Talk:Adi Da/Archive 4

Using Ken Wilber's Statements
It is correct to say that Ken Wilber has spoken both positively and negatively about Adi Da (and Adidam). It is also correct that since the mid-1990s, he has publically differentiated between the teacher (Adi Da) as "problematic" and the written teaching. He has also specifically requested that "This is why, as a blanket statement, I can no longer—and do no longer—recommend Da’s community for the typical spiritual aspirant, and I have asked his community to cease using my name in this regard." Those editors wanting to expand beyond the basic statement that Ken Wilber has spoken both positively and negatively about Adi Da and Adidam should accurately convey the true balance and context of those statements, be fair, and try and maintain a NPOV. Otherwise, the original statement can stand.Dseer 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ken Wilber
"Popular author Ken Wilber has offered both positive and negative opinions about Adi Da, and has concluded that 'the teaching is one thing, the teacher, quite another.' However, he has consistently described Adi Da's spiritual teachings as the most profound and important of our time.[10][11]"

I have changed this to "New Age author Ken Wilber has offered both positive and negative opinions about Adi Da, and has concluded that 'the teaching is one thing, the teacher, quite another.'[10] However, he has consistently described Adi Da's spiritual teachings as the most profound and important of our time. [citation needed]"

Removing the Peacock term 'popular', and requesting a citation that wasn't in either of the sources provided. Sfacets 14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sfacets, a fresh look here is fine. All known public statements by Wilber regarding Adi Da are listed here: . Ken Wilber has not publically retracted his effusive praise of Adi Da's teachings, though one can draw conclusions from the inconsistencies between his statements, his more recent endorsements of other gurus critical of Adi Da, and his public silence on Adi Da since 1998. If you want to wordsmith the language after reading the link, go ahead and give it a shot. The critical statements that Adi Da has been praised by a number of popular authors (Watts and Wilber being the most famous) is best sourced here, athough what is left out is useful background and context behind these statements, since the older endorsements were made before Adi Da's Avataric assertions and behavioral issues were widely known: . The linked works of Trunk, Lowe, Fuerstein and Wilber statements above all differentiate between the value of the teaching and the behavior of the teacher himself. Again, if you want to make this clearer based on the sourcing, make a proposal. I just think its better fleshed out here first --Dseer 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced re lawsuit
Scribe5, the material you have repeatedly attempted to add plainly does not meet Wp:v for several reasons. (Self-published, self-serving, contentious, contradicts existing V RS's, involves claims about third parties, etc.) It's also potentially defamatory toward the person who brought the lawsuit, which is why I've reverted for the third time. Your comments ("do not remove"), which have been limited to edit summaries, are hardly an adequate counterargument, and you are ignoring WP:DR. How can you expect your edits to stick under such circumstances? I seriously doubt that any moderator would support you on this. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your problem is Mr Butler, since there is only you and I making edits , it is a case of my judgement over yours , and in this case think this quote is long ovwerdue to the point and adds balance to your extremely one sided arguement and text you hold so dear


 * The reference is published, it is not self published, it is not anon , it would have been run past legal checks . The CEO of Adidam at the time of the lawsuit is a most relevant spokesman and it should and will stay ( in my opinion)


 * The quote and reference are here in case it is removed again and I can't get back to replace it


 * Brian O'Mahoney the then CEO of Adidam recently stated about the primary lawsuit brought by his then spouse Beverly O'Mahoney :


 * "The lawsuit was very deliberately crafted to make Adi Da and Adidam look like a destructive cult. It had no basis in fact. At her deposition, which I attended, Beverly testified under oath and point-by-point shredded the case that her attorney had built for her. The entire affair was eventually settled out of court by our insurance companies to avoid the incredible expense of an extended court process. And, as mentioned earlier, the court had dismissed the case. "

--Scribe5 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Scribe5. A I wrote above, your source violates Wp:v  because it is "Self-published, self-serving, contentious, contradicts existing V RS's, involves claims about third parties, etc.)"  You haven't refuted any of that other than by attempting to deny the first item.  The website is self-published by a group of Adidam devotees; it says so.  To deny that is either dense or disingenuous, and wastes others editors' time.  There is no reason to believe that site does fact-checking or legal vetting in the way a good secondary source does.  They can say anything they want, but if it contradicts V RS's, it's not appropriate in WP.


