing in the past, and admins have stepped in to block editing a number of times. When pages have this kind of historical contentiousness, it is suggested by WP guidelines that editors bring disputed edits to talk to be discussed before adding them to the entry. In addition, the edits you are making do not cite accepted independent sources. Please review guidelines for such sources, and perhaps basic editing guidelines, before proceeding. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My previous comment about "your little club" was on the snide side and I apologize. But I am baffled by the insulting nature of your response, especially given that my edits were quite innocuous and quite factual. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

your edits are clearly biased. This page has achieved a hard won stability after a lot of hard work. nearly every change you wish to make has already been discussed and dismissed in the past, due to innumerable reasons. As requested, please bring your proposed edits here to be discussed - again, I suggest you carefully review footnotes and get your hands on sources cited to see why the phrasing exists as it does. Your phrasing is biased in every instance, and your edits clearly show a pro-Adi Da POV. This isn't that complicated.Tao2911 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're just a random volunteer like me; please get off your high dawn horse. Perhaps you would care to explain why "all" my edits are biased.  I will admit to being pro-Adi Da, but it is not unusual for Wikipedia articles to be sympathetic to their subjects.  Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on no horse. Your edits are biased, don't adhere to guidelines, and don't respect the integrity of the hard work of a lot of preceding editors. My explanation for why your edits are off-base was just nixed with your intervening comment. But basically they simply don't adhere to existing sources, which invariably explain all of your questions about them if you'd read them. You're just writing stuff they way you'd like to read it, sources not withstanding. All your "who?" tags for instance - every one is explained by the source cited for that line or claim.Tao2911 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The main reason so much hard work was needed is obviously because you have bullied everyone else who has tried to edit the article over the past year or two, by responding to even the most innocuous changes with a barrage of adverbs and adjectives. You have impugned the integrity of several other volunteers by questioning their motives and by trying to "out" them as Daists, even though you yourself reveal little if anything of your own background. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll simply respond by asking you to bring up specific points of contention on the subject in question (being Adi Da), if you have any, and we can discuss them on their merits - not either of our perceived personal qualities or linguistic acumen (I clearly have my own issues with yours). Again - the article has been stable since achieving GA status. The bar is set high for any major content edits.Tao2911 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking back three months to your September 30, 2010 edit, Tao, I see that only one substantial change was allowed. (The other changes are just minor alterations to references.)  I also see a massive volume of insulting comments in the discussion page.  That tells me that it is futile for anyone other yourself to try to edit this article.  It is also evidently futile to try to "discuss" anything related to the Adi Da with you. Or maybe I should say that the bar has been set so high that no one else can make edits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Looking back three months to your September 30, 2010 edit, Tao, I see that only one substantial change was allowed." That is because we (multiple editors) have been trying to get the page to stable state which is one of the criteria for Good Article status. It reached that state, and people have been respecting it. This is yet another aspect of WP guidelines and community awareness, of which your user talk page indicates a consistent failure to comprehend or respect.Tao2911 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking back over your edit history, I see that you have been working this article over since July 2008, deleting anything positive about the Adi Da's life, insulting anyone else who works on it, and applying your own unique standards of how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be put together. Your behavior is inappropriate. This is not the place to debunk the Adi Da.  The Wikipedia is a repository of the conventional wisdom on any subject known to man--- and this article, like all bios, is supposed to be a brief and (mostly) positive overview of its subject's life and work.  The 1985 lawsuits are part of that life, but they were settled out of court, they weren't repeated, and they were just one incident in a long and eventful life.   Happily, the article is not all bad, and the POV issues are blatantly obvious to the unfortunate folk who read this article looking for actual information on its subject.  I doubt that anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses is being fooled. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have actual issues to discuss re: the entry, or do you just wish to insult me? If it's the latter, please note that's against WP guidelines and can get you banned. If it's the former, I'm happy to discuss your points, as I have been with many others - including the editors above who all nominated and worked together to get this page to GA status.Tao2911 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * re: lawsuits - multiple reliable sources state, as reflected by the entry, that lawsuits/threatened suits extended beyond 1985, and Adidam was forced to pay settlements in subsequent years. There is no rule that says articles should be "mostly positive" - rather, they should be neutral and accurate on balance to secondary and tertiary material on the subject. If you have new sources that would add material about Adi Da's "long and eventful life" that is not already here, I am happy to know about it. A number of us got our hands on what appear to be most if not all the secondary/tertiary materials, as well as a lot of primary (ie Adi Da penned) materials in various editions, on Adi Da and his church and worked vigorously to get it all to sync, in proportion to that coverage in sources ("proportional coverage" - another guideline to bone up on, Tim.) Again, points backed by sources. That's where it starts here - but which is by no means the end of the story.