Talk:Adi Da/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Suggestions on improving this article 2 Personal sites/blogs as primary sources 3 Lead Section 4 Operation Clambake as example; more on lead 5 Lead section too negative 6 Lead section, blogs as primary sources, reorg 7 Quotes Horrible ! 8 Article has lost any semblance of NPOV 9 Verifiable sources for criticism of Da as Narcissist 10 Da as Narcissist & Scientologist 11 Jim Butler's Opinion/Edits and NPOV 12 Complete attitude change necessary by Editors 13 Reverting, Scientology and lead, stuff still needed 14 "Da Free John" vs. Adi Da 15 More on the need for Editorial attitude change 16 Substantive Discussion Please Before Editing 17 Critics represent inflated vocal minority via WP standard 18 Burden of proof is on those who assert POV is a majority 19 Light on the Extreme Critics of Adi Da 20 Quotes section and Wikiquote 21 Recent Edits (esp. to Criticisms section) 22 Reverted material from User 12.218.145.107 edits to criticisms section 23 Critics have way too much weight here 24 Criticisms section 25 Comment on personal attack 26 Unsourced statement about plaintiff recanting 27 Lead section again 28 POV tagging re lead; requesting other editors' input 29 Scribe 5 reverts and 1985 in lead 30 Lead section is not NPOV 31 What is wrong with wikilinking in Criticisms section? 32 Desist in bullying and personal attacks 33 Speaking of "controversial"...

[edit] Suggestions on improving this article

Disagree strongly with the use of material from lightmind forums and related websites (my own motive for this is completely irrelevant as is the motive of anyone who suggests useful changes to the Adi Da article ) The question is based on Wikipedia policy only Should these links be allowed ? The answer in my opinion is clearly no , ask this question would an encyclopaedia make multiple references to a suspect, sock puppet manipulated bulletin board . Surely by Wikipedia standards this cannot compare in authority to hard copy and peer reviewed material , therefore strongly suggest the whole “Response” section be removed completely, unless it can contain verifiable media links that meet Wikipedia guidelines The term “Response” also suggests potentially positive and potentially negative responses however this section clearly is overwhelmingly negative and infers that only negative responses are made to Adi Da ( which is false )

A quote from wikipedia online: Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet : Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.

The Article would be improved by clearly making a Criticism section including Critical web links in the relevant section, this gives the reader a clear guide for their information and less ambiguity

The “Life “ section is also ridiculously skewed the term Scientology is mentioned 4 times (for obvious negative biased reasons ) and as a very minor player in Adi Da’s Life there is no need to mention Salvator Lucania any more than there is to mention dozens of other associations with people who have had no lasting intrinsic role in Adi Da’s life

Suggest “ Life“ be given a bare bones sketch only, unless it is written fully and covering important events in Adi Da’s life ( including the establishment of 3 spiritual sanctuaries etc) rather than the poorly written and detailed material currently in place. --202.63.51.99 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Scribe

Removed Response section and changed Life section on the basis of the discussion article below, please do not reverse changes without a thorough and wikipedia based dialogue on how this meets the wikipedia guidelines (and) on improving an article--202.63.51.99 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)scribe

Hi Scribe. I'm very glad to see a Wikipedia-specific discussion emerging here; it has been much-needed. While it is true that anonymous blogs and boards are almost always unacceptable as sources, Lightmind.com is more than that. It also hosts attributed material and qualifies as a primary source for the Da-critical POV (cf. websites cited in Wikipedia's articles on Scientology, etc.). NPOV requires fair coverage of the Da- critical POV, which did garner newspaper coverage in the '80's as you probably know. As long as Lightmind is cited accordingly, and its anonymous posts are not relied on as sources for the article, it is within guidelines.

Other stuff: I removed a couple of second-hand a/o anon citations. I agree that the criticism deserves its own section so as not to slant apparent "response", so I rearranged it. The Scientology stuff doesn't seem over the top, especially given that Da himself goes into it in Water and Narcissus.

There are still some unreferenced statements re statements regarding both pro and anti views; I'll tag them later as needing references. Finally, I've moved this discussion below to its own section, preserving the chronological order of this page. thanks, Jim Butler 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The normal way to do this is to add the tag {{fact}} which will yield ^{citation needed} behind a statement that has no source, or a source with dubious reputability or an implausible statement. Then wait a period of time (let us say a week) and if no good source has been given within this week then remove the statement. I think I read something by Feurstein about Adi Da that could be used. Andries 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andries. Good idea on Feuerstein; I have on of his books and will check it. -Jim Butler 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim,the material from lightmind.com is unverified by wikipedia standards, on this point alone [1] and this line Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident and therefore should be removed, however, to make this point Jim I visited the all the LM ( lightmind.com) links in your “Response” section they are all written by an anonymous (Point 1/Anonymous) person with the pseudonym Elias whose writing style (in my opinion) is the very extreme of bias (Point 2/ Extreme bias ) to the point of apparent satire ( which I briefly thought it may be) but on further reading Elias appears completely contemptuous of Adi Da and constantly refers to him as a familiar “ Frank” which suggests an intimate knowledge and personal friendship with Adi Da which he clearly is not ( further pointing to extreme partisan bias on his part) which may be ok when sending up a public political figure such as George Bush or similar but the guidelines for biographies of living persons may also be useful to read (arguably this Article could be classified to a large degree as a biography or at least containing a great deal of biographical information ) On this basis alone will remove the bulk of the unverified material and left the Wilber criticisms, to be fair to you will go over your "Criticism" section and discuss what is currently there (still not happy with the current "Life" section either more on this later) To avoid edit reverts on the basis above you may wish to rework this section in the next day or 2 I would like this talk piece to stay on top for a short time to see if other editors or interested people have a view on this to keep it clear and neutral --Scribe5 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal sites/blogs as primary sources

Hi Scribe; of course Lightmind is biased, but isn't Adidam.org, which is also a self-published site? The issue is whether the source is verifiable for the POV for which it is cited, and NPOV requires treatment of all important POV's. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. ... Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.[2]

and the Reliability guidelines add,

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.[3]

I think it's pretty clear that by these standards both Adidam.org and Lightmind.com are verifiable sources for the sympathetic and critical POV's respectively. (Elias, BTW, is not anonymous; that name is a pseudonym for his real name, Tom Veitch, which he has made public and I can document that.) For the critical POV, Conrad Goehausen's blog is also acceptable since he is a prominent critic (and previously was a prominent advocate in various media). Of course all of these are biased, but not in ways that impact their credibility for the POV for which they are cited. The key is that we must cite them only as primary sources for pro- or anti-Da opinions, as opposed to factual data about Adi Da that is in dispute. The lawsuit stuff isn't in dispute, and all Lightmind is doing is duplicating it online, so it's fine for that. I think it's fine for anything that has been published elsewhere, e.g. in print media. For novel assertions other than statements of critical opinion, Lightmind should not be cited, and conversely for Adidam.org.

I also realize the first entry above could be read as allowing Adidam.org in an article about itself, but not Lightmind.com since the article isn't about Lightmind.com. But there is no reason to create an article about Lightmind.com except in reference to Adidam. Thus, we need to reconcile the principles above with keeping Da-discussion within a single article if at all possible:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article.[4]

Finally, why would you remove the stuff about the number of current and ex-devotees? Shouldn't the reader be given some idea of the relative size of this group?

And: with regard to tone, I meant to mention that the NPOV principle of fairness and sympathetic tone applies to each POV, and not just the pro-Da or anti-Da views:

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.[5]

Therefore, the Response section should stick to facts and avoid insinuating either that he's a Divine Avatar or a cult leader with NPD. Maybe an "Adidam" section should be split off from "Response"; that way views of pro and anti could be summarized, and then a brief counter-argument put in at the bottom of each. The Teaching section is also too wordy and fawning and needs to be pruned.

OK, that's my take for now; I will make some edits to the article later with these issues in mind. Thanks, -Jim Butler 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

Hi Jim just on the Mccready edit ( yes happy to discuss this with Mccready to )

This is the version he chose

"Adi Da Samraj (born Franklin Albert Jones, November 3, 1939 in Jamaica, New York) is a controversial spiritual teacher and religious guru and the founder of the new religious movement known as Adidam. He is a former Scientologist. Adi Da has used names such as Bubba Free John, Da Free John, and Da Love-Ananda,[1] to correspond with changes in his work as a spiritual teacher (see the section on name changes below). He has twice settled out of court on charges including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery."

If people want a very mediocre Article with a lead as above ,reducing a Great Mans Life (opinion ) to the summary of 1 / being a former Scientologist and 2 / the assumption of guilt by litigation (only) then that is what you may get. Now that is not my wish or intention, whether it is the wish and intention of others ( after first giving them a good faith presumption ) will most likely be demonstrated ( not at all suggesting that is your will or intention ) --Scribe5 09:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scribe5 -- How do your concerns square with WP:LEAD? The lead section should concisely summarize the most important points. The second part you bolded above is a concise description of the controversy, not an implication of guilt, and without question relevant. The first part ties into his being both a guru and a controversial one, though the Mukti thing should also be added. If you want more on the devotional POV maybe a sentence like: "He is worshipped as the Incarnate Divine by approximately 1000 followers worldwide"? (Or 2000; I don't know if Adidam releases official stats). -Jim Butler 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim no lightmind.com links please (as already explained) these are unreliable and disreputable ( the same applies to beezone)and blogs (please leave a link to the blog mentioned will take a look) There seems to be a conspiracy ( perhaps) to keep the life of Adi Da in the 60 's 70's early 80's with a climax of a court case , this seems to clearly serve (only) detractors and critics of Adi Da , so since Adi Da Samraj is currently living please move the material on where possible , and please make sure it is verified by wikipedia highest standards since we are all involved in writing the best possible article including controverial aspects rather than a low grade smut rag --Scribe5 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Clambake as example; more on lead

I think you're right that Lightmind and Beezone don't qualify for facts or quotes from Adi Da. They are unreliable by Wikipedia standards (there is no standard for "disreputable", though). However, these sites are OK to mention as what they are (sympathetic and critical sites respectively) and are OK to cite for opinions (primary source for that POV, see above; and note mention of Operation Clambake in [this article]). Otherwise, cites to them should be removed. The same goes for Adidam.org, to some degree: it is reliable for things like Adidam POV and for quotes from Da, but not for material that is disputed or unpublished elsewhere in a verifiable source. (I don't think Adidam.org is being cited unverifiably at the moment; just wanted to mention this point should it come up in the future.)

On the lawsuits, these and the issues surrounding them are in fact at the center of the controversy surrounding Adi Da. They were covered in national media and had a major impact on the group, including Adi Da himself (cf. Crazy Wisdoms from around that time and his "death event" in 1986). Coverage of the lawsuits belongs both in the article and, from my reading of WP:LEAD, Mccready was right to put them in the lead as well (why is Da controversial, asks the reader?). The idea that they should be deleted because they "are not present time" has no basis in Wikipedia standards; historical events are of course cited all the time. I will restore that to the lead section now, and go over the rest incl. unverifiable links later. Some of the statements that will be left needing citations can be referenced in printed material.

I respect your right to your other opinions expressed above, but have no specific comment on them in terms of editing the article. All editors have their POV's; collaboratively we need to make the article NPOV and that includes writing for the "enemy" POV. Thanks -Jim Butler 02:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, just made some changes. Various NPOV edits. Moved lawsuits to "response" since they're objective fact and part of the historical record. Created summary of critical POV in criticism section; linked to ex-dev sites. Unverifiable stuff removed (Beezone, Lightmind) except where it is likely to be verifiable in print. Removed some fact tags from stuff that isn't really disputed, like the number of members. I did leave in the Lightmind duplications of the lawsuits and Chronicle articles because these have been previously published in verifiable, in-print sources. I'm open to reverting the Wilber section on the basis that the same goes for Beezone and Wilber's Adidam letters, if those have indeed been published someplace verifiable; otherwise, that stuff is no more verifiable than Lightmind quoting Da's rants/notes.

By the way, not that it makes any difference to me, but this discussion should really go at the bottom, in chronological order [6]. If no one objects I'll archive the inactive stuff as a solution (no time to refactor) and we'll go back to chronological order, with this discussion at or near the top. thanks, Jim Butler 04:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Intensive" description for scientology is from original Knee of Listening whith I'll cite later. -Jim Butler 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section too negative

Hi Jim, lets have a look at the lead how it stands and my argument for modification

Adi Da Samraj (born Franklin Albert Jones, November 3, 1939 in Jamaica, New York) is a controversial spiritual teacher and religious guru and the founder of the new religious movement known as Adidam. He is a former Scientologist and a former devotee of Swami Muktananda. Adi Da has used names such as Bubba Free John, Da Free John, and Da Love-Ananda[1] to correspond with changes in his work as a spiritual teacher (see the section on name changes below). He has twice settled out of court on charges including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery

Just looking at it from a NPOV the word former Scientologist is used in a pejorative sense otherwise why mention it ? There is nothing controversial about being a “former” Scientologist any more than there is being a “former” Catholic or a “former” Lutheran ( which Adi Da could be argued to be ) from the NPOV is there ? Now perhaps if Adi Da had been a former Hamas member of former convicted gangster that would be noteworthy. The odd thing is opponents and critics of Adi Da don’t seem to have looked at the inherent weakness of this argument which reduces it to a “cheap shot “ its constant referencing by critics seems to be a blanket and rather transparent ploy( but effective at the media knee-jerk-reaction level , hardly a thinking-mans/woman’s approach) when looked at from NPOV However I am willing to allow former Scientologist in the lead for the time being.

However this line should be modified either by a link to it in the controversial section ( such as “see here” as with the names ) so am going to remove it for the time being

He has twice settled out of court on charges including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery

If you can find a similar case where the lead is that heavily weighted let me know, take a look at Shri Chinmoy who has a slight relatedness to Adi Da in being classified as controversial and a Guru . To be fair to you, read the talk section here (Chinmoy) and similar and you may see where my future arguments are leading so you may wish to make textual changes in advance rather than by me always harping on it. To strengthen your own argument ( in your suggested writing for the enemy ) pick the sophistication and subtly of criticism up , look more to hard copy refs , can the Civil Case be referenced outside of lightmind.com ( like the actual archives or similar)

Also will continue to argue against lightmind.com links and intend to increase the strength of this argument, also if you insist on using the BrokenYogiBlog ( is that the CG referred to earlier? ) be prepared for civil criticism and arguement for the verified unreliability of this source --Scribe5 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scribe5 -

Since you agree to leave Scientology in for now, I don't have anything to add on that.