 * Read Wp:v; it's plain as can be. The site may be OK in the EL section, but WP policy is is very clear that self-published sources are not OK for this sort of thing, even if they are in "articles about themselves" (which technically this source, being unofficial, technically isn't).


 * Brian O'Mahoney's assertions contradict what has already been published in V RS's about the lawsuit, and basically say that his wife was perjuring herself. Sounds defamatory to me.  I'm not going to go over 3RR, but I am going to ask an admin about it, cf. because WP:LIBEL and not just WP:V is at issue.


 * If you want to stick to V RS's and get more of Brian O's a/o Adidam's view in, you might add this from the Today Show:


 * ''"Maston: Many of Free John's 1,000 loyal followers deny these stories of aberrant behavior. But then they have little direct contact with the Master. Since 1983 he's run the church from a remote Fijian island, purchased from actor Raymond Burr for 2.1 million dollars. Master Da lives there with an inner circle of 40 devotees, including a harem of nine women, one of whom is Julie Anderson, a 1976 Playboy centerfold. The lifestyle for Jones and his inner circle, according to Beverly O'Mahony, is anything but godlike.


 * ''"Beverly O'Mahony (ex-cult member): He would instruct women to defecate in bed with their husbands during the sex act. I saw some of his wives urinate on him.


 * ''"Maston: For eight years O'Mahony was a Jones disciple with access to the inner circle. She charges that when she decided to quit the cult last year, she was held on Fiji against her will.


 * ''"Beverly O'Mahony: I was there for a week asking, "Get me a helicopter, get me a boat, get me anything. I want to go." And I was not allowed to go.


 * ''"Maston: O'Mahony has filed a $5,000,000 lawsuit against Da Free John and his California-based church, the Johannine Daist Communion. Also named in the suit is her ex-husband, Brian, president of the church.


 * ''"Brian O'Mahony (JDC church president): These allegations are extreme in nature and are intent on either destroying us or getting money.


 * "Maston: JDC church leaders refuse to answer specific charges against Da Free John. They have responded with a lawsuit against their most vocal critics, including Brian's ex-wife Beverly. There is no comment from the man in charge."
 * thx, Jim Butler(talk) 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Beverley O'Mahoney was going thru a difficult divorce at the time with Brian. Her lawyer encouraged her to say things so she could "win" that battle. Furthermore People say and do all kinds of things in the midst of bad divorces to get back at their spouse. Why is this so surprising to you? A few years later, having a different perspective she totally recanted her allegations in the lawsuit. And also, a few years after the law suit, the man who was her lawyer was disbarred from practicing law. That should tell you something. Perjury is not a consequencial matter regarding a 21 year old law suit that never made it to trial and was thrown out of court long ago.


 * Once again, mistating fact to support POV editing, the disbarrment action occurred in 2001, 16 years (hardly a few) after the lawsuit! Anyway, what does that prove about the merits of the case? Maybe Beverly O'Mahoney had legitimate issues,maybe she didn't want to get her spouse back, and maybe she simply picked a bad lawyer, maybe the guy was competent at the time and self destructed later in life, you just don't know, do you? All you do is add Adidam material as fact, and this demonstrates is a lack of NPOV editing and the appearance of a COI. --Dseer 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is Beverley's explaination in her own words:
 * In a letter that Beverly wrote years after the lawsuit (and the ensuing media circus) to her ex-husband, Brian O'Mahony (who is still a devotee of Adi Da, and was recently interviewed by us about the lawsuits, etc.), she exonerated Adi Da completely. Among other things, she wrote: "I agree that 99% of what I have seen of any reporting on the Community/Guru is horseshit." "I can't think of anything the Master ever forced me to do." "The only physical contact I have ever had with Da is a few hugs, and when I was very pregnant, he touched my belly in a gentle and soothing way. That is it." She explained that most of the "complaints" were made up by her lawyer, who had taken advantage of the fact that she was going through a difficult divorce from Brian, and was in a very vulnerable state — which her lawyers were obviously aware of.


 * No, members of Adidam only make that libelous assertion? Where is the public recantation? Maybe she just didn't want to get into more conflict with her ex-husband over the children and undertake expensive lawsuits, since Adidam legal staff personally involve themselves in custody issues, and maybe not, but you don't know, do you? --Dseer 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

JB, Whether or not you say that is it somehow improper to include the material on this site, your argument is still one sided. Everyone represents their own point of view. Your actions here are certainly an excellent case in point. The Today show producer of that segment obviously had a slant, false statements were made by him, statements which he could not possibly have had the time to research(see the web site in question for more on this), his promise of delivering a fair a balanced report was a patent lie to those whom he interviewed at the time, as he took their comments flagerantly out of context, yet it is included as a reference in this article as if its the gospel truth. The real question is does that "point of view" also coincide with the facts of the matter?