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading the last few days discussion. A couple of things. I think that Tim's entries are very benign and simple. The example of O'Mahoney wife being "estranged" is actually true. The issue is,as Tao points out, are there some 3rd party source that can verify that. Tim, Wikipedia is a strange creature. It is not about fairness, or necessary truth of issues, or even accuracy. It is about a verifiable 3rd party sources. Sometime these sources are true and accurate, sometimes they are not. Personal opinions creep into these sources, especially in authors writing books. They are building their careers on being "authorities" on subjects etc. and will have strong opinions, which they will sometimes try to "mask," but still are there. So it can be sometime hard to get a "fair" article when a controversial figure such as Adi Da was covered mainly in the 1986 lawsuits through the media and authors who are not necessarily always positively disposed to him. But if change in the article is to occur one has to work within the "rules" set here. Tim, I have been one of a number of editors, who has been working hard to get 3rd party sources, for more accuracy about all aspects of Adi Da that can be used in the article. Tao, myself and others did work cooperatively to hash out issues and to get more balance into the article. However it is by no means all accurate. Tim I want to encourage you to stay involved here. Your contributions are welcomed. By the way Tao... threatening Tim with being banned for insulting you certainly is odd, since this has been an issue pointed out to you many times by a number Wikipedia editors. Pointing to and asking for civility is however appropriate for all editors to remind each other. We have managed to work cooperatively at times here ... so that makes it work and give some balance and allowed GA status to occur. But as you say .. is by no means the end of the story Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By his own admission, Tim is an Adi Da partisan - like you, Jason, so I understand and expected this exact response on your part. His edits invariably showed this bias, and I did not find them "benign" - in most instances he simply changed wording and even added new passages (once again about the Aletheon/Source Texts etc) without changing or adding new sources. In other words, just winging it as to soften the controversial aspects of Adi Da's legacy, and increase the stature of Adi Da without any substantiation from accepted sources. He's said as much - in regards to the "Garbage" section, he evinced clear (willful?) ignorance about the matter. Understandable, if you believe and wish to promote the Adidam line. Also, he added a bunch of "who?" tags that just didn't make any sense (like saying "some (who?) followers of Zen Master Rama became followers...". We don't need to know who. It simply means "not all". Other tags were simply answered by the source and footnote already there. Random tags like this again simply impugn the integrity of the text, which seemed their intent - they only occurred in sections that Timothy admittedly found offensive.) And in the controversy section, like others before him, he tried to remove all mention of anything but the O'Mahoney lawsuit, despite multiple sources contradicting this; and the addition of "estranged" (not used in ANY of four sources cited for that passage) in this larger pattern is highly suspect - it clearly is meant to undermine the credibility of the plaintiff in the lawsuit (which happens to be the exact attitude Adidam took at the time and since). Again, these are all things that have occurred over and over and over in this section by Adi Da partisans. My attitude is that I will continue to defend this article, hard won as it is, from what are sure to be the periodic attempts of Adi Da followers to get this page in line with Adidam's hagiographic rewrites of history - or their obverse, the rabid critics whose edits I have likewise had to reverse. Remember, I have made many edits throughout the page expressly to neutralize all POV - my goal is to have an un-impugnable, thorough, objective article of the kind I came here wanting to read three years ago. We've achieved it, as evidenced by the admin. review above. I am all for decent edits, and have been happy to see some nice clean up edits in recent weeks. As I said, if someone finds a new source and can add some modest new info here or there, I'm all for it. I just happen to doubt that info exists right now, and the page clearly strikes a careful balance right now between all partisan POVs, largely due to finding the sources the necessity of which you rightly indicate.Tao2911 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I stopped trying to improve the article is NOT because I saw the wisdom of anything Tao said. I still think he is totally out of line. It was because I have a life and fighting with Tao isn't worth the trouble. There is nothing to be accomplished by continuing the fight, and nothing to be learned. Tao didn't even let Goethean use an M-dash improperly&mdash; I am unsure if he would ever allow me to make any substantive changes, no matter how civil I was, and no matter how extensively I discussed those changes in advance.  I am not all that sure that I agree with what Jason said&mdash; although I certainly thank him for his kind words.  I think it is perfectably acceptable to use first-hand sources judiciously in the interest of telling the story truthfully but positively&mdash; especially when, as is the case here, the subject is noteable primarily because of his writings and speeches. And I think the best way to edit an article is to go ahead and edit it, not to have endless discussions about how to edit it.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "First hand", ie "primary" sources as used in WP guidelines, are highly discouraged, ESPECIALLY when dealing with such a contentious figure, your feelings about it not withstanding. If you'd been around longer, you would have witnessed this debate get exhaustively played out, until it was realized by all concerned that the only recourse was to stick to the letter of WP guides, and avoid primary sources at any cost - especially because Adi Da (as everyone who's written about him, pro and con, points out) changed his story, or his interp. of his story, over and over, making him highly unreliable as a source for factual information. Also, anyone involved with his church likewise is heavily invested in precisely NOT being objective. So your argument is, in a word, specious. However, editors (including myself) have used certain agreed upon instances of Adi Da's writing when it has verification from secondary/tertiary sources or is backing up those sources, and when