On reverting mention of the lawsuits in the lead, your sole reason given is:

However this line should be modified either by a link to it in the controversial section ( such as “see here” as with the names ) so am going to remove it for the time being.

Please clarify what you mean by this. There is no requirement in WP:LEAD that stuff in the lead section be linked to subsequent sections. The Chinmoy article is barely a more than a stub and not a very strong example of precedent. For fuller articles on controversial teachers/groups see Scientology and Sathya Sai Baba. Both of these briefly summarize aspects of the reasons given for controversy in the lead section, which is in line with my argument above, which you haven't yet addressed. Adi Da is controversial. The lead section should briefly say why.

On the lawsuits, I haven't seen the original court records. They are, however, mentioned in the S.F.Chronicle which does qualify as a verifiable secondary source, and is cited. On that basis alone the lawsuit stuff is validly referenced, irrespective of Lightmind. Linking to Lightmind's copies of those seems fine to me, because a little research will easily verify that they are accurate. (I have verified this myself. I've read photocopies of the original print versions of several of those articles. The Chronicle articles are also on Lexis-Nexis.)

Please be specific about which remaining Lightmind links you object to and why.

On Broken Yogi's blog, that is under CG's name. It is cited solely as one of several examples of ex-dev critical arg's. See above for why these are all are fine as primary sources for critical opinion.

thanks, Jim Butler 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim in regards to the lead , and this text

He has twice settled out of court on charges including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery

1/ In a short lead (as it stands) this sentence creates undue emphasis on what is a minor event in a very creative and active life ( this would be demonstrated by expanding the lead to cover a fuller summary up to the present day if possible with verifiable material ) it tends to “ short change “ the reader in my opinion and creates an unbalanced summary , in a much fuller lead this incident could be summarised perhaps as “ 2 civil suits were brought against Adi Da ( then Da Free John ) by former devotees in 1985/1986 , an out of court settlement was reached “ This would also tend to fit in with what one expects from an encyclopaedia ,

An example of a lead with controversial elements is Prem Rawat which has a very full lead summary and includes contentious elements handled with due care to living persons and citing verifiable sources, thanks for arguing it out , not easy at all.

--Scribe5 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also Jim , the Response section could be removed and related matters artfully put into critical section, because as it stands the article appears to have 2 unrelated critical sections --Scribe5 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section, blogs as primary sources, reorg

Good call on combining critical stuff in Response with Criticisms. I moved the community stuff to Teaching and retitled that section.

Please don't delete citations of personal weblogs without addressing my detailed arguments about it. Already referenced the relevant parts of Wikipedia guidelines above; will summarize here. Personal sites/blogs are allowed on Wikipedia under certain circumstances, and in fact I've already noted Operation Clambake as an example of a critical ex-follower site. Such sites spring up around controversial religious movement and you'll see them cited on Wikipedia. They are cited as accounts of ex-dev's only, not as sources for disputed facts. They are acceptable as primary sources for what ex-followers say (and their authors are certainly experts in the rather narrow field of being an ex-devotee of Da). I also argued why they should be in this article rather than in a separate "criticisms" article to avoid POV forks; Adidam is not that big and doesn't requrie multiple articles like Scientology does.

On your proposed reword for the lead section: I think it is fine to say that the suit was brought by former followers, but I also think it needs to be clear about what the suit was for. He is controversial not just for having been sued, but because of the specific things that have been alleged and for which he was sued. Regarding length, remember that the Prem Rawat article is long, and split into two articles, and has a longer lead section because it's a bigger and higher-profile group. For this article, the lead section doesn't need to be too long. Perhaps we can also add to the lead comments on other salient things: size of community, brief summary of teaching (Narcissus, Satsang, FLO 7th Stage Avatar), Da's authorship of books and interests in art? thanks for the discussion, Jim Butler 05:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Jim , sorry your arguement is not valid from the wikipedia guidlines which I will elaborate from here mainly [7]

Quote

1/Self-published sources

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

The main point here

so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications

Neither of the 2 blogs removed passes this test and will remove them as I see fit , the reference to the clambake site dont quite get you , that seems to be an article in itself you could do this with lightmiond.com but as you say not enough impotance perhaps , the point is these blogs and lightmind are very unlikely to be referrenced in print or by scholars sites because they are obviously just what they seem to be to a trained eye ( I am not going to get into what that is exactly, because it remains mainly opinion) , noticed this comment on the lightmind.com page

5) New Religious Movements ~ Adidam This is a pro-Daist site masqurading as scholarly/objective. Ex-Daists are called "apostates" and the 7-year existences of the influential Daism Forum and Daism Research Index are studiously ignored.

That just about sums it up to me --Scribe5 19:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scribe - by your criteria, just about every self-published site needs to go, including Beezone, AboutAdidam.org, etc. Blogs are not singled out; all self-published sources need to be evaluated carefully. I understand the argument you are making, and I have already taken it into account alongside other Wikipedia guidlines. Please re-read carefully: Personal sites/blogs as primary sources.

Per Wikipedia guidelines: A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing. [8]

Here, we are using personal sites of followers (pro- and anti- and mixed) as primary sources when writing about them. We are not relying on such sites as sole sources, since both pro- and anti-POV's have been published elsewhere (book blurbs, Chronicle articles etc.).

For precedent on Wikipedia in support of my position, see the External Links sections of Criticism of Prem Rawat, Chogyam Trungpa, Sathya Sai Baba, and just about any religious leader or movement you can imagine that has a whiff of controversy. Also please re-read the second paragraph in this section that starts with "Please don't delete...". I would appreciate it if you would consider and address my arguments rather than ignoring them, or if you don't understand them, please ask me where I haven't been clear. thanks, Jim Butler 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes Horrible !

Hi Jim , while I think of it ( will address your concerns above shortly, although I did think it was already clear enough) whoever created the quotes section appears to have merely created it so the 2/3 contentious linked quotes can be accessed there , or perhaps they just took advantage of a messy situation , my understanding was quotes from Adi Da were to be here , since that is what people would be looking for not quotes about Adi Da , all the other spiritual teachers I have looked at only have quotes from the person the article is about. The other point is the “read full text link “ on particularly the negative quotes is not necessary , surely a small amount of “nastiness” which is bordering on hate speech is enough to get the point across. Example from Jim . C

He grows up to become a brilliant, megalomaniacal, secretive, controlling, authoritarian, messianic guru who abuses himself and others, is closed to feedback and criticism, and whose occupation in life is to awaken others to the reality of everpresent Happiness. And who isolates himself from the general public and has no toleration for what he calls “the usual man or woman.” ... Despite his background as a psychologically wounded child, Da has never shown any signs of low self-esteem, or any lack of self-confidence and self-assurance. Criticism does not lead him to reconsider his position or reevaluate his behaviors. I seriously doubt if the word “sorry” has ever passed his lips, unless he had occasion to utter it in a sarcastic manner

Jim seriously, do you think this sort of shite is ok ?? And further his spelling is worse than mine !

Wikiquote is for quotes about people as well as by them. NPOV allows multiple views as long as important ones are fairly covered. A lot of what Da says would offend some people, but guidelines don't requires its removal. Why don't we discuss Wikiquote on its talk page, and stay on topic here? (BTW I count nine positive quotes, six critical ones and a couple mixed ones from Wilber.) -Jim Butler 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply for Wikiquote. Wikipedia and Wikiquote have different policies. I do think that quotes by Adi Da should be added. Andries 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andries! Always appreciate your help. Wikiquote does require verifiability, though, and I've been working on that. Any idea how to tag a quote there as needing a reference? {{fact}} isn't working apparently because there is no such template (yet) on Wikiquote. -Jim Butler 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article has lost any semblance of NPOV

Hi Jim , the changes you recently made to the lead and elsewhere are over the top and further it goes against basic rules and does not improve this article , but instead makes it appear unbalanced and not NPOV for the reader.

The referencences to Narcissistic personality disorder should be removed

This rule (below)

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

And this one “ No original research “

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments .

Has this idea been published by a reputable source other than an ex devotees blog rant or lightmind .com  ? If so where ?

Jimbo Wales introduced this to stop people just adding there own interpretation of a subject ( amongst other things ) mainly by trolls and people with agenda’s and extreme views. Thanks again

[edit] Verifiable sources for criticism of Da as Narcissist

Hi Scribe, the idea that Adi Da is himself a classical Narcissist (aka has NPD) is commonly expressed among critics.

• First, please read Wikipedia:NPOV sections 7 and 8, re presentation of competing views, for why criticism of Adi Da belongs in the article as a prominent POV. Followers characterize him as an Divine Incarnation. Critics characterize him as a narcissist. Both are verifiable, cf.:
• Second, Lightmind and personal sites and blogs of ex-followers are reliable primary sources for the critical POV's of ex-followers, as I showed above. For references critics holding this view, see Mark Miller [9], Conrad Goehausen [10] [11] and Tom Veitch aka Elias [12].
• Third, verifiable secondary sources have corroborated that critics say Adi Da is a narcissist, e.g. San Francisco Examiner 1985 [13].

thanks, Jim Butler 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da as Narcissist & Scientologist

Adi Da Samraj himself states that everyone, including Franklin A. Jones Jr., is a narcissist. Moreover, narcissism is an inevitable human shortcoming.

Furthermore, "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" is a technical term borrowed from psychiatry, whose use you and the various bloggers you cite are hoping will increase the credibility of your criticism, simply because it has a professional ring to it. But in fact, the only people you can cite that actually are in a position to rightly use that term are professional psychiatrists. None of your bloggers is a professional psychiatrist, so your citations do not justify the use of that professional term.

As for the Scientology bit, this is not mentioned in either his own autobiography or in Carolyn Lee's biography, both of which mention a wide variety of other spiritual quests and disciplines. Also, his spiritual practice shows many visible reflections of the Buddhist, Hindu, and Roman Catholic traditions without any visible reflections of Scientology aside from generic stuff common to a wide variety of "New Age" practices.

Hi, please sign your posts to help others follow the discussion here.

Narcissus = ego in Adidam terminology. Adi Da teaches that he alone has transcended it. His critics disagree, and they say he's not just any old garden-variety narcissist either, but a pathological one. Those who say he has NPD are expressing an opinion, not rendering a diagnosis. Saying Da has NPD is one POV; saying he's the most enlightened adept ever to appear in the manifest cosmos is another. (Which is the more extreme claim?) Anyway, both are cited as important POV's, and hence belong in the article.

Check the original Knee of Listening for Scientology. He says he spent about a year there, 1968-1969. It's also in the revised edition by Bubba Free John, 1978, pp 83-85. It's omitted from the Da Avabhasa version, 1992. Comparing the relevant passages from both is interesting. I can post scans later, if you like. Also, see Beezone's excerpts from Water and Narcissus, which probably isn't verifiable and thus not citable in the article, but nonetheless interesting (and accurate; photocopies circulated in the community and I had one). As for Scientology's lasting influence on him, that's a matter of perspective. Some critics would say he probably learned plenty there about running a cult.

-- I'm amazed that there are still questions regarding Scientology and Da. Today's public stance from Adidam is to ignore that he was deeply involved in Scientology. He and his then wife Nina both worked for the Scientology organization for a year. They met early devotees Patricia Morley (his mistress), and the Lucanias in Scientology. There is no attempt to smear Da by mere Scientology involvement, though, as some here claim. The important issue is what appears to be the attempt to hide his involvement and doing so in part to preclude discussion of why he joined Scientology and how he might have been influenced. I would like to counter the claims that Da was not involved (false); not deeply involved and not trying to be a teacher in Scientology (false); did not totally abandon the meditations recommended by Muktananda (false); was merely 'waiting' as he claims in newer versions of the Knee of Listening (false); and was not influenced by Scientology (this is a debatable assumption). The first four of these claims are refuted by the early Adidam references. The fifth assertion is direclty challenged by an ex-Scientologist that knew him personally in this link[14]. Early sources disclose Da took the OT level training, which this source describes as it was back then. At that time, there was a lot of emphasis on mental exercises intended to develop what Da later called siddhis. This former Scientologist has no doubt Da was influenced by Scientology in the manner he set up his own religion, Adidam. As he says in the text:

---

Concerning Franklin Jones, aka The Da Avatar

I wasn't asked this question, but I'll answer it anyway, because refugees from Franklin's group seem to be showing up on ARS.

It is indeed true that Franklin was a Scientology OT who launched his own religion in immitation of Ron. Unlike the ususal freezone group, he copied the religion instead of the tech. I believe that he is currently wealthy, worshipped, and living in Tahiti.

In 1968, Franklin, his wife Nina Jones, and his mistress Pat Morley (his two high priestesses) were all on New York Org staff. Then he went to the Advanced Org in Los Angeles and did his OT levels. It was later claimed that he helped Sal Lucania (the Mafia plant) fake his way through OT 3, but this might just have been dead agenting. The bunch of them were all declared suppressive in 1969. He neatly sidesteps all of this in his biography "The Knee of Listening" and talks about his cognitions on the OT levels while saying that he was doing nothing, no meditations or anything, and having wonderful ideas just coming to him out of the blue.

He was very charismatic, almost glowing with an inner light. An interesting and enjoyable character. Its too bad that he wanted worshippers instead of friends.

---

Entry above by ~mds on 7 April 2006

I respect that different opinions exist. I also respect Wikipedia's policies about NPOV and verifiability, which provide guidance on how to include them. -Jim Butler 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just changed NPD to "pathological narcissism" which is a less technical term. Same idea though, cf references provided in section above. -Jim Butler 22:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Butler's Opinion/Edits and NPOV

Of course the five-hundred pound gorilla in this discussion room that is not being mentioned is that Jim Butler is nothing like an objective writer/editor who doesn't have a strong opinion one way or another on Adi Da. It is plainly obvious that he has a strong negative opinion about Adi Da. All his edits move the article in that direction. But he is posing as an editor who only cares about the Wikipedia rules, and strives to justify everything on that basis, never once mentioning the obvious hidden agenda. THIS is the thing that should be out there for all reading this discussion to see! NPOV, fine. But also: no hidden agenda masquerading as NPOV. And Butler has a huge one.

I get to have a POV just as everyone else does, and don't pretend not to. It's the article that needs to be NPOV, not me. And you're wrong that all my edits include only criticism; I have added stuff about what Da's supporters say. See "writing for the enemy". Also fairness and sympathetic tone, which applies to all major POV's covered.