 * Oh so you were there to observe all this first hand so you can make these absolute assertions of fact? --Dseer 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont know whether your going to see this Dseer, but yes, I was there to observe quite a bit of it first hand. Imagine that! KA


 * KA, I am not saying the Today show gave a completely unbiased picture in such a short piece. Franklin Jones had been identified nationally as an authoritarian and problematic cult leader years earlier, and so they assigned an investigative reporter. But as far as I can see from the transcript and the video, there are no outright lies, it is simply that groups like this lose perspective on how others see what members excuse. This occurred in the context of the group having already lost credibility by many years of deception internally as well as externally. As the newspapers reported at the time: "Officials of the Marin-based sect of guru Da Free John conceded yesterday that, "sexual experimentation" as a spiritual practice was not abandoned in 1976 as they previousIy claimed", and "it is our right to experiment into the future." Also, that "some members had not been told about the activities because they were not advanced enough spiritually", that "Officials of the group conceded that "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction". A group that deceives members and the public for that many years because they were not "spiritually advanced" should hardly be surprised with what happened. As for speculation about the motives the lawsuits, if the group had been honest from the beginning about the activities of Mr. Jones, there probably would have been a much smaller group but there would not have been any lawsuits. I refer you to Mr. Trunk's account of his experiences with Franklin from 1972 below, which shows the problems the group had with cultic thinking and Franklin's belief he would be betrayed from the very beginning. --Dseer 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, WP requires verifiability, not original research for sourcing. Did you see my reply below?  There is no way for a neutral observer to know whether or not Brian O'Mahoney's assertions are true.  (Adidam partisans will default to believing Brian, but others will remain skeptical.)  Bottom line, I encourage you, KA, to read up on WP's policies.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying that Wikepidia's policy is that an independent source can say anything that they please, truth or not, propoganda produced to sell newspapers or attract views, or not, and that is 100% acceptable, but a source representing themselves and whom actaully happen to also be reporting factual material which can be verified to be true, in order to correct intentional distortion is prohibited to be referenced to this article. I'm not saying that you made up these rules, but I have to question your interpretation of them, and I have to ask the question: What's wrong with this picture?! Your execution of this "rule" sounds like something out of Kafka. KA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.26.169 (talk • contribs).


 * The potentially self serving statement of an admittedly and to say the least insensitive at that time ex-husband with obvious credibility issues and when children are involved (on just another Chris Tong site) is no substitute for a legal and public statement retracting all the allegations from his ex-wife. This has not yet been produced, which makes the assertions libelous. As an external, unofficial informational link, the site which includes these allegations is acceptable, but these libelous recantation charges can't be put in the article unless the ex-wife issues the legal statement or publically recants. The weasel worded way that the clearly separate Mark Miller lawsuit which was also settled out of court for money is not directly mentioned in the new Chris Tong site about his faith, as if all legal actions were implicity linked to the divorce, is a clear tipoff that the site is far from neutral or credible. And, along with this, we see apparently related attempts to delete references to the details of the Mark Miller case to further foster that misleading impression. What we have is suggestive of being just another example of Chris Tong's "marketized websites", not objective statements of fact. When an editor's faith in Adidam crosses the line into assertions that they "know" things they have only heard and want to believe to be "fact", that is COI editing. It is interesting that it took 22 years for Adidam to produce this "recantation" for a website, just as it took 23 years after the claimed enlightenment for Adi Da to "reveal" he was the first completely enlightened person in all of human history, that Jesus was only a confused mystic. A more neutral person could ask, what was wrong with clear statements to that effect at a much earlier time? --Dseer 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * COI editing: Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest policy is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship. But, if there is in fact only an indirect relationship to Adidam as claimed and not involvement with the organization and enough involvement to have first hand knowledge about controversial events, why are editors making absolute assertions about the truth of Adidam information and claims? Again, as arbitrators point out, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSUE NPOV AND AN ACTIVIST AGENDA! --Dseer 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi KA, welcome to WP. Of course I'm not suggesting that there is only one POV, nor am I arguing for censorship: after all, Chris Tong and Brian O'Mahony are free, within certain limits, to say whatever they like, and that's what their website is for.  Wikipedia functions a little bit differently, and its content is guided by three interlocking principles:  Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research.  It's worth spending some time reading those policies in order to understand other editors' arguments, such as mine above.  Just because a point of view exists doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedia.  For inclusion in WP, it has to be verifiable, and published in a reliable source (also abbreviated "V RS" for verifiable, reliable source).


