Talk:Adi Da/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Fresh start

Advice to myself, Dseer and Scribe5 alike: let's try to abide by WP:TALK and all the stuff it says at the top of the page, and keep comments civil and focused on the article rather than the article's general subject. The preceding discussion (see Talk:Adi_Da/Archive4) was becoming almost unreadable to editors new to the page, and if the page needs anything, it's more good editors. Let's make it a welcoming and readable environment for them! Suggest moving long discussions about philosophies of editing, Adi Da himself, etc., to user talk pages. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Future Collateral Art Exhibit

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.

I am for liberality, but the proposed weight given to sections involving Adi Da's notability as an artist and opinions about his art, and the notability of the future collateral exhibit in Vienna being mentioned in the text as opposed to the mention in the existing cites on Adi Da's art, are subject to discussion. The mere fact that a proposed exhibition has now been scheduled is not sufficient to justify mention of it in the text. Based on what Wikipedia states: Would Adi Da merit a lengthy article based on his art alone? Is the Adi Da art exhibit noteworthy enough to merit an article if it occurs? I think not. The mention of the planned exhibit and the curator in the text seem to appear to be more like advertising than notable. Mention of the future exhibit and curator in citations and ELs should be sufficient at least until the exhibition is over and results can be assessed. --Dseer 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Every revision that has occurred to "tone down" or "improve" this article has really been advertising. This piece is being used by Adidam to proselytize. They will not stop in their efforts to remove anything critical and enhance anything that will help their missionary efforts. BECAUSE material has been systematically removed whenever it is critical of Franklin, people get into this that would never involve themselves if they knew the truth. An encyclopedia should give a balanced view. My opinion is that much of the advertising materials should be removed. Please discuss this. 128.120.52.38 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Dave

June 2007 edits and editor 202.63.42.221

Hello and thank you for your work on expanding the article. Some of your additions may be questionable, but like Dseer I agree that it is generally alright to be liberal about this, as long as we are equally liberal about allowing all well-sourced views, which is the essence of NPOV.

There is a concept in Wikipedia called "undue weight" that applies here. How notable is Adi Da as an artist outside of Adidam?

I don't think Kripal really belongs in the lead because he isn't as notable as Wilber and your source isn't a secondary one. However if you insist in including quotes besides Wilber, I'd like to include Lane. Or maybe it would be better to remove it all, or just leave Wilber.

The criticisms deserve their own paragraph in the lead with adequate detail. The material is better-sourced than viritually all of the other biographical material in the article, because it actually has secondary sourcing. Please see Wikipedia's policy on sources.

There is no reason to delete Adi Da's statements about his avataric function. Noting some of the development of his teachings is entirely appropriate here.

Finally, saying that one of the people who sued has since recanted requires an unbiased verifiable source. If you can't find one, it should go.

thanks. Comesincolors 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Comesincolors I have not got a lot of time to discuss the article ,would rather spend my time adding good content, so where possible keep it brief and use the edit bar for notes ( if possible) the discussion page has lead to numerous disputes and ends up just retarding the article, where editors were not really interested in adding useful content but rather engaging in dialogue to keep a POV entrenched , not many editors are interested in the is article and in the past very little outside opinion or help has been offered ( with disputes and so on )-looking at the archives Just to address your points ( once if possible )

• There is a concept in Wikipedia called "undue weight" that applies here. How notable is Adi Da as an artist outside of Adidam?

• You seem to be just repeating what Dseer said , do your own research perhaps ( is the Venice Biennale outside of Adidam ? - 3 notable curators reviews on the website in links)) It is expected of editors to know their subject

• I don't think Kripal really belongs in the lead because he isn't as notable as Wilber and your source isn't a secondary one. However if you insist in including quotes besides Wilber, I'd like to include Lane. Or maybe it would be better to remove it all, or just leave Wilber.

• the lane quote is like saying the subject is an intelligent "nigger" but a "nigger" none the less, a joke really to try and include it , if you think thats valid .... why not use this lane quote instead "There are very few spiritual teachers in the 20th century who could be termed religious geniuses. Da Free John is one of them."

• The Kripal quote gives balance to the lead and represents a contemporary scholars view, and should be included, the article is about the subject ( Adi Da ) not his critics or their viewpoints ( which are included in the article ) nor is it about the today show or newspaper reports or former students views of Adi Da , no matter where they are sourced

• There is no reason to delete Adi Da's statements about his avataric function. Noting some of the development of his teachings is entirely appropriate here.

• why include it ? , you could include any text from countless books , it is not cohesive or instructive and is original research , it does not really represent the teaching of Adi Da or clarify anything ( the teaching section needs to be re written )

Comments: There were multiple, independent lawsuits, settled out of court, and outside of Adidam advocacy sources, even in reference to the one lawsuit involving the divorcing parties, where is the evidence for a "public" apology in public sources? If it is not immediately and satisfactorily sourced, it is libelous, and the claim will be removed. The art exhibit clearly does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of a future event, but most editors can see that so I am merely pointing that out and would prefer other editors remove it. Otherwise, while most of the added material is "according to Adidam" and a discerning reader will see that, I have never had basic objections to concept or the recent expansion of the biography to include more details, because it is consistent with what I said a long time ago, that advocates are primarily responsible for adding more favorable material that meets wikipedia guidelines, and conversely should avoid information suppression on neutral and critical material. Let's be clear, the disputes have revolved around the latter, not the former. --Dseer 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead section and controversies

Editor 202.63.42.221: Please stop removing the criticisms section from the lead. I've explained above why it should stay, and you don't have consensus to remove it. Dseer has already stated his opinion that it should stay, and I agree. Start an RfC if you disagree.

Regarding the Adidam response, Bonder is OK (self-published by Adidam), but O'Mahony is not (self-published by individuals not officially representing Adidam). Also, the responses shouldn't be longer than the criticisms themselves.

You need to use specific arguments, not vague notions like "retarding" the article or the "spirit" of WP. thank you - Comesincolors 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Comesincolors is this your argument for the critical material in the lead ?

The criticisms deserve their own paragraph in the lead with adequate detail. The material is better-sourced than viritually all of the other biographical material in the article, because it actually has secondary sourcing. Please see Wikipedia's policy on sources.

What difference does it make how well sourced the material is , if it has an over-weighted negative impact on the whole article? And in truth the refs are good by WP standards but the articles themselves are appalling , nothing more than sensation seeking scandal mongering ( and at the time riding on 1980's anti guru and new religion hysteria ) , the today show report is a terrible example of biased reporting , absurdly so Why would anyone want to promote this tabloid style reports as fact? Why would they not see them for what they obviously are in 2007- an embarrassment to ethical journalistic standards.