You're free to waste bandwidth speculating all day long about my or anyone else's motivations, but if you want to be on-topic please discuss specifics about the article. -Jim Butler 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your input diverse views are most welcome here

You see that Jim , people are starting to think you have an agenda and are not at all interested in making a good article , I on the other hand have kept my faith in you and still think you can do the job, you also should have noted a little comment I made earlier about the foolishness of being a low grade critic ( scientology, cult, sex , getting beaten with the gurus stick pathology ) it is a transparent ploy for many people , and a leading reason critics of Adi Da don’t get much respect ( and nor should they in my opinion ) and one reason lightmind.com and related sites , including blogs mentioned should not be included here Check out the critics of Ken Wilber they are respected because they don't merely attack the person. Denis T.s page is ok in my opinion his criticism is not adolescent peeved rant Also serious people will judge you by what you think is ok , for instance the J. Chamberlain blog contains the names of currently living feeling sentient beings ( people ) spoken about in the most derisive and degraded sense, who it appears never did anything to Jim. C at all. I will write more about what needs to change on this site and will start implementing changes on the basis of previous arguments . Thanks again --Scribe5 08:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scribe; just because some people might think that material is tawdry or over the top is no reason to delete it. Nothing in Wikipedia policy suggests that. Some people may be more offended by the FLO stuff than the criticisms. So no censorship on the basis that stuff might be offensive, please. It's a big, wild world and more extreme phenomena than Adidam exist, and we're big boys and girls and can handle reading about it.

Please take the time to understand and address my arguments above on blogs as primary sources (incl. precedents) before you make any edits affecting them. thanks, Jim Butler 10:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete attitude change necessary by Editors

Sorry Jim, have been thinking about your whole 'custodianship' of this article and the way you have been promoting negative propaganda unnecessarily , there should be no online hyperlinks in the body of the article, particularly if they are used as a negative propaganda tool, generally only hard copy citations are necessary as with the majority of wikipedia articles on any subject controversial or otherwise so for the brief critical part it is only necessary to give a citation of the relevant newspaper article , nor is it necessary to mention scientology as its only utility is in the pejorative not to supply any useful information to the reader Description of the critical arguments should be brief and to the point no sensationalism is necessary , once again wikipedia is not a vehicle for spreading a particular viewpoint but rather to inform the reader in a concise, clear and objective manner and( on some issues)with several viewpoints

I think this is the root of the problem we have been having and look forward to your co operation here , and would like an agreement on this otherwise it will not be in the best interest of the article itself. Just to make it very clear

1/ No propaganda either pro or anti via web links in article body

2//No promoting of POV material via this article

I will dig in on these points , the way this article has been used to date is as a propaganda tool , and this is against the whole idea of wikipedia. --Scribe5 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim

Hi Scribe, I understand your view is that the negative POV is propaganda, but that's just your view. Some Da-critics think all of Adidam is propaganda, but they don't argue that the idea of Da as Divine Avatar should be deleted. I am fine with having that in there, but the critical view should be adequately covered as well. Your recent deletions are contrary to NPOV. I've given specific arguments; you've ignored them and now are resorting to just saying Da-criticisms is "propaganda". IOW, you don't like the critical POV, so you're deleting it. That doesn't quite fly in Wikipedia terms.

I'm not the article's "custodian". Anyone is always free to edit. I urge you once again to address my arguments above. If we can't resolve disagreements, then there are procedures for bringing in third-party mediators, which I'm fine with and believe would benefit the article. thanks, Jim Butler 16:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

--- No Jim never meant to imply a negative view is propaganda , so don't make misleading statements please What I have written above should be very clear one of the problems with the way you had the page set up is it acted merely as a gateway via the hyperlinks in the article to mere propaganda sites , there were no links nor should there be to Adidam based sites or proponents sites within the article body ( and this is fine) The critical section should be in balance to the whole life and work of Adi Da to the present day , in other words brief and to the point no embellishment necessary. The article is not about the critics of Adi Da , nor about their viewpoints ( and they are generously included ) , they are very minor part of a very active and creative life and should be seen as such --Scribe5 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem of finding the appropriate fraction dedicated to criticism and controversy has been debated endlessly and fruitlessly in other articles about gurus. Andries 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the question of using online references has also been discussed extensively with regards to Sathya Sai Baba. Wikipedia generally prefers online references. Andries 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

--- PS My oversight There are currently hyperlinks to Adidam based websites in the text body they can be removed at any time by an editor and replaced with hard copy citation --Scribe5 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5, no, the links should be moved to a reference section. As I said, Wikipedia prefers online references. Andries 21:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries

The SSB site is a mess , and highly contentious , perhaps this is one reason why, I think if we stick to hard copy citations this will resolve a lot of the problems that tend to occur . Links can be in the link section bottom of page . Thanks

Scribe5, there's no basis for what you propose on this subject, and I hope you'll listen to experienced Wikipedians (I'm not, Andries is). -Jim Butler 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting, Scientology and lead, stuff still needed

Scribe5's recent edits/deletions are plainly POV. He's labelling POV's as "propaganda" and engaging in ad hominem attacks. I'm reverting, and assuming that we'll end up calling in mediation unless Scribe5 is able to understand and address the points I've made repeatedly about NPOV and primary sources.

I agree that Scientology isn't important enough in Da's life to be mentioned in the lead, but it does deserve mention in the article. Fixed that.

The article would benefit from some stuff about "teaching periods" and significant events in Adidam, e.g. the move to Persimmon, Garbage and the Goddess, Divine Ignorance, move to Fiji, etc. I've got source material for all that (old books, magazines) and can stick it in later. -Jim Butler 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Da Free John" vs. Adi Da

I'm a Christian, but I was interested in this Adi Da or whatever it's called. Do you think this article should be renamed "Da Free John"? I have a book that credits him as that and all these names (Bubba, Adi, etc.) are a bit confusing. Janet6 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Janet, agree it's confusing but no need for change. If you type in "Da Free John" it redirects to "Adi Da". t should stay "Adi Da" because that's his current name. -Jim Butler 23:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the need for Editorial attitude change

Hi Jim, will continue to revert the article to the one with the most balance (NPOV) which is not the version you are promoting , not in favour of mediation but you go ahead if you wish . Your point about a blog being worthy of inclusion no matter what the content based on the writer being an expert ex-devotee is bizarre to me but that could be a quirk in my viewpoint, and further that since it is a fact that this person believes such and such " add abusive words " and believes Adi Da did such and such " add whatever you wish " this does not have to undergo any fact checking, but is opinion presented as a fact (and therefore qualifies for inclusion) , is even more bizarre , but then again I may not have understood , and the further point that this is allowable by Wikipedia guidelines stinks of desperation ,to get that POV across at every opportunity, stuff the reader which appears to be the object of the exercise, otherwise why not just do what I said and use hard copy citations ( the fact that there are very few critical ones that support your POV only adds to the evidence of the lesser significance of your critical views ) The critical view is clearly small and less significant via Wikipedia standards and is currently being given far to much weight via suspect web citations that don’t come anywhere near Wikipedia best practice as I have detailed over and over again and which you just ignore or dispute with let us say clearly “disingenuous “ arguments The overall impact is “ grubby” , I have run it past some non partisan intelligent people and they suggest the article as it stands is not NPOV , and the linked material is weak , extremely biased and opinionated , with no fact checking and certainly designed to smear and cause distress, and not suitable for inclusion in any sort of encyclopaedia .

1/Some further technical points which even further cast doubt on your material: The BrokenYogi Blog is not about Adi Da and the theme is self babble ( not clear) and should not be cited

Quoted from front page

“The Broken Yogi Samyama There is no particular purpose to this blog. I simply can't seem to keep my mouth shut for very long, and need an outlet for self-expression. If anyone is listening, my sympathies. Don't expect any kind of consistency or even meaning from me. I am simply shouting at windmills, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

2/The link put in by Dseer is just a repeat of lightmind.com material linked to elsewhere.

3/Lightmind.com needs only one link in the critical section

Thanks again

Hi Scribe. Your revert was and is over the top and totally anti-NPOV. Your edits delete virtually all of the references for the critical POV as well as everything about the lawsuits, which is not at all acceptable; they were on the Today Show and are at the heart of the controversy. You say the critical POV is minor, yet you're removing half a dozen independent links of that POV, not even counting Wilber. Wilber himself is a notable "new age" guy whose statements alone show that the critical POV is important. Oh yes, and all those articles in the national media, and the lawsuits, and getting on the Today Show: these represent pretty verifiable evidence that the critics' voices are relevant. Yes, I think we've established that the Da-critical POV is important enough to merit coverage. The lawsuits and the criticisms of Da's behavior are central to that, and I've already shown multiple instances of him being called a narcissist.

Sorry, but this stuff has to be included. You are free to add more stuff about Adidam if you want, keeping in mind fairness and tone (i.e., please don't go back and forth with every other sentence in the criticism section; just leave the supporters' objection at the bottom). But you don't have a leg to stand on with deleting all the references and all mention of the lawsuits.

Self-published material is fine as a primary source under the conditions I explained above. It's under the authors' names, and their opinions about Da echo stuff in the Chronicle and the lawsuits, and are not contradicted. Most of Broken Yogi's posts are about Da; he's certainly notable as a longtime devotee who was a vocal advocate while a devotee (verifiable stuff in Laughing Man magazine, and Googling shows stuff on Adidam.org, plus countless Lightmind posts under the same handle as his blog). If that's not a primary source for a critical ex-dev POV, nothing is.

Dseer's link was an interesting mix of appreciation and criticism like Wilber; readers might find it interesting. Lightmind is a large site and hosts more than one notable thing; same with Adidam sites. Rving. -Jim Butler 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Scribe5. Reverting to his version. -12.218.145.107

Hi 12.218.145.107; again, please sign your posts to help readers follow the discussion. You've criticized me above for having POV, but haven't said much about the article. On your comments, I agree that Scientology wasn't major enough to be in the lead section, and clarifed and sourced the criticisms of narcissism. Please discuss your reasons for wanting to omit all mention of lawsuits and most of the sources for criticism. Pending substantive discussion, a revert is justified. -Jim Butler 02:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, agree, this latest edit is unacceptable and reminds me of the vandalism I reported over a year ago before you arrived here when all nearly all critical information was edited out by enthusiastic Adi Da advocates. M. Alan Kazlev [15] is a noted wikipedia contributor and spiritual scholar, with a long interest in Adi Da. MAK brings a wealth of knowledge and a unique, well sourced and fair perspective, that considers both the positive and negative information regarding Adi Da. Scribe5 and 12.28.145.107, I will take whatever steps are necessary to revert such arbitrary edits. The goal should be an article that presents both sides and outlines all critical facts, not one that gives undue weight to Adidam material as if Adidam was not an advocacy group, or allows Adidam advocates to determine what critical facts are arbitrarily. The argument that a well financed organizational advocacy website is credible while sites that are essentially a comparable vehicle for either supporters or former members and critics to comment on Adi Da and Adidam are not, is neither neutral or valid. ~~Dseer

--- Mr/Ms Dseer it is considered very uncivil to refer to editors as vandals and are you the "Seer" referred to in the hyperlinked text ? If you are not please accept my apology.

---

---??? I suppose the polarized nature of this topic on which one has strong opinions makes one hypersensitive. I would have anticipated some conciliatory response from the editors for making the readily proven false claim that: "The link put in by Dseer is just a repeat of lightmind.com material linked to elsewhere." Regardless, the fact is, I did not accuse editors of vandalism in this case, that has not been established. Rather, I said the edit reminded me of past instances of vandalism by Adi Da proponents, back before this discussion board became so active. In that situation, I referred to deliberate and arbitrary attempts to systematically eliminate large quantities of information critical of Adi Da based on an advocacy agenda and without an attempt at dialogue as vandalism. Here, I simply post one interesting and relevant, independent link on Adi Da, and the next thing I know, it is deleted using spurious logic, along with all kinds of critical information about Adi Da the editors do not agree with. I consider that irresponsible editing to all appearances based on a bias. I rather support sticking with facts, logic and a balanced presentation of all reasonable points of view and responses in a wikipedia article, including this one. The rationale for deleting the link I provided given by the editor is simply not valid, there is a significant distinction between the lightmind.com site and what M. Alan Kazlev has written, and there is a body of pro-Adi Da material there, including under the Ken Wilber section. The site attempts to provide balance and present varies sides. Just because MAK also includes a link to the lightmind.com site, as well as this article, and the lightmind.com site links to MAK's site, as well as this article, does not mean the point given for deletion is valid. A simple examination of the material there proves otherwise. The logical framework to follow towards creating a balanced, NPOV Adi Da article is quite simple, really. Let's start with basic facts and apply logic. It is a fact that Adidam is an advocacy group for its claims regarding Adi Da and his claim of unique spiritual status, and offers evidence only from those favorably disposed to Adi Da to support those claims, not a full peer review. It is a fact that Adi Da's unprecedented spiritual claims, and even his claim of enlightenment, have not been endorsed by highly respected contemporary gurus, or even his own teachers. It is a fact that earlier Adidam literature, including Adi Da's autobiography and related material, has been consistently revised since the founding of the group and some of these revisions are significant as can be proven by comparing the texts. It is a fact that people who knew Adi Da personally at various stages in his life, have presented in writing a different picture than the current autobiographical material published by Adidam. It is a fact that Adidam's version of events and even the denial of some events themselves is disputed by disillusioned former members. It is a fact that the number of former active members is much greater than the current number of active members. It is a fact that Adidam is on record as having admitted it hid critical information from many of its members and not just the public during the period 1977-1985. It is a fact that some disillusioned former members claim in writing that deception is still ongoing, and that some more recent disillusioned former members support that contention after having previously advocated the Adidam position. It is a fact that critics advocate that Adi Da to varied degrees is not what he claims and offer evidence to support that, and that critics themselves have differing POVs and alternate explanations regarding Adi Da. It is a fact that advocates on both sides have sometimes gone to such extremes as to make statements which can be proven to be false. From these facts, one can logically infer that none of the advocates, either Adidam itself or the various critics, are inherently unimpeachable, and that the claims made must be evaluated based on their merits. Therefore, common sense dictates that in controversial cases like this it is the responsibility of the respective advocates to present their case effectively, concisely and logically, with an agreement that all relevant POVs be given an appropriate amount of balance and some tolerance for the way they choose to present their case and the information they think is significant. In other words, address the points made, don't try and eliminate them from the article. And where there is disagreement, make sure all perspectives are presented. Simply examining the texts reveals that the criticism portion is far less than the balance of the article, and that greater number of links to the sites of critics is reasonable given the differing experiences, time frames and levels of involvement (if any), and overall perspectives on Adi Da's claims regarding his unprecedented spiritual status. There is nothing different in the interplay here than in many other discussions on controversial, charismatic leader groups. The claims made by Adi Da and Adidam proponents about his allegedly superior teaching and methods are obviously not accepted as fact by other, highly respected, contemporary spiritual gurus, or meaningful numbers of contemporary spiritual figures, or anything but a tiny minority of even alternative spiritually oriented people in the West. Therefore, I think that supporters and critics of Adi Da should work on making their best cases, including supporting links, and respond to points of contention, rather than trying to suppress sources of information and links that might shed light on Adi Da that conflict with an apparent bias. The editing out of the MAK link I added based on the bogus rationale provided is unacceptable to me, and will be reverted if necessary. I hope I make myself and my position clear. ~~Dseer 7 April 06