 * So, sure, it's entirely possible that the plaintiff in the 1985 lawsuit retracted her claims, but how would a neutral observer know that? Not by reading an assertion to that effect by her ex-husband, who has his own axe to grind, published on a site that happens to be exclusively dedicated to unofficial advocacy for the person she sued.  Wp:v couldn't be much clearer about what such a site can and cannot be used for.  (Personally, I don't buy Mr O'Mahony's assertion at all.)


 * Agree re media bias, and of course Matson's Today Show piece exhibits obvious bias, and I wouldn't rely on it for portraying Adidam's side of things. However, Adidam advocacy sites have their own biases, and can't be relied on for portraying what Adidam's critics say, either.


 * Finally, standards are a little looser for the External Links section than for the article itself. I'm all for interpreting WP:EL liberally and allowing for self-published sites that are not "official" ones.  But that cuts both ways, and if unofficial advocacy sites like Beezone or Chris Tong's are to be included, then so should those of prominent (in relation to Adidam, not the world at large) critics, whether they're using Blogger or a slick Flash site (as long as the authorship is verifiable).  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Adidam response on Lawsuit new material added
Thanks for the admin view ( cant see you sig here so not sure who you are ), much appreciated , the 2 editors here " have the same dog in the race " and speak with one voice on all issues, ( negative material thumbs up , positive material thumbs down ) being ex students with a long time period of negative activity against Adi Da and Adidam , in itself according to WP that would not point to an overwhelming and negative bias but in effect on the is article it is actually the case. I have no personal issues with these editors but ask them to stop using this article to promote actual harm to Adi Da and Adidam, since Adi Da is very much alive as are his current students who suffer the fallout from active promotion of negative bias as many religions and religous teachers do. The arguement that a friend of Adi Da and Adidam such as myself would prefer a glowing positive article is correct, however the effects on a living person who is the subject of the article of a positive bias is obviously not an issue. Wikipedia is becoming ever more influential and as this becomes more noticed it becomes a target to attack people, and cause harm to living people. I would also like an admin to look at the standard of links from lightmind.com which are, in itself according to WP that would not point to an overwhelming and negative bias but in effect on the is article it is actually the caseused repeatedly in the article , for instance this website does not meet WP standards at all. It is one man anonymous website ( the whois lookup shows no individual, no clear about page, with owner listed ), with numerous copyright violations , nearly all anonymous material , often verging on libelous material from anon sources. Now yes the links go to newspaper refs but the site itself does not meet WP standards as a reliable verfiable source--Scribe5 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Scribe5, I archived the page and attempted to fix apparent editing glitches resulting from its being too large. I hope what remains is easier for all to edit.


 * To clarify, the comments above were not from an admin. Still awaiting that input.


 * You are still not addressing my arguments about the verifiability of the Brian O'Mahony citation (and its possibility of being defamatory toward his ex-wife, the plaintiff). That is uncollaborative, and third party editors, sysops, etc., don't look favorably on such editing.


 * Some of the material in the article is indeed negative toward Adi Da, but it is from excellent V RS's, and given that Adi Da is a public figure, the material is not considered libel.


 * Lightmind is used in the article body only as an "intermediate source", i.e. an online reproduction of material otherwise not available online. I have PDF's of the original articles (and some are also available at Lexis-Nexis), and can verify that they are the same.  Lightmind is fine in the External Links section, as I said (cf. its high Google ranking and its prominence as a repository of copies of V RS's (mass media articles, etc.).