Now of course you can argue that by WP guidelines , this does not matter one jot , let the readers decide , the lead guidelines ( and guidelines alone they are - many good bios do not use this style guide at all) say that the lead may have mention of these critical reports , the problem is by deliberately and purposely putting this text in the lead it prejudices the whole article which is just fine for those with this agenda in mind ( which is and was ) clearly the case for those who support this lead and contrived this lead in the first place Again it could be argued that the fairness or unfairness of this does not matter either , WP is not a place to decide such matters , it does not matter that cynical editors conspire to weight an article like a dishonest shopkeeper with his hidden hand on the scales . It does however require people to be quiet about such things therefore I will be bold and call for this

Lead style

This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

So I say in this case make the exception , the article is all the better for it , it can move out of the 1985 hiatus into a more current and topical article , this again will not suit editors will another agenda but who cares really , get on board with useful material or edit another article and stop retarding this one to 1980's thinking , thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) --202.63.42.221 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that any such exception is warranted here, and your arguments aren't supported by WP policy. You might as well argue that including impeachment in the article on Bill Clinton is "retarding" it to 1992 1998 (how time flies) and giving an "over-weighted negative impact". Just because something happened years ago doesn't make it irrelevant, even if you disagree with whatever transpired and how the media covered it. It remains part of the historical record, and WP is not selective in that regard. Anyway, I notice that your last few edits are now leaving the material in the lead section intact, so thanks and I hope you continue to do so. Comesincolors 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

yes your argument about Bill Clinton would be laudable if the lead was unfairly weighted in this same way but take a look it is not. Neutral language is very important. Anyway have suggested a neutral compromise which I am not happy with particularly , but will settle for reasonable rather than perfect, and expect the same from yourself.

--202.63.42.221 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to editor 202.63.42.221; re below RfC

Sorry, I still don't agree. I feel you are asking me to compromise between a barely acceptable version of the article (i.e., the stable one with the separate paragraph in the lead on the controversies) and a totally unacceptable one. I will not go along with your efforts to strip out the few secondary sources that article has left (whether in the lead or the article body). Therefore, reverted. No personal offense meant, but I think the article is in much worse shape since you've been editing it: First, you've bloated it with material that relies far to heavily on Adidam-self-published material. See WP:SELFPUB, which says: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: .... the article is not based primarily on such sources." The present version of the article has 78 footnotes, approximately 75% of which are self-published by Adidam (or are convenience links to same). Second, you're now trying to minimize or delete material that is critical of Adidam (e.g., the lead section, and your edits to the controversies/criticisms, which give too much weight to Adidam's responses and thus violate NPOV's fairness of tone. And finally, you desperately need a copy editor to correct the numerous typographical and grammatical errors in your writing. As a result, the article is basically a mess, and needs input from more editors. I'm filing an article RfC. If other editors agree with my assessment, please act accordingly. thanks. Comesincolors 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree. I feel you are asking me to compromise between a barely acceptable version of the article (i.e., the stable one with the separate paragraph in the lead on the controversies) and a totally unacceptable one.

ok sorry to hear that , since you will not compromise ,and that was an attempt at compromise ,in that you would perhaps come back with a fairer version (from your view ) and we could argue it out down to the line , one we may agree to disagree on ( here giving you an in good faith option ) you could have at least made a move to meet me in the middle which is what WP is supposed to be about, while you clearly have not attempted to do. Also what you said above is pretty much how I feel about your version of the lead. "I feel you are asking me to compromise between a barely acceptable version of the article ..and a totally unacceptable one"

I am happy to argue further about the lead, before moving on to other parts of the the article, for the time being will revert it back to a more neutral position ,and if you wish we can argue it line by line —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to compromise if you provided arguments based in WP policy rather than just asserting that "more neutral" means something midway between our positions. I'm arguing that NPOV and VER support the inclusion of the wording and sources in the lead. You're ignoring those points. Compromise is supposed to be based on policy, not personal preference. Comesincolors 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read this because this is exactly what is going on here , from your team , in my opinion , and will continue to point this out at every opportunity [1]

Quote It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable.

You can endlessly try and argue WP to your own biased advantage , lots of people do it, and you generally get a poor article from doing this, I would prefer to have an honest approach based on a compromise representing conflicting points of view in a reasonable manner, no one is going to be completely happy about this , but it could be worked out with a degree of fairness. --202.63.42.221 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Thanks for the link to WP:COATRACK. (And I don't have a "team", but thanks for the link, it's an interesting essay.) I think that the article should be able to cover the controversial material adequately without becoming a "negative coatrack".

Adi Da is controversial because of the 1985-era media coverage, like it or not, and that deserves its own detailed section. (See Larry Craig and O.J. Simpson, who have done tons of other notable stuff but still get plenty of coverage alloted to the controversial material.) Likewise, some material based mostly on self-published sources, like the "artist" section which isn't relevant to Adi Da's notability, probably should be pruned.

Compromise must be based on reasonable interpretations of WP policy (as vetted by the WP community), not just on individual preference. It is not reasonable to say that the Dawn Horse Press and Adidam.org are exceptions to WP:SELFPUB for religious reasons, or whatever. If your arguments lack support in WP policy compared to other editors', then you may well end up being less satisfied, and that's just life. You can always create a different site to suit your preferences, or just direct people to Adidam.org for "APOV" (Avataric POV). Comesincolors 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Too much reliance on self-published refs?

Does this article need a rewrite, trimming some of the self-published material and giving greater weight to better-sourced material (per WP:SELFPUB)? The article's subject, Adi Da, is relatively obscure, so it's inevitable that some self-published material will be used. However, one editor (User:202.63.42.221) has been heavily weighting the article toward self-published material (which is hagiographic, not at all neutral) and attempting to prune secondary-sourced material that happens to cover controversies and criticism. Only two or three editors watch this page, so input is needed. thanks! Comesincolors 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The so called self published material are well researched hard copy ( books) available in libraries, they include official biographies There are no hard copy books (specifically) on Adi Da other than these , other spiritual teachers such as Sri Ramakrishna and Meher Baba articles ( both religious figures ) rely on so called self published hard copy material. --202.63.42.221 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact you you can't (or won't) acknowledge that publications by Adidam.org, the Dawn Horse Press, etc., are obviously "self-published" by WP standards is exactly why we've needed an RfC. If we can't agree on the basics of WP policy, we're obviously not going to get anywhere. -Comesincolors 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah you missed my point perhaps , most religious figures and organizations stemming from them, use in-house publishing for many reasons , which is where the material of their biographies comes from , some examples are Meher Baba - Sheriarbooks.org , Yogananda - Self Realization Fellowship, Ramakrishna/ Vivekananda- Vedanta Press , so Dawn Horse Press is not unique in this regard . These are official biographies and autobiographies and to different degrees hagiographies - since to different degrees God or the Divine is claimed to be realized by these people. You may as well argue that the material in the case of all these religious figures is not reliable for this reason.