---

Removed --Scribe5 07:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed--Dseer 06:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

Edited from original as requested to focus on the points of discussion: I am not Alan (M. Alan Kazlev), and am not self-promoting that site. MAK has initiated and edited many Wikipedia articles. I am a fan of his site, he is a fan of Wikipedia, we share many common interests and understandings, and I do find much valuable insight in his interesting, more metaphysical take on Adi Da and his followers which is simiar to my own. I understand advocacy, and you must realize that the impact of your proposed edits is to exclude all information which in organization and appearance is not up to the level of the professionally crafted advocacy products official Adidam produces, regardless of what that means to the NPOV of this article. Yet, just because Adidam has considerable resources and can self-publish these materials in a more professionally polished manner does no make them any more credible, for the reasons I have logically outlined. Not to mention that research has shown that in cases like this, the collective reports of disillusioned members tend to be more accurate than the public face the organization presents. Dismissing alternative views as not worthy of either consideration or a good faith response does not support the NPOV standards of Wikipedia. One can take all the above into account and reasonably infer you are so attached to one side of this controversy, the advocacy of Adi Da, that ironically what you consider a "NPOV" must end up with the preponderance of information favoring Adi Da and critics marginalized. Selective use of Wikipedia guidelines to avoid a more NPOV by relying primarily on Adidam material is unfair and unacceptable. In view of all the above, please refrain from arbitrary edits of the portions critical of Adi Da unless there is a through discussion and agreement the article will be improved. What would be productive for purposes of this article would be that you attempt to come up with a stronger yet concise advocacy for Adi Da responding to the factual, logical, and reasonable hypothesis statements made, and not assume you can fairly edit material that is not favorable to Adi Da. I intend to help maintain a relative NPOV in this article. Dseer 06:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

--- Yep a lot of fluff and hot air , also bring your scholar over for a riveting talk about the intermediate zone, as that article was kindly withdrawn for your sake, and it was at least half true (lol ) and in the mean time calm down and stop the pompous twaddle , there is nothing civil about what you wrote so don't try playing the injured party , and get a bit of humour as well,thanks again --Scribe5 12:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5, you have not demonstrated how you think this digression into stating what you think is wrong with the critics of Adi Da in this manner, and avoidance of substantive, logical dicussions in good faith, is improving the article. Broad brush dimissal of logically, fact based assertions using terms like "fluff", "hot air" and "pompous twaddle" is not productive nor does it conform to the guidelines. Your perception about critics is yours. What we see is the result of your attempt to remove a relevant link I provided to an external source because, from what you yourself have said about it, you don't respect the scholar who maintains it. One can reasonably infer from your editing that you want to be the arbiter as to whether information that conflicts with your favorable position on Adi Da is permissable. Yet, you have not demonstrated you can fairly assess and edit material that is not favorable to Adi Da in good faith. That does not productively contribute to the NPOV standards. There is nothing wrong with advocacy, itself, provided you understand your limitations. As you are an advocate for Adi Da, I again suggest it would be productive for you to concentrate on a stronger and fact based yet concise advocacy for Adi Da that does not require marginalization if not elimination of reasonable criticism and critical sources, and to challenge a critical statement or hypothesis with relevant facts and sources if you have them. MAK already has a article and discussion of the intermediate zone hypothesis at [[16]]. Dseer 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

--- Hi Dseer , please remove the text that I have already removed, if you want discussion that will first require this as a sign of your good faith , covered most of your points in my most recent address to Jim , thanks again --Scribe5 23:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive Discussion Please Before Editing

Scribe5 and other editors, please substantively engage the debate before reverting. Scribe5 twice reverted and wrote, "see talk/balance/NPOV/nonverifiable-by--wiki-best practice/no-original reaseach/", but I had addressed these points for the most part already. Reviewing:

• Balance/NPOV: See Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight. "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." If editors cannot establish the Da-as-Divine-Avatar view as such, then it cannot be featured more prominently than other views of Da. Adidam is a small religious movement, and the reality is probably that the "majority view" of Da is one of simple ignorance, indifference, and disinterest. Of those who know about him, the vast majority are not students. Most who leave the group have ceased to believe his claims of ultimacy. There are degrees of criticism of Da, mild, mixed and severe, but it is without question a collection of significant viewpoints. Most of this I explained just above in my comments on 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC). (The lawsuits were practically his Warholian 15 minutes of fame.)
• Verifiability: National media coverage of lawsuits and critical allegations? How's that? Not good enough for Scribe5, who deleted it. I've explained above how primary source ex-follower material qualifies, with precedent from other articles.
• No original research: Scribe5 objected that I was making up the critical view of Da as narcissist; I have answered that with references.

Scribe5, I have answered every point you raised. You evade or disregard my replies, and have resorted to vague arguments about how my "attitude" is the problem, or the "overall impact" of the article being "grubby". You have given no justification at all for your reverts deleting the lawsuits, the header material (both on controversy and his teaching), and the Chronicle sources. You say self-published cites are not OK, but only if they are critical. You want to remove web links from the article with no basis in Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. This is not the substantive, rigorous debate on Wikipedia standards that you said you welcomed when you first started editing. Please address these issues before further major edits or reverts. -Jim Butler 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5 is right is at least one respect, that is that Wikipedia policy discourages, if not forbids the use of non-reputable sources i.e. blogs and personal websites for statements in article. Newspaper articles are most probably good sources. This includes newspaper articles of which online copies have been published on anti-Adi Da websites. Personal opinions by ex-followers published on anti-Adi Da websites that have not been published in reputable sources are generally not considered good sources. More leniency is generally applied for the external link section. Andries 09:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (amended for clarity)

---

Hi Andries , thanks for the response , I would only be happy with the original versions of the newspaper account or a 3rd party reliable source which is not as sensational and gives devotees a fair rap , this version in fact [17] let me know what you think

Scribe5, linking to publications available on the website of the original publisher are preferable, but if they are not available (anymore) then other websites are okay too. Andries 12:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking into account above comments from Scribe5, Dseer and Andries, I've fleshed out the range of critical POV and restricted the personal sites to the External Links section. Plenty in newspaper and other sources exists to support different POV's cited. Hope this is a move toward consensus, thx -Jim Butler 21:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics represent inflated vocal minority via WP standard

Hi jim , via wikipedia standard I think it is very clear that the critical section should be very small, by the same argument you have already used

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts."

The reference texts are books ( at least 70 ) jim many highly acclaimed and reviewed by scholars , one sensationalised newspaper account from the 1980's actually puts perspective on the hugely dipropionate influence the critics have been given by your editing style on this article which I and others have complained loudly about , now other critics coming in to bolster your flagging arguments ( not saying they have anything to do with you Jim , they come by there own steam ) who supply more of the same " opinion presented as fact " and clearly original work ( via WP definition when unverifiable original work is against policy and should not be included )only increase the strength of my argument. I said before the constant push by the critics for the cheap shot ( scientology, cult, sex, pathology ) continues to be their achillis heel because they cling to these obvious low quality smears harder than " a limpet on the side of a fish tank when someone is trying to clean it up " just increases their appearance of extremist and minority view Put this before any fair minded editor who knows wiki quality articles and has worked on them and I believe they must ultimately concede that by wikipedia best practice your edits must be severely pruned ( and I mean severely )

The critical voice is very vocal via the low standards of "opinion presented as fact" websites where no fact checking goes on and any one can allege anything at any time about anyone with no chance of rebuttal by the people involved. By the same token the low quality blogs and web links you continue to push reflect just that, the minority value of the negative view( per WP guidelines )do you really think the opinion expressed in the 2 blogs ( as it is a sort of rant style and the other embellished personal opinion without fact checking ) could get into descent hard cover, or where are the reputable scholars citing lightmind.com ? Does the website owner have his real name listed on the website ? If not it is anonymous, it does not matter that you know his name it should be clearly stated on his website , then there is all the anonymous material and (perhaps) copyright violations on that domain . Which I would however allow ( at this point )as one link only in the critical external links section.

So just to recap Jim

1/ No hyperlinks in actual body of article they should be clickable citations that take the browser to the link list ( of citations) this will take some time and effort to do , so in the mean time a little bit of flexibility here

2/ Very modest and non sensational critical section , to the point and in line with my argument above for its brevity and no links to extreme views including the 2 blogs mentioned and lightmind.com must be in external links only , the newspaper article will be the one I have provided [18]

3/Expansion of Adi Da’s life to cover major events , and other interests such as art and photography , this should be primarily Adidam orthodoxy , since this is the official version of Adi Da’s life until present time , in line with most other articles about living people

-- One of the problems I see with some critics is an inflated sense of their own importance, wherein they make bellicose claims about being scholars and scholarly websites where as in fact they operate in a very closed environment not exposed to the actual critique of there own objectivity which they espouse voluminously in there opinionated slams of Adi Da and Adidam often with a ridiculously superior tone, a sort of " Toad Hall " strut with a puffed out chest : "Oh look at the egoism of this Adi Da" . The message is clear turn your own espoused objectivity back on your selves, get out into the sunlight of clear thinking and actual objectivity and then you will stop creating a sort of " stinkiness " that pervaded some parts of the internet. If you want respect as critics then earn it by respectable means. --

There is a natural, fair, and NPOV resolution, Scribe5, one I continue to propose. Adi Da and Adidam is controversial, period. All should accept that this article is on is a controversial topic, because (1) religious advocacy and belief are involved, (2) because because the subject of this article does not live an open, independently documented life accessible to those who have not expressed favor towards Adi Da, (3) because self published material by a religious advocacy group is still self published, however professionally packaged, (4) there are documented inconsistencies even within the materials whose origin is Adidam, and (5) the issue of whether the accounts of ex-members are reliable in these types of cases is a matter of dispute but what studies have been done find no hard evidence supporting the unreliability you imply. In these circumstances, the recommended wiki solution for a controversial topic is: "If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones." That is what I am proposing. So, fundamentally, the article should be structured so that stipulated facts and assertions are identified in the beginning. Then the areas where there is controversy should be explored in depth, but in separate sections, advocacy and criticism. That not only simplifies the article's structure for the neutral reader, but allows the pro and con regarding Adi Da to work on improving their own section rather than trying to over edit the other side. So, Scribe5, you could make whatever claims you want about Adi Da in your section, and offer a rebutal whatever critics say that is suitable for mention here; but fairness and NPOV dictates that critics deserve an equal opportunity to rebut controversial statements and a reasonable number of critical information links, not some tiny critical section put in like an afterthought. A strong case isn't weakened by allowing adequate space for an unsound attempt at rebuttal to retain the NPOV. As a critic, I'm not interested in telling you how to advocate for Adi Da or suppressing your ability to make your case, I'm only interested in making sure alternative perspectives from other sources are also offered in every case so we have an NPOV here, then let the reader do the research and decide. I hope you among others take this as the good faith offer that it is, in which case we can all get on with the work at hand. Dseer 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

Hi Dseer and thank you for the "olive branch", whether such an idea could work is another matter but accepted in good faith , and as far as I can tell that is a first in relations between critics and proponents of Adi Da, certainly on Wikipedia, would like to reply in detail on this but pushed for time at present, will try and get back to you on this soon,think that this article could take a great length of time to work out to near a good article ( and perhaps never, being realistic)it could also possibly be a neutral ground where on the talk pages ( staying within broad wikipedia guidelines ) a certain amount of angst and bad relations ( ok off the record lets call it karma ) could be thrashed out in and even diffused in a civilised manner ( perhaps I am being too idealistic? ) , thanks --Scribe5 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is not only possible but best for all concerned, especially the reader, who probably isn't that familiar with the subject and I suspect is confused by reading the various versions of the article and comments here as it goes back and forth. Our moral responsibility as editors is to build a quality article here that recognizes there are differences of opinion, and fairly covers all sides, not make it an editorial, and save the other stuff for more appropriate forums. Lets expand what is stipulated, we should be able to do that, and then go from there being fair to every reasonable POV. It isn't that the advocates and critics don't have documentation and respective positions on everything of importance that could be said here already, so it is just a matter of time to craft concise statements for each position on controversial issues that meet wikipedia standards. To be fair it can be done in stages, as long as there is meaningful progress. While we may like to think that what we put here will definitively convince readers to adopt our POV, that is unrealistic in the limited space nor is it the purpose of Wikipedia. Neither Adidam advocates or critics are going to convince each other to switch sides by what is put here, and we need to consider the reader. Putting myself in the position of a neutral and unfamiliar reader, IMO what we need to do is provide agreed upon information so the casual reader doesn't get bogged down in trying to figure that part out, and enough of the respective perspectives where there is controversy, so that readers can assess what to consider and explore the topic in other, more expansive sources further if they want. To some extent, I submit that is the value of this place, the nature of what we are doing requires of us a higher degree of editorial excellence than the quick opinion pieces we tend to want to write and what we see in some other sites. I am confident we can do it if we keep this vision in mind. Dseer 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer.

[edit] Burden of proof is on those who assert POV is a majority

Hi Scribe5. Self-published books such as Adidam's, whether there are 70 or 70,000 of them, are not sufficient to show that a view is a majority view. They are not "commonly accepted reference texts". Adidam's POV on biographical events and controversies cannot be taken as a majority view. Adidam is a very small religious movement, and insufficient data exists to establish whether a single majority view on these topics even exists. (It would likely be something like: "Adi who?".)

I've already addressed your concerns on verifiability of self-published sites. Remember that pseudonymity is not the same as anonymity. Tom Veitch, Lightmind's publisher, consistently uses the pseudonym "Elias" but makes no secret of his identity, e.g. this post and others on his site. Also keep in mind that Adidam's stuff is every bit as self-published as the stuff from critical ex's, just slicker. Despite all that, guess which site comes up first when you Google for "Daism" (Adidam's previous name)? Pretty good evidence for that site's prominence as a critical voice on the web.