 * I'm reverting your edits. If you can't/won't discuss, I and others will continue to do so.  If you want your edits to stick, you need to collaborate.  See WP:DR.  Simple as that.  -Jim Butler(talk) 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Butler, perhaps take a look at this , note where you have dubious or cut original material links from lightmind.com ( as refs) with an overlay of some unknown person. These should be removed right away must be original only


 * "Such links are unique in how reliability is applied. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scribe5 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC). --Scribe5 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Scribe5, as I said above, I've checked the linked versions for accuracy against the originals, as can any editor with access to old Adidam publications and/or old newspaper articles. If there are any in particular you're concerned about, just ask.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Bibliography removed ? since Adi Da is an Author, all books possible should be listed

"Integral thinker and author Ken Wilber has offered both positive and negative opinions about Adi Da, and has concluded that "the teaching is one thing, the teacher, quite another."[10][11] However, he has consistently described Adi Da's spiritual teachings as the most profound and important of our time"

This line is not neutral and is deceptive, Wilber said "...I affirm all of the extremes of my statements about Da "

By saying this we could use any of the many things said by him about Adi Da, the best neutral line would be

"Integral thinker and author Ken Wilber has offered both positive and negative opinions about Adi Da " no further conclusion nessacary. --Scribe5 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The biblio that was deleted was mostly anticipated publications, reflecting Adi Da's latest idea for summarizing his works; "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Would be better to cannibalize Beezone or other such sites listing actual books published in the past, not just whatever Adidam's latest "official" revised history is.  I haven't the time but urge other interested editors to work on this.


 * For Wilber it's appropriate to summarize, substantively, both negative and positive things he's said. There are ample V RS's for that (and the "private" Wilber letter is OK in EL section, but not a V RS for article body, unless Wilber has verifiably acknowledged writing it.  Your suggested revision is not informative to the reader. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Butler, would appreciate you speaking in plain english for the benefit of others ( as well ) You say you wish to collaborate , perhaps you did not understand this text here "is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes" for instance the lightmind.com here and the Muktananda piece also has an anonymous persons view and comments up top, can you remove this please as with the other and just use a text ref if nessacary--Scribe5 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm speaking as plainly as I know how. What isn't clear?


 * Your objection to the Lightmind link is trivial. It's perfectly obvious to the reader that the initial section is commentary.  The rest is correct.  Get a copy of that issue of Crazy Wisdom and see. Jim Butler(talk) 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Scribe; Regarding the lightmind site, it has been repeatedly stated the webmaster and collector of the material is NOT anonymous, it is Tom Veitch, an established author who knew Franklin at Columbia, who participated in his publishing his publications during the period 1980-1982, and who writes under the psuedonym 'Elias Oz'. And there are no copyright violations, because the material is covered under the fair use exception as confirmed by a lawyer familiar with the subject, which is why there is commentary. Adidam has a legal department and has not even made the assertion you are in a lawsuit because of this. And the accuracy of the Adidam material, for example, has been confirmed by Adidam members, as well as being checked against copies of the originals. Furthermore, I am not in favor of suppressing positive information about Adi Da. There are simply problems when Adidam makes libelous, self serviing assertions about critics or denies proven revisionism. --Dseer 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I pruned the External Links (EL) section of various POV's following Scribe5's deletion of some links. As I said above, I prefer a more liberal approach to the EL section, but I'm alright with being more conservative with it, especially in view of WP:BLP. However, if we go that route, then we have to be consistent per undue weight. WP:BLP is not an excuse to weight an article toward one POV. No WP policy exists in isolation from the others. (Kind of like checks and balances; it's a real strength of WP.) thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment : The quote I showed you is very clear and unambiguous, the online copy breaks these rules here without any comments, amendations, edits or changes the other one on Muktananda has also had changes made to it. Imagine an online Christian Scripture or historical document with heavy handed and personal views by a comic strip writer plastered across the top, you understand the ridiculous nature of this saying it a reliable copy when its neutrality has been erased ? Now what I am saying is just use the hardcopy ref, or there is a pdf file with copyright in place and a much fuller version with a Neutral point of view It is not trivial and points to some basic problems with using lightmind.com for refs at all

MarkMyWords pdf if pdf is a problem to Wikipedia use the hardcopy ref

The external links "tit for tat" is nonsense, only high quality links please. Will make some changes here soon. You cant argue undue weight and then remove quality links or try to rebalance by adding poor links, also take a look here , this must be considered in top heavy lead and also in the critical section ( in bold) undue weight

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements--Scribe5 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Provided there haven't been any significant revisions to the original, the unrevised Adidam material if available can be the source. That does not preclude collection sites with fair use commentary or highlighting any revisionism being also cited where it serves to balance the article. I think you are confused also about neutrality. The material from sources like Adidam isn't neutral, its purpose being advocacy, it is inherently treated cautiously and not presumed to be neutral. Neutrality is what we strive for here where differing views are considered, and that includes using the best available sources reflecting those views. --Dseer 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Scribe5 - WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, so it's something that editors have to interpret intelligently alongside the policies of NPOV, VER and OR. As I said, it's perfectly obvious to the reader what the original text is, so your argument is weak, and your comparison above overdone.  However, the PDF should be OK as long as it hasn't been revised.  I'll compare them.