--202.63.42.221 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are OK as sources to some degree, but WP:SELFPUB is very clear that they are OK only as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Whether such bios are "official" or not makes no difference; they are self-published and therefore treated as such under WP policy. There is no WP exception for religious figures. In all cases, secondary sources are better, and should be the main thing the article is based on. Comesincolors 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting the primary text and refs should be from Newspaper reports, Court docs and the Today show is this correct ? Perhaps with a little bit of fill from self published sources ,a mention here and there about a book or two , just to even it out a bit, or am I missing something  ?--202.63.42.221 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article should mainly be about the controversies and criticisms. There are secondary sources (e.g. Feuerstein) covering other matters, and those can be used too. But WP:SOURCES is clear enough, isn't it? Use secondary over primary (self-pub) sources wherever possible, and don't base the article mainly on the latter. Comesincolors 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are insufficient third-party sources available, the size of this article must be reduced drastically. Lack of such sources is no excuse for reliance on self-published sources to this degree. Which in this case is appalling. Quatloo 01:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be a balance between 'internal' self-published sources and external sources - I note that a large majority of the sources are from Carolyn Lee, The Promised God-Man is Here - which appears to be a self-published work. (Dawn Horse Press[2] is owned by the organization. The second most prevalent, "The Divine Emergence of the World Teacher" by S. Bonder is also published by the publishing house. The rest of the sources appear to be organizational websites, such as adidam.org. So it is evident that there is a huge disparity between the abundant self-published references and the nearly absent externally-published sources. Sfacets 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Current article is (obviously) primarily based on self-published sources, coming from an obscure and isolated leader and his group, that are self serving and lack independent fact checking. Secondary sources (where they exist) must not be diluted by excessive reliance instead on self-published material which is self serving.--Dseer 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

coming from an obscure and isolated leader and his group This comment seems very strongly negative POV to me , not neutral at all, it has a clear bias in it , a certain overly dismissive disdain, one would hope the editor does not edit from this position. I think the person who wrote it should remove or reword this comment (viz no personal attacks) since we are all keeping the the letter of the WP law lets get it right! thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to get it right, editor 202.63.42.221, learn the difference between WP talk pages and article pages. As for WP:NPA, that means "comment on content, not the contributor", which is exactly what Dseer was doing. Comesincolors 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply reading the secondary source and reference article which meets journalistic standards and is not self-published and self serving, [3], shows that "an obscure and isolated leader and his group" is a sourced, reasonable and balanced potrayal. The article itself says, for example: "Prior to September, few area residents had heard of the religion known as Adidam or its leader, Adi Da...Claiming some 1,800 members worldwide today, the devotees and students (as they prefer to be called) of Adi Da...Today, 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." And there are other sources from outside the group presenting a similar picture. Excessive reliance on self-published and self-serving sources where it is established that independent fact checking is precluded as a matter of group policy is exactly why Wikipedia should not base the article primarily on these suspect sources. Adherents to the group who wish to edit this article should recognize their responsibilities to properly weigh other than just self-published sources, and are expected to put Wikipedia standards first. --Dseer 23:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and as you pointed out earlier on this talk page, even the North Coast Journal has limited fact-checking ability compared to something like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comesincolors 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That indeed is the crux of the issue, that information provided by Adidam and Adidam influenced sources is self-serving and is not subject to, and in fact is precluded from, reasonable fact checking, directly as a result of the documented policies and practices of Adidam itself, policies and practices independent reports show as intensifying from the earliest period of the group in 1972. The logic implying that the nature and reliablity of self-published Adidam sources is comparable to that of more recognized and (for their time) publically accessible spiritual figures is based on a falacious assumption that the situations are comparable, when there are many unique factors regarding the policies and practices of Adidam and its isolated leader that make the accuracy unusually suspect. Therefore, there is even more reason the article should not give undue weight to such sources over more independent sources, and most of the current article should be caveated as "according to Adidam".

There are scholarly accounts by participants from the periods of 1972 (Trunk) and 1974 (Lowe) showing how the group leader isolated himself from neutral observation and how unquestioning acceptance of changing dogmas and increasingly exceptional claims about the leader was made a requirement and used to weed out membership and reduce the outflow of less favorable information. In Lowe's case, for example, failure of a number of less important members actually working outside to accept that a fairly normal "halo" seen around the sun associated with a summer storm during a period of indulgences by more important members was a spectacular "miracle" resulted in their being excluded from the group. And, despite public claims that the inner circle sexual experimentations (such as the one later described in a published book by Georg Fuerstein on his disillusionment with Adi Da, where a devotee's wife was intoxicated and pressured into less than pleasant sex with the guru in the 1980s) ceased in 1976 after a period of extended partying and indulgences and the expulsion of long time senior member Salvatore Lucania on charges he said later in an interview were fabricated, Adidam later publically admitted in 1985 that such sexual experimentation had continued until "recently", (that is around the same time a number disillusioned members with knowledge of the events began to make waves), and that this was hidden from much of the membership because they were not quote, "advanced enough spiritually", unquote. And, various Adidam devotees have admitted that over 90% of those with some formal involvement at one time or another are no longer formally involved, that a number of members left as a result of the disclosures, and that most of the current formal membership (much of the growth being outside of the US) was not present during the critical periods in question and has no independent knowledge of both sides of the controversy. Not to mention that a comparison of the earliest materials from the group in the early 1970s with the latest materials, where the leader now claims an exclusive spiritual status unprecedented in cosmic history, shows significant patterns of contradiction and revisionism. In summary the Adidam sources and material are suspect, because of a combination of the extreme, unprecendented cosmic status claims of the leader and his group; the necessity to accept uncritically examined dogma, contradictions and revisionism on faith for even limited access to the leader, precluding independent fact checking; the promulgation, acceptance and demonstrated application of the idea that critical and significant information can be hidden from all those not "advanced enough spiritually" (including independent sources), which also precludes assumptions of relative reliability and independent fact checking; and the obvious inferrence that the very high membership attrition and dissilusionment rate shows that the self-published Adidam material and assertions of adherents actually represents only a small minority of opinion (which others now believe as fact) among those who have been involved over time, and is not even that of a majority view of even the participants. This is why there is absolutely no justification for the claims that Adidam material should be given the requested exceptional consideration over secondary sources just because they tend to be more critical, which, as independent sources show, actually represents the majority and more neutral view regarding Adi Da and Adidam. --Dseer 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP sounds like "soapboxing" propaganda to me, and there may be a degree of malicious intent in this ( or to assume good faith--perhaps just ignorance ), there as well, which is sad to see.Be very careful in pigeonholing people and attacking minority religions, because WP is quite influential these days it can do actual harm to minority religious groups(.. that is real people..not caricatures )Even if your view is completely secular, I can see no justification for disparaging peoples religion and presuming a superior position on your part. So I suggest you remove the above - thank you --202.63.42.221 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User 202.63.42.221, this is not an article about "minority religious groups" in general, or the peripheral issues you attempt to raise, it is specifically about Adi Da and Adidam, and the article must be encyclopedic, not apologetic, regarding religious as well as factual claims. There are specific, documented controversies regarding Adi Da and Adidam and issues with Adidam sources that have nothing to do with other minority religious groups. Please confine your discussions to the article's subject and try to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the evaluation of sources for statements within the article. It is clear to any objective observer, for example, that the newspaper and scholarly articles and other secondary sources are far superior as sources to self-published material lacking meaningful fact checking or independent assessment based on the very policies and practices of that group as documented in numerous secondary sources. The article must be not be based primarily on such sources and those sources must not be given excessive weight vis a vis secondary sources. As for editors "disparaging peoples religion and presuming a superior position on your part", not true. However, Adi Da and Adidam specifically and repeatedly claims that no one else has ever attained his level of realization and that he specifically criticizes not only mainstream religions, but every other religion, and for example he specifically criticizes Jesus, Buddha, and Ramana Maharshi, as being of a lower stage than himself. I doubt all these other "minority religious groups" you want to irrelevantly drag into this discussion would not find this position by this particular leader and organization you advocate "disparaging and assuming a superior position". --Dseer 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On The Dawn Horse Press, you realize this is a respected business ?, by implying no fact checking you are actually disparaging a business in a public place , they actually carry a small range of very high quality books ( for discerning spiritual readers ) apart from the huge range of Adi Da's books [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As you well know, Dawn Horse Press is a business created by Adi Da and Adidam for the purpose of promulgating Adi Da's publications, not fact checking the leader's assertions, even if they conflict with previous ones. What little other publications they have published conform to this primary purpose, and do not in any way support any critical view of Adi Da. Since some of those who may comment here may be unfamiliar with this issue, I will once again refer to a classic example, the publication of "Secret Mark", which superficially might seem independent of the primary purpose of promoting Adi Da's writings.