On your requests above: (1) Format doesn't matter as long as NPOV is followed. Wikipedia prefers no specific format. (2) Nope, sorry, NPOV mandates that critical views get full coverage too; see Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. You can't argue undue weight unless you can prove that Adidam's POV on controversial issues is a majority one. North Coast Journal article is OK for Adidam POV, but it doesn't cover critical POV. Also, it's not particularly high on the verifiability scale as a secondary source (less fact-checking ability than the SF Chronicle). (3) Feel free to start writing, but remember, Adidam self-published stuff is verifiable only for Adidam POV, which includes Adi Da's teaching (and even that has evolved over time, irrespective of what the "official" version is these days), but not controversial information. Even biographical information about Adi Da should be qualified with a phrase like "according to his autobiography...".

A final note: your comment above "If you want respect as critics then earn it by respectable means" also applies to those seeking respect as advocates, or as Sat-Gurus. That is why Adi Da is controversial. But Wikipedia is a place where controversies are described, not enacted. Therefore, let's continue to address one another as editors and not as advocates. Thanks, Jim Butler 08:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only advise the editors here to find good sources (e.g. go to a library) and stay close to these sources when writing. As I as said, the question how one should assess the fraction dedicated to criticism and controversy in such articles is unresolved. Andries 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the Wikipedia expert here, Andries. However, in my proposal above, I suggest that being as this is a controversial, polarized issue based on the particular factors that both make Adidam sources less than definitive and make independent assessments very difficult, to wit: (1) religious advocacy and belief are involved, (2) because because the subject of this article does not live an open, independently documented life accessible to those who have not expressed favor towards Adi Da, (3) because self published material by a religious advocacy group is still self published, however professionally packaged, (4) there are documented inconsistencies even within the materials whose origin is Adidam, and (5) the issue of whether the accounts of ex-members are reliable in these types of cases is a matter of dispute but what studies have been done find no hard evidence supporting greater unreliability. This is a NPOV oriented way of resolving the issue that there simply are not enough demonstrably neutral witnesses in this case or the opportunity for independent investigation that would normally be the case, as is confirmed in the article Scribe5 references, where it says:

"...Followers of Adi Da are extremely protective of their "teacher," as they refer to him, refusing a reporter's request to interview or meet the man. And devotee Calladine went further, asking that a reporter not even drive by the Stagecoach Road house. Followers are also restricted access to the religious leader, and are required to be a part of the group for a period of weeks before meeting Adi Da..."

In other words, because Adi Da has had these restrictions on access to some and an increasing degree (and much more severe restrictions on intimate company), dating back to the very early days of the group, that preclude independent, clearly neutral accounts or investigations, and require proven favorable relationship with him for access, one should be able to stipulate that the primary sources for information on Adi Da and what goes on in Adidam are limited to materials published by Adidam (with inconsistencies, revisions and omissions), and accounts by those who were part of the group for a period of time, but that includes those who later left the group and became critics. Newspaper articles are based only on one or more of those sources, not long term, independent review.

For the same reasons, citing only endorsements of theoretical merit after review of self-published writings, usually by those favorably disposed to Adi Da, as Adidam does, does not constitute the kind of open peer review required to put them on a higher plane of reliability, given the charges made by critics, that the walk doesn't match the talk. In making Avataric and enlightenment claims, the real peer review to determine whether there is wide acceptance would be not scholars or devotees, since Adi Da is making specific claims about his state being superior to all others, but his own teachers and other great Spiritual figures alive during his teaching period. There are a host of recent, respected spiritual figures, a number widely respected as enlightened, and they are not endorsing Adi Da's claims, and neither did either of his physical teachers, Rudrananda or Muktananda.

[Note: In trying to validate the Adidam version of events, even independent accounts from those who knew him before he founded the group and imposed these conditions on access are hard to come by, because he lived in relative isolation for long periods and did not keep many long term friends. Accounts of those who knew him in Swami Rudranandas's group and in Scientology are available and revealing but not published in books. As for his time with Swami Muktananda, published sources indicate he spent a total of 4 days in 1968, three weeks or so in 1969, and roughly 3 weeks or so in 1970 and one final visit and confrontation with Muktananda in 1973, and that was all the time they spent in proximity, and we can infer what Muktananda's position on Adi Da became from his comments in their October 1970 meeting and from the transcript of the final break, all available from Adidam sources. Otherwise there is only the published testimony of Sal Lucanias and then wife, both as members and as critics, who were intimate friends but now strong critics from 1968 starting with the Scientology days to the end of 1976, and his former wife, Nina, and the former live in friend Patricia, who remain followers, and a few others who came much later on to study meetings in LA, from the pre-Ashram period; and second hand reports from what they have said].

Given all this inherent lack of definitive, reliable and uncontroversial sourcing, there are, after eliminating clearly unsupported statements, statements that are non-controversial (stipulated) and ones that are controversial (disputed). So, when you take the portions that are non-controversial (agreed upon biographical information, books published, basic teaching) as one section, and then alot a fair and reasonable amount of space for both advocates and critics to concisely present their case, assertion and rebuttal, you have both as close as you can get to a neutral POV and the burden of making the case where it belongs, on the respective advocates. Let those who advocate the Adidam perspective butress their case; let the critics buttress theirs.

I remain opposed to marginalizing sources other than offical Adidam sources (self-published) and endorsements and articles relying mainly on self-published Adidam sources and current devotees of Adi Da because the above factors demonstrate no inherently superior evidence of reputability or reliability from those sources over others. Just as I would oppose marginalizing Adidam sources. A truly NPOV requires that any signifcant controversial claims made by a side should be open to rebuttal using the best available evidence within the flexibility allowed in controversial cases. Nor should all critics of Adi Da be viewed monolithically, different critical perpectives on Adi Da are desirable, which requires sufficient space to present that perspective. Again, a strong case is not dependent on marginalizing opposing information sources, but on its merits. What I propose is, I believe, the fairest way to do it from the perspective of the neutral reader who just wants to be informed on this subject. Dseer 07:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

--- Hi Dseer , sounds like you are asking for a special favour for critics on account of their poor references , a better question is why the poor references ? Also if you check people who have reviewed Adi Da's books over the years many of them are highly qualified in their fields and this alone carries more than enough weight and merit by WP standards ( best not to suggest bias on their part unless you can demonstrate this ) --Scribe5 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No favors needed. The criteria Andries has given above should be workable for citing all POV's. No special standards apply to Adidam self-published materials; these cannot be taken as definitive on matters other than Adidam's own POV and Adi Da's teaching (as of date of publication). Solicited endorsements on book covers do not demonstrate that a majority POV exists (hardly a random sample; selection bias obvious enough). Again, if there is a majority POV on controversial aspects of Da's life, it should be easily citable in a commonly accepted reference. Have any editors found such a thing? If not, undue weight isn't a valid argument. -Jim Butler 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Scribe, I want to be fair to you and to Adi Da. But let me point out that not only are the books self-published, but this long list of reviews [19] demonstrates the problem with your argument. Adidam only lists favorable reviews, not the unfavorable ones or the vast majority of religious scholars who even supporters acknowledge don't take Adi Da seriously, and some of the reviews are not provided in the full context. Many of these reviews are dated and not that relevant. For example Alan Watts did not become a student (it was far different back then than now anyway, with only the 1972/3 Knee of Listening published and with a tiny group), he was responding to an edited manuscript, and he hadn't even met Adi Da when he died in 1973 in ill health, let alone observe him for any time. Many had and even today have never met the man, and some of these reviewers listed have cooled on Adi Da since. Others of these reviewers are or became devotees and that simply means they can't be assumed to be coming from an NPOV. All the other reviewers who have not spent signficant time around Adi Da are only qualified to evaluate the talk, not the walk. That is the problem you have because Adi Da is not open to public scrutiny by neutral observers, compared with many other contemporary spiritual figures who were/are. Not to mention that some of Adi Da's claims about subtle spiritual matters are unique, and not supported or even contradicted by the bulk of spiritual teachings. Does that prove the favorable reviewers are mistaken and critics are correct? No, but it simply means that they don't have the excess weight of majority view and credibility over critics. Again, the fairest solution is to make the best case for and against Adi Da within the Wikipedia guidelines for controversial religions, without giving undue weight to references offered by either side, and instead letting the reader research further and evaluate on their own merits. I submit that if we actually try this, we'll have a better article and more respect for each other. What is there to lose by trying? Dseer 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

It is important to note that while anyone can edit this page the individual who oversees these edits on a regular basis and exerts final say-so over what is deemed accurate is negatively biased toward Adi Da and therefore will tend to filter and interpret any changes in editing from that standpoint. (unsigned comment moved from article)

[edit] Light on the Extreme Critics of Adi Da

Adi Da’s books are technically not self published ( and that is all we are dealing with here, technicalities ) The Dawn Horse Press does publish Adi Da , but not exclusively and has a well respected and high editorial standard over many years , it is a niche esoteric publisher ( primarily Adi Da’s work ) the fact that it does continue to publish other books unrelated to Adidam http://www.dabase.org/dhpress.htm does not qualify it as a mere vanity press, or even exclusive advocacy press “ The Knee of Listening “ had sold over 100,000 copies (needs to be verified ) by the end of the 70 ‘s via the esoteric open book shop circuit ( and can assume similar with the “ The method of the Siddhas” ) and these and other of of Adi Da’s works could hold up by themselves in an open esoteric publishing environment If you go to many libraries in the US , Adi Da and his devotee’s are still the expert cited texts and often only reference to Adi Da this is unlikely to change for reasons given earlier .

The Internet is a different matter , and since it really took off ( late 90’s ) the bulletin board level of informed opinion clearly puts Adi Da and Adidam in the ( cult-sex-pathology-scientology-guru -stay-away) category The devotees voice is fairly well drowned out here. However having conceded the state of play as it exists on the current Internet I have no interest in supporting or assisting nor collaborating with critics who appear to support bigotry , defamation, vilification and religious intolerance or websites that allow this material to be published often in the name of free speech. People who are really interested in the “bloody minded” level of anti new religion ( and similar) internet propaganda may wish to read this article by a sociologist and advocate of religious freedom http://www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm unfortunately some of the more vocal critics of Adi Da and Adidam fit the pattern of “ a professional enemy “ further described here under apostate (need to scroll to near bottom of page )it is most unfortunate that there are several long time posters at lightmind.com clearly fit this pattern and are very active in creating preserving and promoting a distorted and overwhelmingly negative blanket suppression of Adi Da and his benign blessing work.

The extremist critics who fit this pattern ( there may be 5/6 of them ) are relentless manipulative and fully conscious ‘activists’ , others are a mixed bag who often become used at least in overall impact to serve ( generally unconsciously ) the hard core creators of negative opinion about Adi Da and Adidam on the Internet,they are ruthless and there need be no naivity about this fact I could point to many threads at lightmind.com and elsewhere , where people with ‘open’ views on Adi Da and Adidam quickly become convinced of the overwhelming negativity and bad intentions of Adi Da Samraj , his devotees and or Adidam in a reverse proselytism That is something these “activists” consciously strive towards and take satisfaction in , not necessarily in an group organized manner, more as random peer opportunist attacks and smears , including mocking defacement of religious images sacred to Adidam devotees and defaming of individual devotees by name . I mention this here because it may be of interest for people with more than a casual interest in Adi Da and who like to see what goes on behind the scenes of opinion creation If something is said loud and long enough whether true or false , it will tend to stick via virtue of the “ where there is smoke there will be at least some fire “ general rule that tends to dominate Internet based opinion. Devotees put forward ( and certainly not forcefully and with enough strong sound argumentation ) that there is no fire at the root of the debate only a column of murky smoke based on the deliberate misunderstanding and distortion of the work and life of Adi Da and his benign teaching and blessing work with devotees

Light.mind.com and associated blogs and websites are propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda (used in the defined sense of this term ) mediums, they make an interesting study in misinformation , defamation , poor fact checking , secularisation of the sacred, and using suspect methodology to make points ( similar to stacked decks, marked cards , cynically knowing the out come of any enquiry and so on) sock puppet posting , anonymous posting , allowing hate speech , using clearly known copyrighted material and more The reason I think this website should be allowed in the external links is primarily for this reason , so thoughtful people with discriminative abilities who are interested in Adi Da can observe the material presented there from a more informed and clear minded perspective I am in favour of a wider group of people reviewing material from both sides rather than the rather insular way critics support other critics with little external ( non partisan ) review

Anyone who thinks that the more extreme critics of Adi Da and Adidam only use terms randomly without the clear ( contrived ) and thoughtful intent of creating opinion and moulding opinion in a polarised and negative manner need look no further than the current edits around the Adi Da article ( particularly use the history feature on the main Article )

Here is a minor example of the way a much vaunted hero of Anti Da advocacy ( Brokenyogi/blog) uses a mixture of fact with rumour in a strange hyperbole , often making an interesting and riveting read but also resting in the realm of fantasy ( or to make it very clear , it simply did not happen in the way or context he describes ) a novelised version of events with a always false and misleading outcome . There is no doubt Adi Da used alcohol this is well known and not disputed, the suggestion it is disputed is incorrect ( the way he used it is disputed by devotees ) but the use of Amyl Nitrate is completely disputed by devotees , reference to it was made around the infamous Mark Miller letter ( mid 80’s ) the reason it, in particular was put forward as a drug of choice for Adi Da ( then Da Free John ) was because it was known to be an intense orgasm intensifier which would force one to ask the question “ If the adept uses Amyl Nitrate to intensify his personal pleasure then indeed he cannot be an Adept Realiser but an ordinary man with unusual degenerative tendencies “ However BY takes this false information and links it to fact ( Amyl Nitrate is widely believed to increase the risk of glaucoma ) Amyl Nitrate >Glaucoma ( true, but false in relation to Adi Da ) . If you read any of his material on lightmind.com or his blog , it seems to fit this pattern : A mixture of fact with rumour, speculation and no fact checking, that leads to an always believable outcome by his excellent writing style and ability but a damnable conviction of Adi Da and his devotees . The argument that BY also says positive statements about Adi Da , Adidam is, if the reader takes the time, always “Damned by faint praise “ and also 'Praising with faint damns'

Quote

“Adi Da's drinking continued all the way up until he began suffering from serious health problems in the mid and late 90's. In 1995 he had a sudden onset of glaucoma which permanently took away about 80% of his peripheral vision. Naturally, he blamed this on devotee's lack of devotion to him rather than his own unhealthy lifestyle, which included not only large amounts of alcohol but using drugs such as amyl nitrate which constrict blood vessels and which are thus very dangerous for those who have a genetic susceptibility to glaucoma (his father suffered from it also )

Of the 3 qualified sources ( the others should not be cited in my opinion ) the critics have brought forward so far , Wilber, Feuerstein , Bonder these all have WP articles about them and have mixed criticisms and praise of Adi Da , Bonder seems to have the least to say, and their lives in relation to Adi Da are interesting enough in themselves . --Scribe5 04:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scribe5. The Dawn Horse Press is a branch of Adidam. Not only do I know this to be true (as should you, if you've ever been a member of the group), but just check the copyright info on their respective webpages. It can't be credibly argued that their books are useful to establish a majority POV about Adi Da, or for anything other than the Adidam POV, since they're literally a part of Adidam.