 * Please see below re EL section. No tit-for-tat, just asking for consistent standards.  I'm OK with loose or tight, but it must be across the board.


 * I agree with what WP says about undue weight, but it appears that you think that Adidam's view is more significant than views of critics or skeptics. This has come up in the past, and you haven't been able to support that assertion.  Adidam can publish 100,000 books and that doesn't mean anyone other than a few thousand Adi Da devotees accept their arguments about Adi Da's divinity.


 * If you want the article to highlight one view over another, the burden is on you to show that view is held by more people than the other view(s). This has come up before.  As the leader of a small, new religious movement, Adi Da is not well-known, so the majority opinion on him is basically "Adi who?"  He's basically hardly mentioned at all in reliable secondary sources, other than Wilber and the media reports pertaining to the '80's controversy, which suggest strong and varied views on him exist.  Without being able to show which views are greater, we simply have to cover them all.  That's how undue weight works.  Do you disagree?  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will get the opinion of other non partisan editors (if possible ) and will remove the blogs each time they are put back, if they continue to be . Also on another point you already have the lowe site in furhter reading , why do you keep trying to put it back in external links ?

Lightmind.com needs to go ?
I realise this may be heatedly opposed by the other 2 (known) active editors here but lets look at this as objectively ( and civilly ) as possible other editors are most welcome to leave logic based comments based on a neutral point of view. Please leave attacks on personalities out of this debate. Because this article ( Adi Da ) is about a living person, high standards are and should be expected in links and all material. My view is I am opposed to this site being used both as in article ref links and as an external link

Some arguments I have heard to keep lightmind.com


 * It contains copied tabloid style newspaper articles from the 80 's

The Rick Ross site contains these same articles in an accessible and systematic manner here

Perhaps, but this has to weighed against the quality of the material given its sources and how it is presented.Seems to me mostly anonymous opinion, with sometimes serious unsubstantiated allegations made 
 * It represents the views of critics of Adi Da and Adidam


 * It contains lesser known publications of Adi Da and Adidam.

Perhaps but they are often edited and commented on heavily as argued earlier here, this makes them invalid as refs ( on a fair neutral basis ) 

Please add your reasons to keep or not, thanks --Scribe5 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are an Adidam advocate with a COI. A long time ago, I attempted to engineer an agreement where you would concentrate on the pro-Adidam material due to your bias for Adidam and your negative characterizations of the motives of critics, and leave the the small critical section essentially alone, and that I would encourage the critics to essentially do likewise, except for editing to improve the article, which would produce some sort of NPOV. Thus, even though the adidaupclose.org site is one-sided advocacy and makes libelous implications about critics, I had no objection to it being added as an EL even though the part you wanted to emphasize was already pretty much found in aboutadidam.org. And I have made no objection to using Adidam links to relevant materials instead of lightmind.com material provided it is not substantially revised or edited in a way that obscures critical information (for example, revised publications that delete the fact that Franklin Jones was a member of Scientology for a year rather than meditating as his guru Muktananda had instructed him, and this membership included teaching duties and studies of the upper levels). However, you now insist on claiming that an obvious advocacy associated with members of a controversial religious group with provable omissions of fact is of "encyclopedic" quality, and want to delete the lightmind.com EL. This clearly violates the spirit of the framework we discussed. And, your arguments don't hold up Scribe:


 * "It contains copied tabloid style newspaper articles from the 80's. The Rick Ross site contains these same articles in an accessible and systematic manner" Your use of the term "tabloid" to describe responsible articles in respected newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle, etc., simply betrays the extent of your bias. And simple comparison shows that there are other reputable newspaper articles not found on the Rick Ross site, so they are not the "same".