However, the following, from among other links [5], illustrates the relationship between Adi Da and what Dawn Horse Press publishes you assert does not exist:

Secret Mark and Da Avabhasa's Initiation to Ecstasy

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, Da Avabhasa's official biographer and a main spokesman for the Commununion:

PHeart-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. 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. 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 . . ." 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. 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. 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. 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.

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."

This explanation, including clarification from Adidam itself as to why they wanted the book out, to associate Adi Da's behavior with controversial and unvalidated claims about Jesus, makes clear to an objective editor the relation between Dawn Horse Press, and Adi Da, and that Dawn Horse Press, so named because Adidam itself associates the term with their group, is a self-publishing arm that provides no independent, critical oversight over Adidam publications or publishes anything other than materials designed to associate favorably with Adi Da. Aparently you have no better sources and so feel the need to deny what is apparent regarding Dawn Horse Press, but that does not alter the fact that Adi Da's works are, in Wikipedia terms, self published and subsidized by Adidam itself, and lack meaningful, independent and critical fact checking.--Dseer 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• User Quatloo made the following comment (above)If there are insufficient third-party sources available, the size of this article must be reduced drastically. Lack of such sources is no excuse for reliance on self-published sources to this degree. Which in this case is appalling This seems to sum up the view of editors , so on this basis will remove the 3 sections I inserted some time ago , there is no need to keep this request for comment open, further , --202.63.42.221 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this most certainly represents the view of editors, and BLP clearly states that primary source material that has been self-published by the subject (that is, not published by a reliable third-party publishing house, and Dawn Horse Press is in-house and not third party), may be not be added to the article if it is based primarily on such sources. --Dseer 04:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify after seeing what is intended, I favor retaining some basic biographical and group chronology from the proposed removals, but not the associated, excessive and apologetic elaborations and interpretations found only in Adidam sources. That, for example, there were significant modifications to teachings in 1974 and 1976, or that he changed his name to Da in 1978, or the years associated with specific name changes, is not in itself disputed and seems significant enough, but does not require the additional apologetics. What do other editors think?--Dseer 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, Dseer. Note that some material, like the name changes, are already out there in secondary sources, e.g the 1999 North Coast Journal article[6] and the 2005 Washington Post article[7]. However, it's fine to augment with Adidam texts, within WP:SELFPUB. OTOH, I do think it was a good idea for editor 202.63.42.221 to remove, en masse, the sections he added; they were overlong and violated WP:SELFPUB in several ways. We can always put any appropriate stuff back in; please feel free to be bold and do so. Comesincolors 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to be bold and take only what is acceptable per WP:SELFPUB from the removed portions, despite the persistent non-collaboration, failure to comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines, personal attacks and being "reported" without even a courtesy notice to the BLP Notice Board, by the resident advocate with apparent conflict of interest WP:COI, 202.63.42.221, for "constant denigration of Adi Da and publisher (Dawn Horse Press)" [8]. 202.63.42.221 also made no headway in the attempt to suppress SF Chron articles on lightmind [9]. Now, 202.63.42.221, having failed to prevail on RFC and realizing the WP:SELFPUB infringments will be sustained, is even attempting an under the radar claim of non-existant "ownership" of their removed edits here on Wikipedia, because "some unfriendly folk may wish to "parasite" a substantial contribution I made , I would like to correctly remove it on the basis of it being my own edits or work" [10]. 202.63.42.221 will find they do not own this article or the edits they have made and the article msut comply with Wikipedia but does not have to meet tailored to Adi Da and Adidam's desires.--Dseer 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would prefer you did your own research, unless you have the books I referred ,there may be loss of integrity, and perhaps original research creeping in, cherry picking of quotes may also be an issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, 202.63.42.221, but that simply isn't how Wikipedia operates. The above acknowlegement of both the cumulative WP:SELFPUB and WP:NOR issues with the material you researched, created and then removed is recognized and noted. But, as I stated, after eliminating the overwhelming emphasis on controversial self published and self serving material and interpretations out of Adidam, there are still (very limited) notable elements of a basic and undisputed chronological outline you developed that, kept appropriately brief (considering the generally limited notability of the subject outside of the group), and by including also better, secondary sources, may help bring the article up to the present to assist the reader. This does not require doing my "own research". --Dseer 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. 202.63.42.221, you should read WP:OWN, which makes clear that if you contribute to WP, others may modify your words. Comesincolors 21:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About re-adding deleted material

• of course there is an element of personal ownership in adding 40 hours work of your own researched material, no big deal there , I am sure other editors would feel the same way , no claims of perfection here - at all. So I have clearly and in fairness asked that editors not use what I have compiled and deleted, perhaps that does not count by WP standards apart from this line :

[11]

it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article

Apart from this personal request

I said unless you have the books I referred ,there may be loss of integrity, and perhaps original research creeping in, cherry picking of quotes may also be an issue

Perhaps a better way would be to add a few brief vanilla white neutral statements to the current life section, not much at all , because as some one else pointed out the history of name changes is shown already by linked text. Teaching chronology and changes can be covered in Teaching section , at some point --202.63.42.221 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