Obviously, I disagree with your characterization of Adi Da's critics. An alternative reason for the persistence of criticism of him and Adidam is that there actually is fire and not just smoke. Things haven't really changed that much since '85. They've toned it all down a bit, which is an inevitable result of Adi Da (a) feeling chastised and (b) aging and (c) losing credibility in the world, but the cultism of the group is still screamingly obvious, and Adi Da still lives a life of pampered luxury, financed by struggling worker bees and a few rich donors.

It is unfortunate that many of the posters on Lightmind haven't blogged their experiences under their real names, or gotten them published someplace credible. I should blog some of my own, like this one about Adidam and money. Adidam doesn't advertise the fact that devotees are routinely pressured to donate 25% of their income or more, but it's something that I and many others have experienced. It's also well-known that this money goes for things like Disney Art for Adi Da's personal enjoyment. All donated voluntarily, of course, but the pressure is real; and in reality Adi Da is no renunciate, but really lives more like a pampered celebrity.

In that post, I commented: "I think that perhaps the most useful function this site can serve is as a non-censored means of disseminating information about Daism", but actually I think that the discussion board has mostly failed for the very reason you mention, i.e. the sock-puppet thing. Communicating in that way has helped people blow off steam and work through issues semi-anonymously, but it hasn't been very helpful in credibly spreading the critical POV. Blogging by some ex's has helped, but most of all the efforts of Mark Miller and others back in 1985, who managed to get their story into the major media (also known as a "reliable source", in Wikipedia-speak, for accounts of the lawsuits and critical allegations). The most useful thing about Lightmind, IMO, isn't the discussion board, but the Daism Research Index, which archives that material and much else.

On BY's comment on Adi Da's use of amyl nitrite, why don't you just email and ask him how he heard those allegations? And try and ask Adi Da, while you're at it. I bet I can correctly guess whom you're going to get an answer from.  :-)

thx, Jim Butler 06:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Above comment by Scrobe5 amd response by Jim Butler contain the rudiments of an outline of key points of dispute that could be used as a framework for part of a balanced article.

I do want to comment on some of what was said.

Regarding the issue of Dawn Horse Press, in real terms, it is an integral part of Adidam and is essentially a self-publishing organ advocating Adi Da and Adidam. Even in unusual cases when non-Adidam literature is published, and in the far more unusual case where there isn't any direct commentary by Adi Da, there is always an obvious relation to Adidam and Adi Da in these works. An obvious example of this is the story of the Secret Mark gospel, detailed in this link: http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/secm_commentary.htm. Some extracts follow:

Perhaps the strangest chapter in Secret Mark's long history was its appropriation by the Free Daist Communion, a California-based Eastern religious group led by American-born guru Da Avabhasa (formerly known as Franklin Jones, Da Free John, and Da Kalki). In 1982, The Dawn Horse Press, the voice of this interesting sect, re-published Smith's Harper and Row volume, with a new forword by Elaine Pagels and an added postscript by Smith himself. In 1991 I made contact with this publisher in order to ascertain why they were interested in Secret Mark. I was answered by Saniel Bonder, [then] Da Avabhasa's official biographer and a main spokesman for the Commununion.

Heart-Master Da Avabhasa is Himself a great Spiritual "Transmitter" or "Baptizer" of the highest type. And this is the key to understanding both His interest in, and The Dawn Horse Press's publication of, Smith's Secret Gospel. What Smith discovered, in the fragment of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, is--to Heart-Master Da--an apparent ancient confirmation that Jesus too was a Spirit-Baptizer who initiated disciples into the authentic Spiritual and Yogic process, by night and in circumstances of sacred privacy. This is the single reason why Heart-Master Da was so interested in the story. As it happened, Morton Smith's contract with a previous publisher had expired, and so he was happy to arrange for us to publish the book.[56] Because of the general compatibility of Smith's interpretation of the historical Jesus and the practices of the Da Free John community, the group's leader was inclined to promulgate Smith's theory. It is difficult to judge the precise degree of ritual identity which exists between Master Da and Jesus the magician. Some identity, however, is explicit, as revealed in Bonder's official biography of Master Da: Over the course of Heart-Master Da's Teaching years, His devotees explored all manner of emotional-sexual possibilities, including celibacy, promiscuity, heterosexuality, homosexuality, monogamy, polygamy, polyandy, and many different kinds of living arrangements between intimate partners and among groups of devotees in our various communities.[57]

The parallel between the Daist community during this time and the libertine Christian rituals described by Smith is made stronger by the spiritual leader's intimate involvement with this thorough exploration of the group's erogeny. "Heart-Master Da never withheld Himself from participation in the play of our experiments with us . . ."[58] Georg Feuerstein has published an interview with an anonymous devotee of Master Da who describes a party during which the Master borrowed his wife in order to free him of egotistical jealousy.[59] Like the Carpocratians of eighteen-hundred years ago, and the Corinthian Christians of a century earlier still, the devotees of the Daist Communion sought to come to terms with and conquer their sexual obstacles to ultimate liberation not by merely denying the natural urges, but by immersing themselves in them.

For many years Da Avabhasa himself was surrounded by an "innermost circle" of nine female devotees, which was dismantled in 1986 after the Community and the Master himself had been through trying experiences.[60] In 1988 Da Avabhasa formally declared four of these original nine longtime female devotees his "Kanyas," the significance of which is described well by Saniel Bonder:

Kanyadana is an ancient traditional practice in India, wherein a chaste young woman...is given...to a Sat-Guru either in formal marriage, or as a consort, or simply as a serving initimate. Each kanya thus becomes devoted...in a manner that in unique among all His devotees. She serves the Sat-Guru Personally at all times and, in that unique context, at all times is the recipient of His very Personal Instructions, Blessings, and Regard.[61]

As a kanyadana "kumari", a young woman is necessarily "pure"--that is, chaste and self-transcending in her practice, but also Spiritually Awakened by her Guru, whether she is celibate or Yogically sexually active.[62]

The formation of the Da Avabhasa Gurukala Kanyadana Kumari Order should be seen against the background of sexual experimentation and confrontation through which the Master's community had passed in the decade before, and in light of the sexuality-affirming stance of the Daist Communion in general. The Secret Gospel presented a picture of Jesus as an initiator into ecstasy and a libertine bearing more than a little resemblance to the radical and challenging lessons of Master Da Avabhasa, in place long before 1982 when The Dawn Horse Press re-issued the book.[63]

Regarding the relative credibility of members and ex-members of charismatic religious sects with high attrition rates like Adidam not open to objective public scrutiny, emperical studies have not shown that ex-members are less reliable than members in general. Whether they are unreliable in this case as you assert or reliable as critics assert can't be predetermined by assumptions as to the critic's motives, since both sides have their respective motivations (in simplest terms, religious faith vs disaffection) and there are no objective, NPOV observers because of the nature of the Adidam organization and the layers of insulation around Adi Da, as explained above.

An argument that critics use copyrighted material seems counterproductive, because critics are not citing the material for profit, but to support commentary on Adidam and Adi Da by citing specific portions of the Adidam material. Such a claim does not take into account that fair use for criticism is permissable, nor does it establish lack of credibility, in fact, it is really an admission that the material is bona fide Adidam material, giving the commentary increased credibility. You can use whatever arguments you want to develop, but I'd consider further how you think that benfits the Adidam position.

I agree that the lightmind site posts themselves have limitations on reliability where the identity of the individual is not known, but a review of the site shows it does identify the names of some real people. Not just the webmaster of the site, Tom Veitch, but other are readily identified by name. The primary value of the site, as I see it, is the large amount of collected documentation on Adi Da and the accounts of those whose names are known and the responses of Adidam supporters. Even if you discard the rest of the material, that part alone makes the link sufficiently valuable for the reader looking into both sides. Encapsulating these areas of disagreement is possible. 72.199.185.19 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Dseer

Good observations, Dseer. I think Andries' point about finding good sources and sticking close to them is well-taken. We shouldn't reenact debate within the article, but try to summarize it, with reliable sources. I think that ex-dev blogs should be OK as primary sources, but will go with Andries' understanding for now that such self-published things pretty much aren't. We may revisit this issue later. Still, most of the points that BY makes have already been made in the 1985 material, e.g. this, which is from a verifiable source. What is valuable about BY's blog and others is that they demonstrate that Adidam hasn't undergone some sort of cultbusting reformation, as its proponents would like the public to infer from the lack of media attention since 1985. But we have to go with the best sources that we've got, for all POV's. It's interesting that the official Adidam word on the controversy is for the most part to keep silence. -Jim Butler 05:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes section and Wikiquote

What is wrong with using Wikiquote? Quotes section is being phased out from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Quotations. If quotes are of interest to the reader why wouldn't he just follow the link to Wikiquote? Carry18 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You can work relevant quotes into the body of the article as it says above. But the quotes section should no longer be used, otherwise there will also have to be quotes from this critic, that supporter, et cetera, and it will end up duplicating Wikiquote. This becomes a pointless waste of bandwidth. Carry18 23:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits (esp. to Criticisms section)

Hello 12.218.145.107,

Thank you for your recent edits. Please review verifiability and cite reliable sources for new edits including positions taken by Adidam. Unsourced statements should either be removed or placed here on the Talk page. Carry18 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if critics argue A and advocates answer B, both positions should be sourced. Carry18 04:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Very true. When I was a member, I heard those same criticisms about Boyd Matson, so it's clearly a persistent "meme" within Adidam, but it's got to be verifiable or else it should stay on the discussion page. There are also problems with NPOV; it's not good form to refute ideas as you go along. Criticisms should be well-sourced and presented, and then the Adidam response well-sourced and given in a succeeding section. 12.218.145.107, you may want to fix these problems or another editor surely will. I haven't got much time to edit lately, but you'll probably like the result better if you take it on yourself. Thanks, Jim Butler 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi 12.218.145.107, thanks for your edits lately. I'd like to collaborate here despite our different POV's, since NPOV means that both our POV's will be covered and held to the same standards anyway.

On Matson, it's fine to cite his affiliations, but I think your argument about inferring bias crosses the line into what Wikipedia calls original research. See WP:NOR. It's a perfectly good argument, and one I've heard variations on myself, but unless it's been published someplace (like an official Adidam publication, or a newspaper quoting an Adidam spokesperson), it shouldn't be in the article. The same goes for the arguments against Wilber that you mention; these are on www.adidawilber.com, but like Broken Yogi's blog, Wikipedia doesn't allow citation of primary, self-published sources unless they have been already cited in a reliable secondary source (or in this case, Adidam itself, which as the subject of the article is OK for self-publishing its own POV). Personally, I think that for a movement as small as Adidam, wherein critics and advocates will naturally choose to self-publish on the web, these rules should be relaxed to allow greater latitude to all voices. But until then, we've gotta abide by them, and what we can do is put the unverifiable stuff here on the Talk page, prominently, where we can be sure that truly interested parties will be able to find them. (They can also go in External Links.)

Finally, please keep in mind fairness and sympathetic tone. The criticisms section should be allowed to lay out its arguments without having them systematically deconstructed and refuted as it goes along. The same is true for all POV's. gotta go, look forward to your thoughts. -Jim Butler 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, mostly rv Criticisms to earlier version pending further discussion of NPOV/tone and NOR issues raised above. thx, Jim Butler 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted material from User 12.218.145.107 edits to criticisms section

As mentioned above, much of the material from below is anti-NPOV (tone), original research (Matson, Jesus rhetorically compared to Narcissist), or unverifiable (Adidam members' self-published page with criticism of Wilber[20]). Wikipedia doesn't allow this sort of thing in articles, but does allow it on Talk pages. (Nor do I mean to say that such arguments are without value; we just need to be consistent in how we treat them, pro- or anti-.) So, here is the old Criticisms section containing some Adidam refutations and counter-arguments (indented):

A range of critical opinion exists about Adi Da and Adidam. Adi Da's writings have been praised by a number of popular authors. His claims of unique and ultimate enlightenment have been received more skeptically, as would be expected of a unique and ultimate spiritual realization (since, if unique, no one else has realized it). Outside of Adidam, Adi Da's behavior is generally considered to be much more problematic than his teachings. Adi Da and Adidam have been the target of numerous critical allegations, primarily by disillusioned former students, and secondarily by journalists and anti-cult activists. The substance of these allegations is that Adi Da and/or the organization deceitfully engage in financial exploitation, casual violence, and sexual abuse of members.

In 1985 Adi Da and his church were sued by an ex-member for (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery; the suit sought $5 million in damages [21] (San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday April 4, 1985 [22]). The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million [23], and eventually withdrew that suit and settled out of court with the plaintiff for an undisclosed sum. In 1986, Adi Da was again sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress [24], and again an out-of-court settlement was reached.

No new reports of such abuse have appeared in the news media since that time.

Around the time of these lawsuits, Adi Da and Adidam (then known as Da Free John and The Johannine Daist Communion) were subjects of a report on The Today Show (transcript). Members of Adidam complained that the report was very negatively biased. They also point out that the reporter, Boyd Matson, approached them under the pretenses of doing a favorable presentation of Adidam, only to later turn it into a tabloid-style expose. Finally, they point out that they only later discovered that this supposedly objective reporter had fundamentalist Christian ties and thus a strong incentive to "trash" non-Christian Adidam: Matson is an 1969 alumnus of Southern Nazarene University [25],[26]; SNU is a strong advocate of Christian proselytizing [27],[28],[29]. Their Christian denomination is the Church of the Nazarene, one of whose founders, Phineas Brisee, wrote the book, "700 Plans to Evangelize the World" [30]. Matson continues to fund one of SNU's scholarship programs, the E. Boyd Matson Scholarship [31]. One of the lines in the transcript of Matson's show reads: "His ambitions, as far as I can see, know no limit. He wants all of mankind to be his devotees." Members of the Church of the Nazarene would have a serious problem with that since their Church states: "We will proclaim the ultimate goal of missions: all nations worship Him [Jesus]" [32]. In other Today Show programs, Matson has demonstrated he has no problem letting his "reporting" be influenced by his Nazarene background. For instance, in a 1987 Today Show series on Papua, New Guinea hosted by Matson, he had Nazarene missionaries serve as guides for NBC journalists [33].