 * "It represents the views of critics of Adi Da and Adidam. Perhaps, but this has to weighed against the quality of the material given its sources and how it is presented.Seems to me mostly anonymous opinion, with sometimes serious unsubstantiated allegations made ". The lightmind.com site contains the online book, Knee of Daism, by Tom Veitch, and is simply based on dialogues between him, other critics, and a then member. It also contains the Daism Research Index, which contains unique material and lengthy personal accounts by ex-followers, some of whom are named. Both sides here make allegations that can be considered unsubstantiated and since access to the Adi Da is limited to and infrequent even for those who express faith in him except for a small group of intimates, which prevents independent evaluation, NPOV requires balanced treatment. Most of the material taken from even Adi Da's autobiography is "unsubstantiated" and considered suspect, see [].


 * "It contains lesser known publications of Adi Da and Adidam.Perhaps but they are often edited and commented on heavily....this makes them invalid as refs. Of course they are commented upon, that is called "fair use", and perfectly acceptable because you can distiguish the original from the comments. Adidam and others favorable to Adidam like the Beezone edits and comments on Adi Da's materials also. They are acceptable as refs when they are the best available source.

You have a pattern of COI edits, Scribe, when you edit critical material on a guru you believe in. Your very proposal here comes from a COI POV. That is why you should be very cautious in trying to delete critical material. You should study WP:COI more closely, and stick with the framework you originally agreed to regarding limiting your edits on critical material.--Dseer 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dseer you are an ex-member of Adidam with a history of written criticism of Adi Da and Adidam correct and write with the pseudo " Seer " linked to via lightmind.com ( if this is not correct please state it to be so) ? So not sure why you seem to be claiming no bias or conflict of interest yourself by pointing to a peceived bias by me when your edits seem limited to critical commentary and often attacks on people via talk pages mostly . Here all the old proverbs kick in ( <>) Both yourself and Mr Butler have " a dog in the race " the same one in fact . So please try and keep to the debate itself and would appreciate it if you would clearly make your points related to the inclusion or not of lightmind.com ( so readers can follow the debate )Again not interested in personal attacks they are not nessacary and against the spirit of WP and making a good article


 * The issue in determining when a potential COI affects editing is not whether we have POVs, how can you be one of the few knowledgeable of Adi Da and not have a POV? It is whether there is a COI based pattern in the manner of editing material that runs contrary to one's POV. You show me where you think my editing has slipped into a COI based pattern. With respect to criticism, your support of the Adidam position and harsh position on critics is long standing and well documented, and almost all of your edits are related to advocating Adidam, whereas I have been editing a number of articles on NRMs and contemporary teachers and gurus. So, when you attempt to assess the value and weight of critical material, or attempt to use differing standards for Adidam and critical links, your pattern of editing shows evidence of being affected by your COI. I on the other hand acknowledge being critical of Adi Da along with other similar teachers, and therefore have very little to do with the vanity or self-published auto biographical and advocacy portion of this article which constitutes the bulk of it, other than when statements are clearly missing critcal information or taken out of context, as for example on some of the endorsements and future events. I did not object to your adding the various pro-Adidam links associated with Adidam member Chris Tong, only to the weight you were giving it and the unsubstantiated and even libelous claims made in them by Adidam advocates as being "encyclopedic", without noting the sites were created by a world class expert in internet marketing and show evidence of being "marketized" to advocate his guru. Nor did I object to the unsubstantiated, extraordinary and subjective claims made in his autobiography which he has revised a number of times, except when necessary to ensure missing critical information like his scientology period was mentioned too. I simply help ensure the very modest critical portion is kept adequate to inform readers of that critical perspective, which is reasonable given that even Adidam sources admit around 90% of those who at one time or another belonged to the group no longer do. Yes, I have written criticism of Adi Da and Adidam as Seer at the Kazlev site, which was put along side various statements both pro and con. But, just because Lighmind links to that site does not mean I am responsible for what the lighmind site links to. I prefer the Kazlev site personally because it addresses multiple sides, and because it covers a large number of groups and problematic gurus and cults, and goes into more theoretical depth. My criticism is of authoritarian gurus and religious cultism in general, and has little to do with my limited participation in the 1970s when Mr. Jones was known as Bubba Free John and the group was known as Dawn Horse Communion. At that time, his teaching and the requirements for seeing Mr. Jones were far less exclusive and much simpler, and I was hardly what you would consider today an avowed member, I simply studied his teaching up to that point in great detail, and did the required practices. I was only involved long enough to see first hand clear signs of the same type of increasing cultism, hypocrisy and revisionism Trunk and Lowe reported in 1972 and 1974 respectively, and it simply took longer because of the constant changes and increasing secrecy within inner circle of the group. This secrecy is now a stipulated fact based on the 1985 public admission by the group, long after I lost interest or was paying attention, that some members as well as the public had been deceived from 1977 on. That period of involvement was roughly 30 years ago now, and before and subsequent to that, I investigated many teachers and cults, while retaining traditional non-dualism as a reference point. As a result, I found that all these groups, despite their claims of uniqueness and denials of cultism, had many common cultic elements, to the point where the faces might change, but the basic game was quite similar. As a result of this, I am probably in a better position than many to point out relevant elements of Mr Jones' life and teaching, and to recognize revisionism, but there is nothing in my criticism that others who research the subject using all available sources can't find for themselves. And being an inclusionist, I tend to be more liberal in accepting external links representing all views than you do, at least when it comes to critical links. The point being that having a POV is fine as long as you do not let it slide into COI editing. If you would use the same care that I do in deciding when to edit pro-Adidam material in your editing critical material as I recommended, there would be no need to mention your COI editing pattern of critical material and suppression of links. Unlike COI editing, NPOV requires that as long as Adidam makes extraordinary, unprecedented and revisionist religious and autobiographical claims, attacks the character and motives of critics without an adequate space to respond, and does not provide independent investigation and proof but merely publishes this material in a flashy vanity press and on marketized vanity websites run by the group and its followers, such sources must be taken as cautiously as those less marketized but equivalent sources critical of Adidam. That is the standard I am using. You simply are not likely to find somebody without a POV on gurus and NRMs interested in this article.  --Dseer 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dseer you say here ( in italics ) Your use of the term "tabloid" to describe responsible articles in respected newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle, etc., simply betrays the extent of your bias. 