202.63.42.221, the article is clearly too long and disorganized with excessive weight given to self published sources and contentious, self serving claims, considering the documented, limited notability of the subject and group after 35 years. Start with the introduction which needs to be concise, while clarifying confusion over the many names when using links and references referring to earlier periods, and reflect key points in a NPOV with well sourced, secondary sources. Life should focus on key facts and events during life, not overemphasizing self-published and self-serving claims associated with events. Linking Da's names at the time with these events in the bio helps readers understand references. Teaching should summarize key points of dogma from a NPOV rather than advocate POV. More relative weight in Controversy and Criticism must be given to more reliable sourcing and more balanced press coverage, even if negative, and contentious, self serving and fringe claims of press hysteria from members of the group, should not be given undue weight over better sources, including the press. Quotes from Saniel Bonder's writings from 1989 about the press, for example, when he was a senior member of the group, without noting that he is one of many that has since departed and disassociated from Adidam and Adi Da and his claims, are misleading. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost and you should clarify whether you will put Wikipedia or Adidam first in your edits here. Again, you do not own the material you added, and having added it as accurate, you are not now in a credible position to turn around and contest simple chronologies consistent with that material, and to the limited extent portions of your edits help organize the article, they can be used. For example, a description of the "Indoor Summer" period can simply outline in a sentence or two what occurred, without either the rationalizations for or criticism of the indulgent, party like atmosphere you yourself have described in the text. Likewise the "Garbage and the Goddess" period mentioned, etc. --Dseer 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

• your recent edits to the lead in particular are very POV, not written in neutral tone and make the lead too long, I have put NPOV tag on it, try and edit without bias or creating bias, that is - without trying to express your personal opinion via the use of text, very important in Biographies of Living People, this phrasing and similar in particular "or to his devotees" is unnecessary and smacks of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag will highlight the recent discussions here and the stark difference in view between Adi Da's advocates and others, fine with me. Regarding the usual claims by advocate 202.63.42.221, sourcing must be the basis for the article. The claim that "or to his devotees" is POV fails to consider the source itself. The Adidam source clearly states that "..."Adi Da" is the principal Name of Avatar Adi Da Samraj..."; that devotees recognize him as the "...Primordial Being, the Source of all, the Original Divine Person, Da--and He is the Avatar, the bodily Revelation of that One..."; that "Samraj" is a Title for Avatar Adi Da, which He was offered by His devotees in 1996. "Samraj" means the "Universal Ruler", or "Supreme Lord"...".; To address Adi Da as "Ruchira" (Sanskrit for "radiant") is acknowledge Him as "the Radiant, Shining, 'Bright' One"...when Avatar Adi Da's devotees use it in reference to Him, they intend it in the sense of "The One Who Is, Self-Radiant, Inherently (or Perfectly Subjectively) 'Bright', Self-Enlightened, and Eternally Awake"...". And "...He took the Name of Adi Da Samraj. And more fully, in 1997: Adi Da Love-Ananda Samraj. This Name--offered to Him by His devotees--describes His present Revelation. He is "Adi", the Source-Person, the First and Only Person, The Divine Person of Love-Bliss. He is "Da Love-Ananda", the Giver of Love-Bliss to all. And He is "Samraj"--the Divine King, the Master of Reality, serving all by the Transmission of His Heart-Awakening Grace; and--in their right relationship to Him (Dseer note: an Adidam euphemism for devotion) --being served by all, so that all may fully receive that Transmission, and Realize the Divine....".

Not only does this source clearly state the Adidam position that "to address Adi Da as "Ruchira" (Sanskrit for "radiant") is acknowledge Him as "the Radiant, Shining, 'Bright' One", which those outside the group or not in sympathy with it (non-devotees) would not acknowledge, but a google search for "Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj" confirms that what comes up in any signficant order, excluding this article itself, for that title, is either Adidam sites and material or that of devotees. There is no thus evidence to support your claim that non-devotees would routinely refer to him by anything other than "Adi Da" (his primary name per the source), his name during the controversial period (Da Free John), or his given name of Franklin Jones today, rather than "the Ruichira Avatar Adi Da Samraj" (meaning "the radiant avatar, primordial giver, universal ruler"), or as "Beloved" either, which as per the source, devotees would use. Thus, "or to his devotees as..." and defining what the titles and names mean to devotees, is perfectly appropriate and informative.

The addition of all the names in the intro instead of just a few improves the article because Adi Da has been known by so many names, that it is important for the casual reader to know up front all these are the same person. The introduction isn't excessively long, it is only six sentences. One describes what him, one lists his many names, one sumarizes his dogma, one describes the highly publicized allegations, one lists the Adidam response, and one specifies these charges were settled out of court. Concise, simple, NPOV and based on sound sourcing, and appropriate. --Dseer 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncollaborative strikeout of Talk Page material

202.63.42.221 announces that: "If you think (which you obviously do , otherwise you would have removed the content you added already) the material you added to the talk page does not contravene these points listed above , I am willing to go through and strike out the text I think fits these criteria and you can then argue to keep it if you wish , again within the strict criteria of "Biographies of living persons-WP:TALK that means no "soapboxing" personal views (also)WP:SOAP". [12]

That isn't how it works, 202.63.42.221. Again, you do not own this article, nor the Talk Page, nor do you arbitrate BLP issues. Unflattering information, provided it is properly sourced, is perfectly permissable under BLP, despite your oft stated opinions about the press. My comments are for the purpose of improving the article from its former, POV state of massive over reliance on self-published, contentious and self serving material. To restore NPOV requires emphasis on the best, more NPOV sources even if, being less favorable, they do not meet with your approval. When you make unfounded assertions on the Talk Page, I am entitled to refute those assertions with sourced statements, even if they do not reflect favorably upon the subject and his organization. Do not tamper with the Talk Page, and consider collaboration and compliance with WP:COI as other editors do. --Dseer 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP charges brought by Adidam advocate 202.63.42.221 about sourced criticism of the subject had no merit and got no support, and are now archived. Copied this from the comments which pretty much summarizes the point that is is perfectly OK to mention any and all the bulk of negative info on Mr. Jones as long as they are sourced: I've read over the talk pages and I don't see what BLP issues are involved there. So long as talk page (and article) assertions about living people are sourced there is nor reason to avoid mentioning negative info. Just so...--Dseer 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization and edits of 7 Nov 2007

I just reorganized several sections of the article and added some references, mostly from Georg Feuerstein's new edition of Holy Madness. Little if any material was removed; it was just moved around (compare here). I think the Feuerstein stuff, as third-party references, move the article in a better direction per the recent RfC. What is still needed is to flesh out the "Controversies" sections with relevant quotes from SF Chronicle, Today Show, etc., ca. 1985. Comesincolors 22:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