Among ex-followers, Adi Da's strongest critics argue that he shows a pattern of abusive, addictive and self-serving behavior (San Francisco Examiner, April 5, 1985 [34]). They view him as engaged in a self-glorifying pursuit of material pleasure and wealth is more consistent with charismatic cult leaders who have pathological narcissism than with the "crazy-wise" avadoots to whom Adi Da compares himself. Others echo or acknowledge these criticisms to varying degrees, while still praising Adi Da's teachings and/or realization (e.g., Georg Feuerstein [35]).

Supporters perceive spiritual import in Adi Da's conduct. They hold that even if the teacher acts in a manner that appears controversial to those holding a solely materialistic viewpoint, it does not detract from the value of the teaching, which they hold is most worth pursuing. They point to similar controversial behavior in many traditional and highly respected spiritual teachers. They point out that Jesus of Nazareth, for instance, was stigmatized by many of his contemporaries for fraternizing with whores and tax collectors, fighting in the Temple, working on the Sabbath, stirring up revolutionary speech and activity, and engaging in behavior reminiscent of pathological narcissism such as claiming to be God, claiming to be the unique path to God ("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [36]), and insisting that his disciples drop absolutely everything else for him ("If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." [37] "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." [38])

Popular author Ken Wilber has repeatedly commented on Adi Da, both positively and negatively [39]. In 1998, he wrote: "...I affirm all of the extremes of my statements about Da: he is one of the greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, in my opinion, and yet other aspects of his personality lag far behind those extraordinary heights. By all means look to him for utterly profound revelations, unequalled in many ways; yet step into his community at your own risk."[40] Wilber has never at any point in his life been involved as a formal member of Adidam.

Critics of Ken Wilber point out that his attempt to reconcile his own conflicted statements about Adi Da with "He's a great Realizer, but a flawed personality" is inaccurate. They cite those of Wilber's writings where Wilber praises the man (including praise for his "moral fortitude" [41]) as well as the teaching.

My comments on the above: These issues have been extensively debated on sites such as the Lightmind Daism Forum (also cf. The Knee of Daism) and discussed on ex-follower blogs such as The Broken Yogi and The Frank Blog. Like the adidawilber.com material mentioned above, most of the material from these sites is generally not considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards, so it also belongs here on the Talk page (tho the links themselves are all fine for External Links). I'll just link to them rather than attempt to summarize them for now. Suffice it to say that these issues have been hashed out extensively (albeit often anonymously) in cyberspace, and people new to the debate should have no trouble tracking down the various arguments. My suggestion is to consider ALL arguments on their own merits and refrain from ad hominem judgement of the people making them. -Jim Butler 05:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing I'll add here on Matson, the Today show reporter: he may well have been biased against Adidam, and from what I heard among Adidamers did choose to include the most flaky, emotional statements from Adidamers (Lesser waxing devotional, Bakker getting mad). But when you read the transcript of that show, you'll see that he didn't have to do any spinning of what the critics were saying. That was damning enough without any adornment or filtering. -Jim Butler 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics have way too much weight here

There is way too much material that is purely derogatory , the lead and critical section needs pruning and all allegations need to be cited , these lines need to go

Adidam has never had more than one or two thousand members since its founding. Adi Da himself relentlessly criticizes his followers for ineffective missionary work. Critics suggest he should point the finger at himself. Supporters perceive spiritual import in Adi Da's conduct. They hold that even if the teacher acts in a controversial manner in the material world, it does not detract from the value of the teaching on the spiritual level, which they hold is most worth pursuing. no verification and just repeats of the 2000 number ( already twice )

This : They argue that his systematic, self-glorifying pursuit of material pleasure and wealth is more consistent with charismatic cult leaders who have pathological narcissism than with the "crazy-wise" avadoots to whom Adi Da compares himself

is not actually stated by anyone , use quoted words to make a point, and if it is not actually stated don't state it.

[[42]] In biographies of living persons Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. --Scribe5 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree on removing unsourced stuff; done. (Will put in statements more carefully sourced later.) Disagree re too much weight given to critics; NPOV requires coverage and you haven't been able to show that the Adidam view is a majority one, so you can't argue undue weight. If anything, the criticisms section needs to cover the actual, verifiable sources in more detail and quote from or summarize them. These did receive quite a bit of media coverage. Criticism is fine in Wikipedia if it's from verifiable sources. At the end of the section, before or after Wilber, Adidam's response to these criticisms also needs to be discussed and sourced to the same standards of verifiability.

There's no escaping the fact that Da did receive a great deal of criticism, and that this appeared in the news media, and thus deserves ample coverage here. How many other verifiable secondary sources discuss him in much detail, anyway? Not that many. IMO, he wanted to be a Satguru, but didn't have it in him, and got outed as a cult leader instead. Had Da been as careful in his treatment of living people as Wikipedia requires its articles to be, he wouldn't have gotten into this mess. thx, Jim Butler 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section

Why does the criticisms section begin: A range of critical opinion exists about Adi Da and Adidam. Adi Da's writings have been praised by a number of popular authors...

Though it goes on to qualify that statement, I think a section on criticisms shouldn't begin with talking about authors praising him. --24.18.35.120

Criticism does not refer only to negatively commenting on something. There are critics (such as Wilber) who like the writings of Adi Da but are not so happy about his conduct. Carry18

[edit] Comment on personal attack

Because he initiated the Wikipedia entry about Adi Da Samraj, this page has long been under the control of a man who was for a brief time a nominal practitioner of Adidam. The man has never betrayed much knowledge of the Great Tradition of human spirituality, which is replete with accounts of great adepts being defamed and even subjected to violence, and even less of the work of Adi Da Samraj, who has been vigorously praised by noteworthy men and women. Probably just a few hours from now our sad, obsessive little man will read these words, press the "revert" button by which he controls this page, and leave you with the impression that the greatest moral and spiritual genius of our time is, alas, just one more disturbed human being. But isn't that the ego for you, reducing any and everything great to its own tired likeness?

Note: Extreme followers of Adidam have a history of vandalizing this article for propaganda purposes (see discussion history), which gives insight into the nature of mindset of many in the group, and is exactly what critics warn of. An example of this mindset is the most recent revision to this article (above, highlighted in bold) by a member of the group, an inappropriate, hateful rant which engages in ad hominem attacks and totally ignores the NPOV standards for wikipedia articles. This attack speaks for itself about the mindset in Adidam, though not in the way this vandal intended. No need to revert this self-inflicted wound yet. Others can do it, and return this article to the former NPOV. (comment left by User:Dseer)

--I'm just pasting this in; also added the following to User_talk:Rustyc since Rustyc recently reverted the bolded attack:

Your change to the page Adi_Da was determined to be unhelpful, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks.

Please also see WP:PA and WP:OWN.

Thanks also to Scribe5 for earlier reverting of the above vandalism. thx, Jim Butler 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the above vandalism begins "because he initiated the Wikipedia entry about Adi Da Samraj, this page has long been under the control of a man who was for a brief time a nominal practitioner of Adidam." In point of fact, I initiated this entry on Adi Da, although the above does not seem to be referring to me. Therefore, it begins with a falsehood. I have certainly never been any kind of practitioner of Adidam. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he's actually referring to me since he's expressed similar sentiments in the past, and I was a member for a few years. I'm not sure what a "nominal practitioner" is. I was about as involved as a worker-bee type out in the regions can be, participating on a daily basis at the center. I meditated, ran the bookstore, was "service coordinator" in my region, donated way too much money, went to Fiji and had Adi Da comment favorably on my practice. And yet I somehow failed to attain lasting understanding of Da's radical, POV-transcending spiritual wonderfulness. I bet that, and not whatever I did while a member, is what consigns me to mere "nominal" status. Same for all ex-Daists who voice a word of criticism. See how the cultic mind insulates itself?

edit: anyway, I'm leaving the personal attack here for now since it's a good object lesson for Dseer's points....

Take care Nat, and thanks for stopping by and clarifying that you are in fact the first, last and only Owner of this article.  ;-) BTW, how do you make that "talk" superscript appear with your signature? I'm dense at the moment and not getting it from WP:SIG. cheers, Jim Butler 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to "My Preferences" and modify the "Nickname" field. I have it as [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]^{([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]])}. Cheers, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - OK, I had to check the "raw signature" box ...cheers! Jim Butler^(talk) 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statement about plaintiff recanting

Rustcy had this: "The most central figure behind these allegations, Beverly Jacobs (who at the time was married to Adidam's CEO), has since repudiated them as manufactured by her lawyer." I have removed it unless a source can be provided. Carry18 04:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rustcy if you can find a written source which quotes the line you used , please include it even though it is common knowledge in Adidam , that much was recanted , you may need a written source to verify it for this media , using PGM for a ref , if you know a better one please feel free to edit , thanks --Scribe5 10:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5, unfortunately a self-published Adidam source is not reliable for portraying what an opponent said, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have removed that part of the statement. Lee is fine for saying what Adidam's view of crazy wisdom is. If Lee uses a third-party reliable source for the plaintiff, then we can cite that. I have her book and could not find her citing any source. Carry18 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTCIt

I think it is a fine reference, and was not published by vanity press or herself, so I am happy for it to be used ,others can have their own opinion, it only reflects what is in common knowledge so it should stand--Scribe5 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of seeking to hide rather than improve in the edit summary, and that is unwarranted and contrary to good faith. (Also ironic, given your repeated efforts on Wikiquote to suppress Mark Miller's critical statements.) I only removed what was unverified a/o POV. There are several issues:

• You argue that this book isn't self-published by Adidam: The Promised God-Man Is Here, subtitled "The Authorized Concise Biography of Avatar Adi Da Samraj", published by the Dawn Horse Press, the publishing division of Adidam. Are you serious?
• You also justify the assertion in question as "common knowledge". It sounds like you need to re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability carefully. Why should the reader accept rumor as fact? Even if it is true, which I doubt, it needs a verifiable source. Particularly because it is contentious: if you want to say that a plaintiff basically admitted to lying under oath, you need to make extra sure that the source is reliable. A self-published source from the defendant accusing the plaintiff of lying isn't quite what Wikipedia requires here! Please also see section 3 of the Verifiability article including the parts on living persons and self-published sources.
• Blurbs praising Da seem hard to justify in the lead section. They are basically advertising, they don't appear in other articles on religion, and there are plenty of quotes by and about Da on Wikiquote. Which ones should be used? Are they supposed to represent some imaginary consensus? What exactly is the point - that some scholars like Da's books? The Wilber quote in particular is on shaky ground. AFAIK it's never appeared in a verifiable source (i.e. one Wilber acknowledges). It is also presented in a very Adidam-POV way, as if Wilber truly believes his priase but only "appears" to criticize. What Wilber has said (verifiably) is already in the article and seems fairly summarized by his quote to the effect of "I stand by all my contradictory statements". If Wilber is mentioned in the lead it should be balanced accordingly.

Scribe5, any disagreement? Other editors? thank you-Carry18 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately , you are not treating the Adi Da article as that of a authentic religous figure , I think that is the root of the problem as I see it, also will find a place to quote the CL text , it is very important that the public are made aware of it since it bears greatly on the anchorage, a lot of low grade critics put on the law suits. By the way I know of several students who left Adidam who Do Not put any credence on those law suits , where is their view represented ? --Scribe5 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess some of us have been unaware of the two sets of Wikipedia standards: NPOV for regular Joes, Sympathetic POV for Religious Figures. Seriously, all I can tell you is find reliable sources and use them. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section again

Personal attacks aren't going to deter me from editing, Rustyc, quite the opposite in fact given my contrariness, so you might as well come out and try to defend your views substantively. Your changes to Wilber in that section were extremely POV; can you recognize this? Scribe5, the controversies surrounding Adi Da are bigger than you want to give them credit for. Even that "unofficial" Wilber letter that Adidamers like to quote[43] says "The general consensus, believe me, is that the Community and its final Authority have demonstrated a genius for negative public relations." Wilber is talking about the reports of Adi Da's misconduct that started coming out in 1985. Da's 15 minutes of fame in the national media were dominated by these reports of him and his group engaging in financial, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. If the lead section (see WP:LEAD) is supposed to function as a brief summary of the article, then this stuff needs to be in there; it has had a profound and lasting impact on Da, Adidam, and how they are perceived by others. Happy also to add something about some scholars praising his books as long as it doesn't go too far. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tagging re lead; requesting other editors' input

Sorry to flirt with 3RR there, Scribe5 - noticed you did the same. You don't think the lawsuits are relevant enough to mention in the lead; I do. What do other editors say? Let's seek their input and reach consensus. I'm not going to edit war in the meantime but am going to NPOV tag it as it stands. Here's a diff between the two proposed lead sections: diff. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the lead is this, the civil suites were a very minor event in Adi Da’s life it received a bare minimum of space ( perhaps 1 paragraph ) in Carolyn Lee’s Official Biography ( Promised God Man is here ) They are not mentioned on the Adidam website ( in contrast to other groups who have had similar problems)

Someone said that these were the source of Ken Wilber’s more recent criticism ( I doubt that very much ) and have never seen him make a direct reference to them in print

More than adequate space is devoted to these events in the criticism section ( and even there work needs done), so the reader can take account of them in the area they are seen to have importance.

In the lead short summary a reference to them creates a POV impact due to mere mention of law = scandal , if they were not civil suites ( but criminal ) or if they were guilt proven ( rather than out of court settlements ) then a reference might be made.

From the life evidence of Adi Da ( books, writing, verbal teaching ) these events had minimal impact or interest to him or his life, so do not rate a mention in the lead

The undue weight creating POV, reference to them is unnecessary in the lead and out of balance to the whole article ( this will become more obvious as it is expanded ) They are thoroughly covered in the critical section ( more pruning needed )

The argument that reports appeared in the media briefly in 1985 so this warrants inclusion in the lead has to be weighed against the whole article, as already stated these reports are thoroughly covered in the correct section and do no warrant inclusion in the lead section--Scribe5 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5, your first paragraph suggests to me that you just don't get WP:NPOV or WP:V. The issue isn't whether or not Adidam says the controversy was notable. You seem to believe that the official Adidam line is what the article should follow. But articles in national media are, by Wikipedia standards, actually considered MORE reliable than self-published material.