 * What I said was tabloid style articles, as defined here "tabloid newspaper allegations about the sexual practices, drug use, or private conduct of celebrities is borderline defamatory"


 * The newspaper articles (mostly ) to my mind rested on the back of court given allegations, in other words they could publish pretty much anything that was said as alleged fact , even though nothing was ever proven in court (not nessacary). Most of the articles seem to be from a local paper. your point here respected newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle here , sure the paper may have some standing but the articles are a bit of a joke , don;t you think , especially in 2007 they represent something of an Anachronism if you consider the climate of the time in regards to small religious movements. A good and obvious indication is some of the titles in the Rick Ross collection.


 * This quote -- "tabloid newspaper allegations about the sexual practices, drug use, or private conduct of celebrities is borderline defamatory" is from Tabloid. A tabloid is generally not considered an encyclopedic source.  However, I can't think of any newspapers carrying articles on Adidam that meet the definition of tabloid.  If you believe any are, please mention them specifically.  Just because you don't like an article's content and use the term "tabloid" as a pejorative doesn't change its reliability.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim Butler said in italics

"A tabloid is generally not considered an encyclopedic source" Not suggesting the newspapers themselves are tabloids ( strictly speaking ) but yes the articles themsleves are of this type "tabloid newspaper allegations about the sexual practices, drug use, or private conduct of celebrities is borderline defamatory" and rest on unproven allegations made in court, correct or not ? --Scribe5 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Please read WP:RS.  Whether the allegations are "proven in court" or not is not relevant to whether the articles are V RS's.  Jim Butler(talk) 22:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * we seem to have our wires crossed I am not trying to argue for the removal of these refs because they are 'tabloid style' articles, just giving an opinion

Looking at some of these newspaper articles, this line (or similar) occurs several times ,

"In late 1985, a Marin, Calif., Superior Court judge ruled the woman had no basis for bringing the action" in regards the B.O'Mahoney case, this important point should be cited in the critical section as part of the Adidam viewpoint and to balance the section out, your thoughts on this ? --Scribe5 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I misunderstood you. (I read everything here through the filter of WP:TALK and what it says in the box on top of this page.)  In principle, sure, it's fine to add whatever is compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT (the latter page is good to look at; it's probably going to supersede WP:VER and WP:OR).  Actually, there's a quite a bit of stuff that could be added to the article from the media reports (examples).  Would you mind linking to what you have in mind?  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, Lightmind is useful here mainly as a repository of convenience links, not all of which are at Rick Ross's site (or Beezone etc.). As such, it's good in the EL section, and certainly fine in article body as long as editors have verified that it faithfully duplicates the originals (just ask).  So, I'd vote keep.  Once again, happy to have a big, medium or tiny EL section as long as standards are consistent.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)