I agree that editor 202.63.42.221 has on a number of occasions edited in ways that leave much to be desired. I am not sure, though, whether the COI tag is appropriate given that he does not appear to be an official representative of Adidam. He's not that different from a believer in creationism editing the article on creationism: lots of bias and blind spots, for sure, but no specific COI (whatever that vague term really means; it's not the clearest policy WP ever had, and actually is rather silly in some respects). Dseer, what do you think? I think problems with this editor could be handled through ordinary procedures (talk page, editor RfC if necessary). Mind if we remove the COI tag, or should it stay? Comesincolors 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the milder form of the COI tag, which states that an editor who contributed substantially "may" have conflict of interest, which there is significant evidence of. It is one thing to be an Adidam believer from Australia who believes Adidam sources yet still follows Wikipedia guidelines. It is another to announce that and consistently edit from the position that (based solely on original research and belief): "...And in truth the refs are good by WP standards but the articles themselves are appalling , nothing more than sensation seeking scandal mongering ( and at the time riding on 1980's anti guru and new religion hysteria ) , the today show report is a terrible example of biased reporting , absurdly so Why would anyone want to promote this tabloid style reports as fact? Why would they not see them for what they obviously are in 2007- an embarrassment to ethical journalistic standards...." That is pretty far over the top and clearly does not put Wikipedia or NPOV first. Whether one is a formal advocate or informal advocate, being so attached to original research and advocacy for a belief that one goes that far does potentially fall under COI. Even a creationist editing an article on creationism in good faith would not likely go that far. I think that as the article gets cleaned up per the tag and the appropriate poorly sourced claims are clearly marked as "according to Adidam (i.e., self-published sources}" the tag will have served its purpose and will no longer be needed, provided that editor conforms to Wikipedia standards (including sourcing) henceforth in any contributions. --Dseer 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you, because I was there, that the REALITY of the time before, during and after the "scandal" was so much worse than anything that EVER hit the media it would horrify most of the devoted members of Adidam. The inner circle within Adidam is VERY good at lying, covering up, manipulating and spinning. Very, very few people inside Adidam have a clue what has really happened. They just don't know. That is why it is I am so adamant about making sure that at least some of the critical material is included, and sourcing it from where it can be sourced. Yes, it is true that Beverly O'Mahoney's material and Jackie's got sealed. The story of Heather Lupa - some of it would break anyone's heart, and it was all Franklin's doing, although he never takes responsibility. Almost nobody in Adidam knows about Leto Alfonso and the questionable death of Keith who was found hung by the neck in a park in San Rafael, nor how Franklin was directly involved in that attempted acquisition of a huge fortune. So critical material needs to stay. It will help educate people inside Adidam among other things. I strongly suspect that the primary motive of the inner circle for pressing so hard on this Wikipedia entry is that they really don't want the membership to get clues and start poking around or asking questions. Yes, most people involved in Adidam are great folks. They are some of the kindest, most generous people one can find. But that doesn't mean that Franklin is a saint. What he is is very complicated from some points of view, but simple from others.

I wish that more people who have left adidam because of lies (some of which are in the books and magazines, like the mysterious burns that appeared on the back of a woman in "The Dreaded Gomboo" or the time Groot got his arm cut with glass from a window) would come forward. But the fact is, some are are afraid, (I know of one who was directly threatened and went to the police about it.) most are traumatized and just want to forget it. I am traumatized to some degree. But I have to do this. No, Mark Miller was no saint either. But he didn't lie, and adidam has been so successful at sealing records and shutting people up that the salient points of that lawsuit NEED to be quoted. 128.120.52.38 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Dave

An unsatisfactory article

The virtue of any encyclopediac article is lucid simplicity. Rather than being an example of that virtue, I feel that this article on Adi Da Samraj verges on the prosaic. The scope of Adi Da's life, work and teaching require an extraordinarily adept summary. Though Adi Da is not a philosopher as the term is commonly understood, Adi Da's teaching alone warrants as refined a distillation as would be the case for the progenitor of any complex and multifaceted philosophical oeuvre found on Wikipedia. What little of it there is at present is barely adequate. Material on controversies needs to be localised and elucidated with scrupulous even-handedness. Citation(s) of Indologist and former devotee Georg Feuerstein, for example, should be singular and not ubiquitous.

Plenty of work to be done here.

Ira Jai (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, them are some mightly big words you're usin' thar. Let me see if I kin translate:

In other words, you want to write the article in florid Da-speak, relying mostly on self-published sources that talk about how profound he is, and minimize reliance on secondary sources that aren't so flattering? Is that it? We had a discussion (see RfC above) and concluded that wasn't the way to go. Maybe we need one again, if you strongly disagree with the consensus above?

Or maybe you want to strip out all the Feuerstein and (naughty) Wilber and fill in with Kripal and (praising) Wilber -- is that it? Comesincolors (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it your intention that, as a new contributor, I defer to you as an experienced, mature and civil member of the Wiki community? If this is your intention, why does your brief reply violate almost every Wiki guideline on etiquette - and decorum toward newcomers in particular? If it isn't your intention, what are you doing in an adult online community?

If as a newcomer I've committed a breech of etiquette, please let me know. In the meantime, I look forward to your apology. Really.

Perhaps I'm naive in assuming that people take these guidelines seriously. Nevertheless, here they are - direct from Wiki's pages:

Personal attacks - There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: [THESE INCLUDE:]

- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

to taunt (third-person singular simple present taunts, present participle taunting, simple past taunted, past participle taunted)

1. to make fun of (someone); to goad (a person) into responding, often in an aggressive manner.

WIKI CIVILITY GUIDELINES ADMONISH AGAINST

• Rudeness • Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (cite as WP:SKILL) • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)

Good faith: To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.

Newcomers: Wikipedia improves not only through the hard work of more dedicated members but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing. New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

Please DO NOT bite the newcomers

Do not bite the newcomers!

Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource.

Ira Jai (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ira Jai - I'm sorry, that was rather WP:BITE-ish of me, wasn't it? I hope my unwarranted grouchiness didn't turn you off to Wikipedia, and that you end up enjoying editing here. But, if there's a silver lining, it's that you're delving into WP policy, which is exactly what the welcome message on your talk page recommends. I'll be glad to help you get familiar with WP article guidelines as well. The main ones related to content are neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), verifiability (WP:V) and no original research (WP:OR).

As you begin to read and understand those policies, please consider my comments below:

you write: The scope of Adi Da's life, work and teaching require an extraordinarily adept summary. Though Adi Da is not a philosopher as the term is commonly understood, Adi Da's teaching alone warrants as refined a distillation as would be the case for the progenitor of any complex and multifaceted philosophical ouevre found on Wikipedia.