they are more factual or believable prima facie. Again, you can keep insulting me, but if you have actual worthy proposals, they will be considered by everyone interested in this page. Re: Goethean, he's made some fine edits to the formating and grammar of the page that I've had no problem with. In this case, he made what I felt to be an easy enough mistake with an mdash (the use of which is tricky). The passage is clearly a parenthetical, not an addendum.Tao2911 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not unusual for wikipedia articles to be slanted positively, even when the subject is involved in much worse scandals than those 1985-1986 lawsuits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * a somewhat sad argument, in favor of what exactly? Bad editing? If you were to find such cases, one would hope for action to correct such biases, in order to adhere to Wiki. directives to create profiles that reflect available information/sources accurately and in proportion.Tao2911 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The purported "gathering of all copies" and book burning never happened. Franklin Jones (AKA Adi Da, etc.) made an offhand remark about burning them once. That's it. I have one on my shelf and if you go to "Open Secret" bookstore on C Street in San Rafael, you can find them. A quick search on Bookfinder.com finds 56 copies for sale. Amazon shows 1 new for $354.79 and 19 used, plus 1 audio CD of the talk. I am very critical of Franklin. But this contention about gathering them up and burning them is obviously false. And before you kids get all heated up about "no original research" fact checking is not "original research". It's obvious that if copies are out there, easily available for purchase, that it didn't happen. 69.237.70.238 (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)AncientWasThere


 * This has been covered before. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Just because copies exist doesn't mean he didn't burn some - as the passage states, the first run SOLD OUT, and they shipped the second before recalling what they could, but weeks later. They didn't go door to door to retrieve the thousands of sold copies. Numerous reliable accepted sources discuss the burning, and that is what we use here. It was stupid and weird to burn the books, granted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And even a pro-Da book discusses the event in detail.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your logic Tao2911. (Sorry I don't check in here very often.) I was there at the time Tao. I remember when this was announced on a bright sunny weekend. It was a remark Frank made. Nobody burned their copy, and nobody turned their book in that I knew of. There were lots of things like that. There might have been a few books burned somewhere I suppose. George Fuerstein was a hot-to-trot man on the make then and he might have done it with a couple of guys. But it never amounted to anything significant. I remember asking about it at breakfast the next weekend. Some people who lived at Persimmon (the name of the Mountain of Attention then) laughed and said no. That was that. The group was always unruly that way. The most success Frank had was getting people to drink at parties. People would meditate and do the vegetarian diet and even fast. But lots of people went to McDonalds or went to sleep in the dark, or skipped it, or whatever. The idea that the community around Frank was a bunch of dittoheads obeying every command of their guru was nowhere close to reality. Yes, there were always some gung-ho boys and girls on the make. Out of more than 1,000 people you're going to find some in every crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.71.170 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool you were there (I guess.) Thanks for the first hand account that Adi Da indeed told his cult members to burn their copies of his controversial book. The line in the entry says that he ordered people to burn books. It doesn't discuss his success rate. Sources, not hearsay here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between "ordered" to burn books and an offhand remark that it could be done. I witnessed many off-hand remarks turned into campaigns over the years. Those were the doing of insiders and insider-wannabes on the make. (Like Feuerstein was back when.) Those people created some really unpleasant events, doing what they could do corral members into some hogwash rubbish or other. Example: 69.229.122.85 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone brought apricot kernels to Franklin. He ate a few. Some clown (they know who they are) decided to deliver a "directive" that everyone had to eat apricot kernels every day. Weeks later, Franklin happened to be out and about, noticed some kernels, asked him why. When he was told everyone was eating them he responded, "What? They have cyanide in them. Stop it." 69.229.122.85 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way Tao2911. Not to rain on Wikipedia, but plenty of things in the books never happened, or were so embroidered as to be 95% fabrication. Even Frank complained about it when he said "I say, 'bullshit' and it comes out in a book as an apple." There are "scientifically verified" events like the miracle in the Dreaded Gomboo with the burns on that woman's back that were utter fabrication - intentionally so. Members who stick around a while realize this and many got pissed off because it made it impossible to trust much unless you knew the person or were there yourself. In later years, as Frank became more florid and he turned more over to others, the books turned into bizarre stuff. I have no idea if it was Frank who did that or not. Because Frank didn't actually write those books, except the Knee of Listening. Over time editors wrote more and more and the editors themselves got weirder and weirder. Editors tried to curry favor with "the man" by more and more outrageous prose. Did Frank like that over-the-top stuff? I have no idea, although remarks he made about, "The Divine Peacock of Magnificence" suggest he didn't. It also suggests he retained some sense of humor about himself even late in his life. The last time I saw ol' Frank, the few words he said were similar to how he expressed himself 20 years prior, which made me wonder. But that was soon followed by seeing him very drunk, blathering horsemanure. So in the end, I haven't a clue. Maybe I should write a book so this article could be made better? :-) 69.237.71.170 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * again, this is not a chat room. If you have a proposal for the article, make it. Otherwise, we needn't add to this thread.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)