On Wilber: when he says "By this time (around 1985), things were starting to become very problematic for Da, his personal life, his community, and his teaching in the world"[44], what do you think he could be talking about besides the 1985 lawsuits and media coverage? Da's shaving his head or something? Come on, try to be a little objective.

You may not think Da is controversial, but Wilber and lots of others disagree, and it's pretty clear why. The article as it stands is IMO weighted WAY too heavily toward the official Adidam line. Time will tell if a majority of other editors concur. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scribe 5 reverts and 1985 in lead

Hello Scribe5. WP:DR says editors should discuss rather than revert. I made three changes: rewording a paragraph on the lawsuits and settlements, putting the 1985 controversy back in the lead and adding a Mark My Words quote. What were your objections? I also saw that you put bullet points on the paragraphs in the Criticism section, but don't understand the purpose since they are not really distinct points. I also don't see how removing wikilinks improves the article. thank you Carry18 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not discuss why you think my additions are not neutral? I added a Washington Post article from 2005 that says "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, slavery, false imprisonment, assault and brainwashing that was said to include persuading people to give him all their money."[45] It was widely reported at the time and this source provides more confirmation. Why is it not NPOV to mention this? Carry18 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly stop harrassing me ( do not leave messages on my talk page etc ), if I do not wish to dialogue with you that is my business. Put whatever you wish to in the critical sections ( which will be pruned and looked at for neutrality ) the bulletin points are for the reader, and to make the criticisms very clear ( since this article is about a living person ) that should be carefully vetted , the highlighted text was an underhand way of drawing attention to what should be in plain text. I discussed the lead in detail above and have no interest in ad nauseaum contests--Scribe5 02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also 12.218.145.107 for the rv --Scribe5 02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel like it's unnecessary to dialogue, but that's part of Wikiquette. We're both trying to make a better article and when we have disagreements we're supposed to talk about them. I am not harrassing you, nor would I want you to believe I was. I'm doing my best to follow WP:DR. Leaving a message about our edits on your User Talk page is completely legitimate. See Help:Talk page including "etiquette".

I suggest we and other editors discuss our differences. About the Mark My Words quote you keep deleting without explanation: Why is one quote from Adi Da about his role significant enough to mention in the lead, but not another? He's made a number of statements about himself through the years including the "assert what I deny" business.

About the the lawsuits and related issues in the lead section, I will try to address the concerns you've raised:

• You say these topics are already covered in the Criticisms section. Isn't the lead section supposed to summarize the article?
• You say it is undue weight, but relative to what? To Adidam's self-published "official" view? As another editor mentions, Adidam's books are of limited reliability within WP guidelines (see WP:RS). Unlike any of Adidam's publications, the national media covered both Adidam and the critics.
• You say they were not criminal charges and therefore not significant. That isn't the only criterion for significance. Bill Clinton was impeached. That was significant, even if some people thought it shouldn't have happened. It did get a lot of media coverage. Same with the controversy about Adidam. Adidam has never before or since garnered that kind of national media attention. That alone establishes its significance.
• You object that Adi Da isn't being treated as an "authentic religous figure" and that his critics are "low grade". That is one POV. You haven't shown it's a majority POV other than in Adidam, and it's not NPOV. The sources I'm using to cover the controversy are are more reliable, per Wikipedia guidelines, than Adidam's self-published side. There are other places on the web where Adidam can be presented in a purely sympathetic light.

I look forward to discussing these issues. thank you Carry18 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh..... Scribe5, I see you removed the material again. Would you mind following decent Wikiquette and discuss this? All you said in your edit summary was "put verified material in critical section , not in lead" which doesn't make much sense. With my post above I was trying to move the discussion forward by answering your concerns. I don't mind taking out the Da quotes about himself but I strongly feel the 1985 controversy deserves to stay. thank you, Carry18 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section is not NPOV

Here's the problem in a nutshell. The lead as it stands contains simple factual information, a statement by Adi Da about himself, and a statement of Adidam's perspective that he is an Avatar. There isn't anything in there about the critical POV at all, even though those critics were able to make public statements in verifiable sources, including sworn statements. How is that NPOV? thank you, Carry18 21:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the disputed section to the lead with an added comment that Adidam disputed the allegations. Please discuss. Carry18 00:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Being as we can't even get a discussion on this impasse going, I've made a stab at trying to resolve this deadlock based on previous dialogue here. I think adding language to the lead pointing out that Adi Da is a polarizing figure even to those who know him, which anyone who is honest will agree is the case. In this way, it should then draw readers into the article to consider both the advocacy and critical POVs, and this includes the 1985 allegations widely reported which do deserve some attention. I've tried to outline all the basic critical issues surrounding Adi Da and Adidam from the critics POV by strenghtening the criticism portion without changing the portion devoted to advocacy. I commend Scribe5 for dealing with the vandal making personal attacks, and have no issue with Scribe5's strengthening the Adi Da advocacy portions of this article as I suggested he should earlier. But once again, I'd like to advocate we all follow my previous suggestion of concentrating on strengthening our respective positions so all issues can be put forth rather than trying to spend so much effort to cut out the other side, so we can cover all the issues pro and con, and retain some sort of NPOV here. None of us who knew Adi Da is going to convince the others who have made up their minds to change their opinion on Adi Da, and we all know the same arguments backwards and forwards and each of thinks we are right; but we owe it to the readers who do not know Adi Da to fairly present both sides to the fair minded and let them draw their own conclusions. Dseer 26 June 2006.

[edit] What is wrong with wikilinking in Criticisms section?

Scribe5, the summary for your last edit said "dont use gratuitous highlights, or italics". There was none of either. What you removed were a parenthetical "among other things", which is factually true (see complaint, and wikilinking, which is appropriate generally, contextually and in proportion to the rest of the article (see WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT). Please clarify what your objection is. thank you, Carry18 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try some dialogue here, please. It seems to me "among other things" is factually accurate based on a reading of the actual lawsuit. Please articulate your objections to restoring just those three words, Scribe5; perhaps using commas for this clause instead would be acceptable? I think since you are an advocate for Adidam the burden is justifying the changes you are making to the criticism section, just as I would have the burden if I started editing the portion describing Adidam's written teaching. Dseer 26 June 06

The edits you made can't hold, there is no verification, and it is not a bulletin board where you can just state opinions as fact. "among other things" is a ridiculous ambiguous statement, leave it in if you want, but it is an absurd thing to put in a legal document ( may be lawyers do this but seems "daft' to me ) You guys are so past fixated " those who knew him " its 2006, time to move on ( dont forget to sign )  !--Scribe5 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you here again Scribe5. Agree DSeer you do need to source a number of your statements, even if they're true, see WP:V. But they were made in an excellent spirit of reconciling diverse views, and Scribe5, you might have tried to reciprocate by improving his edits somehow, not just reverting. I hope your return to this page here means you're going to stick around. We'd clashed over the lead section and wikilinking stuff, and I tried to qualify the former and explain that the latter is just wikilinking, like how any links shows up, not gratuitious highlighting. I was specific further above on the lead, and just above on wikilinking, so I hope that's something useful to chew on. Carry on- best wishes Carry18 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

can someone who knows how to, archive this whole section , it now takes way to long to download and edit --Scribe5 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dseer seems to suggest I am an official spokesman for Adidam , or have some formal agenda there ( acting on their behalf or similar), this is not true at all, my actions here are entirely as a private person with my own personal views ( subject to bias and error as with all others )--Scribe5 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5 reverted again without discussion of any of the points above. Since June 23 he has continued to rebuff attempts on my part to solicit discussion (see section above entitled "Scribe 5 reverts and 1985 in lead"). His insistence on removing wikilinking and on including pointless bullet points is beyond reason. His removing the notable 1985 controversy from the lead section is unjustified. Dseer's reverting "unconventional" to "controversial" as a description of Adi Da is the least that can be done. This article has moved to the periphery of apologist absurdity. Reverting to a version that at least has some semblance of NPOV amidst all the Da jargon.[46] Carry18 05:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribe5, you know as well as I do how Adidam restricts that official spokesman role in Adidam. Your not being an "official spokesman" means little, no formal role is required, what you clearly are is an Adidam advocate based on your beliefs and you stand in dedicated opposition to critics of Adi Da, and any pretense of your being neutral is easily shown to be false. That bias itself is fine, I only asked that you admit your bias and then concentrate on building the pro-Adidam case instead of suppressing the critic's case based on your bias, just as I have not made a big deal of quoting what many consider self-published Adidam propaganda, so to let the objective reader decide for themselves, and you have not done so. This bias means your attemts to serve as arbitrator on statements critical to Adi Da result in a NPOV article. Case in point, Adi Da is controversial (defined by dictionary as of, producing or marked by controversy, (as opposed to merely unconventional, defined by dictionary as not adhering to convention), has been called such, was sued and publically criticized in the press and even by scholars, is listed as a destructive cult leader in anti-cult circles, and widely considered problematic, and those who have known him are deeply polarized, and that is demonstrated by referring to the links here. Since Adi Da claims everyone else in history is not fully enlightened, it is no wonder and has been the subject of scholarly commentary in various links here that there is no evidence of sigificant spiritual figures widely recognized as being in the highest stages of spirituality endorsing his claims. And, I did not list the statements of critics were proven fact, but accurately as their perceptions of the key points of criticism of Adi Da, and those points from the critics POV I listed are all sourced in various links here. Demonstrating the claims of critics are true based on sourcing is one thing, that the summary of critics claims have been made are consistent with the critical links is another. Properly sourcing perhaps insufficiently sourced at present that is sourced in existing links is a matter that can be discussed without your constant reversions. There is nothing in my proposed framework for a compromise and further refinement you reverted that is inconsistent with the statements in the critical links provided. Regardless of your beliefs, the self-published Adidam material has no more presumption of credibility than that of the critics, and as I have pointed out, the self-admitted secretive nature of Adidam precludes adequate objective review by neutral scholars and journalists.DseerDseer 28 June 2006

Dseer, you do an excellent job of framing NPOV here. The only thing I want to comment on is that it really doesn't make any difference whether Scribe5 is head of the Adidam Mission or a diehard atheist who's never given them a dime. The problem is the content of his edits and the fact the he won't discuss them. Carry18 23:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Carry18, it is the results and not the motives that matter. The comments that M. Alan Kazlev, an active Wikipedian, has made about another of his edits removing references to Adi Da are relevant, and I think, consistent with the views of most Wikipedians: "Finally, it's the role of Wikipedia to include all POVs, not simply a single POV on a controversial and partisan issue. Although I wrote the original page here, I feel it is absolutely essential and necessary for others of all POVs (in this case pro-Da, anti-Da, and non-aligned) to further comment, elaborate, include varying povs representing the views of all factions, etc. That's the way that Wikipedia works." That is how it needs to be here too, the controversy needs to be recognized and addressed, or the dispute resolution process to restore NPOV will be fully engaged. Dseer 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Dseer

[edit] Desist in bullying and personal attacks

The more you try and bully me,the less chance of any dialogue and will contunue to edit for what I consider a neutral and fair article about Adi Da. An example is Swami Kriyananada, no law suits mentioned in lead even though these were proved guilty in court The article is clear and neutral, critical section is direct ( nothing tricky here ) and unsensational, to the point and easy for the reader to read , my edits are in this direction ( and will continue to be)

[[47]] --Scribe5 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

controversial

"In propaganda The term is not always used in a purely descriptive way. The use of the word tends itself to create controversy where none may have authentically existed, acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Propagandists, therefore, may employ it as a "tar-brush," pejoratively, and thus create a perceived atmosphere of controversy, discrediting the subject: " [48]--Scribe5 12:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Asking a fellow Wikipedian to follow WP:DR properly, and calling them on it when they don't, isn't bullying. Wikipedia is a community with certain standards, and by refusing to discuss your edits, you are flouting them. If you find being held accountable offensive, then you shouldn't be editing.

The Kriyananda article IMO should mention lawsuits in the lead section, but the sources aren't nearly as good as the ones here. "Controversial" can also be an apt description and given comments by Wilber it seems fair. The Streiker quote is pure undue weight and would be appropriate only with a full spectrum of quotes from the newspaper articles. I will work on that. You're still ignoring all the other points above[49]. Reverting.Carry18 04:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You simply aren't going to be able to suppress all POVs except the one you support, Scribe5, and other Wikipedians are free to comment on their perspective on your edits. Try taking a more objective, typical Wikipedian perspective which encourages all POVs instead, which would improve the article. All that is asked of you is to agree that: "it's the role of Wikipedia to include all POVs, not simply a single POV on a controversial and partisan issue", and that it "is absolutely essential and necessary for others of all POVs (in this case pro-Da, anti-Da, and non-aligned) to further comment, elaborate, include varying povs representing the views of all factions, etc. That's the way that Wikipedia works." What's so wrong about that, Scribe5? Until you recognize your pro-Adi Da bias is such that you have shown repeatedly you can't fairly edit the critical portion of the article with any kind of NPOV, and stop trying to suppress views you don't agree with, you will get commensurate resistance. If you continue to refuse to dialogue about your efforts to gut the critical portion which you justify by falsely claiming you are being bullied, what you put will simply be edited back to a more NPOV. Sorry, Scribe5, a controversy exists, and the positions are highly polarized, you are just on one end of the spectrum and you want to find reasons to suppress the fact there is a meaningful controversy. The section on propaganda you cite has no relevance to the situation here, and the article specifically mentions theology alone as an highly contoversial area, and the problem here includes but is far more than theological, making it even more controversial. In this case, Adi Da has been recognized as controversial since the begining, see even in Method, and particularly after G&G, which is precisely why he wrote "the way I teach" aplogetic in 1975. All this could impass could end if you just gave critics the latitude in the critical portions regarding Adi Da that critics give you latitude in the pro-Adi Da portion. Dseer 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Dseer

[edit] Speaking of "controversial"...

Notice use of the word "controversial" in the lead section of today's featured article on Pope Pius XII (version as of now). There is even a subsection entitled "Hitler's Pope"! Could anything be more offensive to a devout Roman Catholic? But that's what NPOV is about; that view is well-sourced so it gets covered even if some find it repugnant. As the NPOV FAQ says (emphasis added), "It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." Carry18 06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (edit wikilink 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC))