Talk:Adi Da/David Starr – Specific issues with Adi Da

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

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

I do not concur with Tao2911's assessment of my views regarding NPOV and this article. Here are the inclusions along with why I feel that they have either neutrality, factual accuracy, or verifiability issues.
 * 1. "In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community."


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:
 * Who says that?
 * When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
 * How many people think it? How many is some?
 * What kind of people think it? Where are they?
 * What kind of bias might they have?
 * Why is this of any significance?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * In summary:


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


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


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


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


 * Please see my comments below, and mention of 13 paragraphs, only three of which warrant balancing viewpoints because of the inevitable challenges that including controversial info seems to demand - and even that doesn't head off dispute, clearly. "Negative" issues are not simply related to the lawsuits in 1985. This is a serious misunderstanding, certainly of my reasons for including the info in bio. Reports of controversial behavior are THE cultural signature of the group from '74 until the time of the lawsuits. Which reflects the nature of his message and approach at that time. I am not saying that this didn't change - in fact I included accounts of how it did. But in a chronological overview of his life and career, you can't NOT mention "Garbage" (no pun intended) and the period it initiated. These positions (re: consistent sexual experimentation, polygamy, drug use, and potential abuse) are/were INDEED reported by many documented, tertiary sources. I went ahead and added a 1/2 dozen more sources that further support claims of "crazy wisdom" years, including the adidam/JDC position that it was all for enlightenment. And I respect that position. His followers made their choices. More or less. Rather than quote them to you, or even suggest you comb the internet (its a short search to find plenty) just go to Rick Ross for a compendium of good news stories, some of which (particularly Mill Valley) are well researched - and many include the admissions by JDC of all the activities that you still seem to question.
 * What some seem to want to do is pretend that a few disgruntled former followers made everything re: this stuff up. Nothing could be further from the reported truth, or the admissions by JDC/Adidam itself. There were lawsuits that didn't result in convictions. That does not cover everything else. Are you saying that it does?Tao2911 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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

Starr must rewrite allegations of POV
Ok - I am not going to get into the mess above, because the page has changed (among other things). Even glancing cursorily over it, some passages have been changed to address these concerns, and throughout I have been adding citations, sources, footnotes, and more specifics for sources, like page numbers. This is a deeply disappointing response to this POV dispute, and does not indicate a real willingness to solve it.

My primary stance is that this page reflects sources in proportion. I have not found these 'other' sources that present an alternate universe version of Adi Da or his church - except as printed by Adi Da and his church, not in keeping with WP guidelines. I have been using the ones that other editors have also found acceptable, and have in many cases removed sources that Starr has found unacceptable, because now that I have my hands on more primary sources, they have become redundant.

So please, Starr, if you have other sources that provide more praise, cite them and bring them forward for consideration. if you have alternate histories of his life, bring them forth. You keep saying this one is wrong - bring one forward that is right.

I am awaiting copies of numbers more versions of the Knee of listening, including the first edition (which is not pictured at Beezone, Starr. They picture the 1973 version, because Watts is on the cover for foreword. Since you so emphatically state you have that version, then you do not have the 1972 edition in question, and your point is moot.) Georg Feuerstein's book that I am using is from Arkana, 1992, when he was still neutral and even admiring - the 2006 version is apparently more critical (see 'reception'), but not wholly, and Jason Riverdale has been using it as source. Also, please review this list of books. You cannot discount him because of one publisher you don't like.

So, please consider your points again.

Please create separate entries for separate concerns for clarity and ease.

I really find that Starr is misreading and misusing WP guidelines and intent.

I understand what he is saying - he thinks that the page comes off with "undue weight" on controversial aspects of Adi Da's life and career. I get this. What I argue is simply that the vast majority - no, I will say all - of the information on Adi Da addresses itself to this controversial info in some way - be they newspapers, biographic overviews in tertiary sources, television reports, critics, and analysis of his oeuvre. I have quoted Adi Da himself saying that the urge to excise these controversial facts was against his wishes (even though he often did so himself in other instances - he was a complex guy.) I would argue that in no other place is so much of this info compiled a referenced in one place, which is the intent of an encyclopedic entry. And I believe that this info is presented with a completely neutral voice, even when the info itself is not from a NPOV source, as in when citing critics - they are in every case qualified as such.

I simply disagree with his fundamental premise in this attack, and can find really no way to reasonably respond, which is why I requested mediation. His arguments simply don't make any sense. I often respond with a pile of specifics re: his points and he doesn't ever acknowledge these refutations of what are in many cases simply mistakes on his part (like the Beezone cover issue he brings up here.) I am simply citing and sourcing the version as written, and finding sources more than support every line, in hopes that when editors with more NPOV read it, they can perceive how carefully other editors have worked to craft this page.Tao2911 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Find the Holes
We can I think make this simpler. These lengthy threads get us nowhere.

I simply challenge Starr 1 to:

1) find things that can be removed due to lack of citation.

2) to present new sourced information he desires to see, in order to balance what he sees as disproportionate.

Tao2911 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I am doing. Thanks for the suggestion. David Starr 1 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)