Actually, no, unless you can point to secondary sources (see WP:RS and WP:SOURCES) showing that there is a consensus, scholarly or otherwise, that Adi Da is some kind of great seminal figure. Absent that, there is no reason to write a WP article in that way any more than we would do so for L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones etc. What we do have are some articles stating that Adi Da is the founder of a new religious movement. That is how the article should be framed, i.e. based on the sources we have (and note that these should be secondary sources, i.e. independent of Adi Da and Adidam). Of course, you are welcome to introduce new sources if you can find them.

you write:Material on controversies needs to be localised and elucidated with scrupulous even-handedness.

even-handedness, yes, if that means sticking close to the sources; localised, no. From what I've seen lately (will have to find a link), there is emerging consensus on WP that "controversy" and "criticism" sections are actually a bad idea, and that such material should be presented throughout the article at appropriate points. So, the allegations of abuse and lawsuits from the mid-80's should simply be part of a chronology.

you write:Citation(s) of Indiologist and former devotee Georg Feuerstein, for example, should be singular and not ubiquitious.

why? Is that just your preference, or can you back it up with some WP policy? I agree that some of the Feuerstein quotes can be converted into text, since too many quotes are bad form. But Feuerstein is one of the few secondary sources we have that cover Adi Da's life in any significant detail. What others are there? There are some scholars and authors who have praised Adi Da in blurbs solicited by Adidam; those have some weight, but it would be better to find some non-Adidam published material and use that. As I mentioned, there was discussion earlier centering on WP's policy (WP:SOURCES) that articles should not be based mainly on primary sources, so Adidam's own material should be used sparingly.

OK, hope that provides some useful food for thought. Comesincolors (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. As to your broader remarks, I'll post my reply some time before the new year. I wish you well. Ira Jai (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: An Unsatisfactory Article (and a message to Comesincolors)

Just because Feuerstein is one of the few secondary sources ought not to have his POV dominate the article - surely this is not about information by the pound!

Feuerstein merely appears to be a self-proclaimed authority on Adi Da. While he is entitled to his point of view, it appears to excessively color this article. His comparisons to Jim Jones and mass suicide indicate his paranoia and inability to accept the fact that one of the oldest civilizations - India - routinely looks upon its gurus as God. Ramakrishna, Shirdi Sai Baba, Ramana and countless others even in recent memory were considered God-realized and therefore God in human form, literally. These quotations do not serve this article well. It is worth summarizing his opinion objectively. I also wonder whether these quotations are actually representative of Feuerstein's overall work - surely the whole book cannot be about fear slinging. Certainly Feuerstein's own quotations about Adi Da do not address more than a fraction of the latter's teaching, and are simply reactive, shedding very little scholarly light upon the subject apart from a sense of fear and paranoia.

Incidentally, the patronizing bullying of Ira Jai above was inexcusable. Comesincolors seems to take the "you're new here, and stupid, stick with me and you'll be all right" approach to collaboration, making it an absolutely joyless and annoying experience. See below for another example of Comesincolors violating basic wikipedia code by trampling over edits. Rather than ankle-biting and pretending to be a senior wikipedia stateman (which Comesincolors clearly is not, given the tendency to throw his/her weight around) it would be much more appropriate to really work towards creating a high-quality article. 24.188.188.3 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you dislike the Feuerstein, why not get a copy of the book and improve the article? Otherwise, stop disrupting by rehashing conflicts that have already been resolved (see edit history both on talk page and main article). Comesincolors (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to respond to a comment about the state of the page by ordering people around. There is no "resolution" to this - the page is still in very poor shape because of this. Comesincolors - are you truly interested in creating a high quality page here and in improving what is there? If not there's little point in engaging with you on this. The only thing you appear to be doing is acting as a gatekeeper by threatening to delete material and you've already vandalized this page. There has been no research added by you.User49149 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi User49149, are you the same as the poster above from 24.188.188.3? I'm just trying to have an idea who I'm talking to. And I would reiterate that yes, it's disruptive to keep rehashing conflicts, especially minor ones which have been mended. Time to move on.

You write "there has been no research added" by me, but I have actually added plenty of material to the article, and a recent RfC agreed that independent sources were what were needed. Feuerstein is independent of Adidam. He's not the final arbiter of truth or anything, but for NPOV and VER, we do need as many good sources independent of the subject as we can get. What do you propose, along those lines?

As my comments below (e.g., this) show, I'm doing my best to collaborate and improve the article. Those comments were made more than 36 hours before your comment above, and almost 48 hours before your failed attempt to protect the page. In good faith, I can only assume that when you made the comments above, and requested page protection, you missed my conciliatory and collaborative comments below. At all events, I agree with the sysop who denied your page-protection request, and suggested that you just follow dispute resolution procedures instead, i.e., don't escalate, just calmly talk it out here, and focus on content, not the contributor. Also, please read WP:VANDAL and refrain from calling good-faith edits vandalism, especially since I went on to made a series of edits reincorporating a great deal of the material you wanted to add. I hope that puts to rest any doubts about my good faith.

Once again, I very much welcome any and all editors to this page. If there is any way I can help clarify policies like WP:NPOV or WP:VER, please let me know. Thanks Comesincolors (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the wholescale censorship?

Comesincolors reverted significant new sections and revisions intended to clean up poor and scattered prose.

In particular, the entire section on Image Art, and the expanded section on books was just deleted with no explanation.

It is perfectly OK to keep the controversy in (as I've done), but to just yank out material willy-nilly is really uncalled for.

Hence, please explain why the reversion was done. At this point it looks like deliberate censorship. User49149 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi User49149. You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so welcome aboard, and please have a look at important policies like neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), verifiability (WP:V) and no original research (WP:OR). Please read those policies carefully and you will see why phrases like "his voluntary acceptance of the human egoic condition, followed by years of seeking and final re-awakening" are simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I don't mean to edit war, and urge you to carefully read those policies and discuss on this page before reverting again. I also didn't mean to delete the stuff on image art, although it does need a better source and is not notable enough to be in the lead. See WP:LEAD. The controversy stuff does need to be cited and described fully in the lead, in accordance with the weight of the sources. I'm going to partially revert, going to the original, non-hagiographic lead section, and putting the art and book stuff you added in the body of the article. Sorry for the misunderstanding on some of the deletes, but much of the lead section as you wrote it was clearly not encyclopedic. I do agree that it's fine to include a summary paragraph on Adi Da's teaching in the lead in with minot modifications stuck your contribution back in. thanks Comesincolors (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The art stuff is fine for the body of the article, briefly, but you need secondary sources to establish notability enough to expand it and/or put it in the lead. Please see WP:SOURCES. thanks Comesincolors (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - I think I restored (and fixed for NPOV) most of the stuff you added, except the flowery/devotional lead language which was unacceptable and glossed the controversy, which needs specific mention at the beginning per WP:LEAD. Overall, my intention is not to censor, as I hope my edits show. I trust your intentions are the same and you will leave the critical, sources material in the lead intact. Please read NPOV carefully and discuss major changes on this page. thanks Comesincolors (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from The Way of Adidam

Suggesting merge per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTE. Comesincolors (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I Disagree. See:

• Ramakrishna / Ramakrishna Mission

• Yogananda / Self-Realization Fellowship

• Muhammad / Islam

etc. 24.188.188.3 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All of which movements are either big (many thousands of devotees, lots of secondary sources) or really, really huge (changing the course of history). In contrast, Adidam is around 2000 people and is not very well known. Where are the soruces establishing notability and why should there be a separate article? See Frederick Lenz, Sri Chinmoy and others where one article suffices. For Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher), we have an article for him and for his magazine only because the latter meets WP:NOTE. Not sure we need a fork here; why? Comesincolors (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the sources establishing notability are right at the top of the page. Second, your beliefs about Adidam not being well known do not ring true - where do you get your numbers from? Third, consider Werner Erhard and Est - the organization does not even exist anymore and is arguably known to only a small age group of Americans. Yet the two subjects enjoy separate pages. There are undoubtedly many more such examples, but I think the point is clear. 24.188.188.3 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sources establishing notability are right at the top of the page" - you mean "Adidam Testimonials", which is self-published, and doesn't meet WP:NOTE? On Adidam being well known: per WP:V, the burden is on those who want the material to stay to provide the sources. If editors want a separate article, they need to show why, and not with a bunch of Adidam self-published material. Comesincolors (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Comesincolors started off insisting that Adidam is not well known, without any established evidence apart from personal opinion.

2) Comesincolors then made a claim that the Adidam article does not deserve a separate page, and was shown the counterexample of Werner Erhard and Est.

3) Comesincolors claims that the sources are from Adidam. Ken Wilber is not in Adidam, and neither is the website that quotes him. Chogyam Trungpa and Alan Watts are both very significant, non-Adidam personalities. These are more than adequate.

Comesincolors' own bias heavily permeates this discussion. There are constant threats of deleting or removing edits, but no actual effort to add to the scholarly content. This user's collaborative style is, in short, a waste of time. Merely insisting that he/she be answered to without adding value is not productive.User49149 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly duplicating my reply from Talk:The Way of Adidam. You are making some fairly strong accusations and going off-topic here, but you're new to WP, so that is not a big deal. Please pay careful attention to the WP guidelines cited below, as they clarify how discussions should and should not proceed.

Regarding sources, these have to be independently published per WP:V and WP:N. Not adidam.org or Dawn Horse Press. You have the burden of proof here under WP policy. Wilber's webpages, Feuerstein and the news articles are examples of independent sources, but I'm not sure suffice to establish The Way of Adidam's notability over and above Adi Da, although there may be some good reasons to separate the two due to WP:BLP. But please do help come up with more non-Adidam-published sources. Both this article and The Way of Adidam need them badly, per WP:SOURCES, and the articles shouldn't be based primarily on self-published sources.

Regarding my conduct: Apart from one slightly uncivil comment (which in terms of substance was strangely prophetic of where other editors tried to take the article, and for which I apologized and which apology was accepted), I've been perfectly collaborative and have adhered to WP's dispute resolution guidelines completely. Per those guidelines, I ask that you kindly address my arguments rather than attacking me. (Direct quote: "Focus on content, not on the other editor.")

Also, you don't have the option of just blowing off my or any other user's comments on talk pages. Read WP:DR. Per WP:TALK, please discuss content here and not what you think my biases are. Notwithstanding any of that, you still need to provide verifiable secondary sources. thanks Comesincolors (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

More on an unsatisfactory article

Well, there’s been quite a bit of action since I last checked in here, so I’d like to confine my remarks at this stage to replying to editor Comesincolors. I realise that this editor may be feeling beaten around the head somewhat. As to the discord over precipitate interventions – that is interventions in the body of any article sans proper consultation – this seems to me a recipe for chaos, regardless of its source. Imagine this kind of carry-on in an the articles on relativity or Shakespeare – or Francois Mitterand, or whom-or-whatever. Maybe it goes on – and perhaps it makes for controversies that certain kinds of people savour – but what kind of service does it do to the reader?

Comesincolors, in your second reply to me, you question a possible “preference” of mine – as if there was something outré about anyone having any preference at all, as opposed to preferences being commonplace in this discussion. But of course, it’s the latter that’s the case, as your early and ungainly speculation on my intentions shows, as well as your use of a phrase like “florid Da-speak” – a florid imputation. Where preferences are concerned you are in a position no different from I, or any other editor. As far as I can see these talk pages are replete with the transmission of preferences. And since it’s very likely no one’s presented themselves as an editor here who doesn’t have strong feelings about Adi Da one way or the other, the transmission of preferences has a certain inevitability – and it seems senseless to me to be coy about this.

Hence, it isn’t the prevalence of preferences in editorial cycle but the context of them. On my earlier comments on Georg Feuerstein you say is that just your preference, or can you back it up with some WP policy? Is this how I’m to understand your take on the spirit of Wiki? Finding bits of policy to rock your given hobbyhorses – or mine? If it is, then it’s a goad to an ad-hoc game that seems rather scoutish. What about values such as coherence, tenable scope, veracity, fairness, cogency and relevance – none of which are explicitly stated in Wiki policy but which, I imagine, few would counter as being core values of any serious reference source. Core values that would, I imagine, precede and inform any and all explicit guidelines on this site?

And what of Georg Feuerstein as a secondary source? Who is Georg Feuerstein exactly? To answer my own question, Feuerstein is an interesting and noted scholar who was for a number of years a devotee of Adi Da Samraj, including the early period of Adi Da’s teaching work. He wrote introductions to various of Adi Da’s books, including Easy Death. His departure from Adidam was, by his own testimony, amicable, even though, according to his own estimation, that departure caused “considerable disruption” in the Adidam community. The flavour of his few writings on Adi Da Samraj since his departure seem rather detached but otherwise unambiguous – neither favourable on the one hand nor directly hostile on the other.

All in all, I can’t imagine that anyone would seriously disagree with a single citation of Feuerstein in the body of this article. Two citations – and there’s the impression that Feuerstein has written thoroughly and extensively on Adi Da Samraj in a context scholarly and/or personal – and this is simply not the case. Such evaluation would necessarily be an appraisal of Adi Da’s thirty-five years of work in their totality, or something approaching it, and this simply has not been done. Not by Feuerstein, nor by anyone.

Three or more citations of Feuerstein in the body of the article and suddenly Adi Da Samraj is being conflated with Georg Feuerstein’s view of him – and here is a clear incidence of the preference of some editor or other overriding the impetus of an informative entry that MUST necessarily allow a likely unschooled reader make up his or her own mind. Since the collective mind of experts – whomsoever those experts might conceivably be – has presumably yet to make up its mind on the reader’s behalf. And yet you contend the onus is on me to point to secondary sources (see WP:RS and WP:SOURCES) showing that there is a consensus, scholarly or otherwise, that Adi Da is some kind of great seminal figure. On the face of it, an uncontestable standard, and certainly an explicit Wiki one. And yet, where living spiritual teachers are concerned, there is not yet a consensus on consensus. From whom or what could such a consensus conceivably emanate from? In any case, how can there be a consensus on one spiritual teacher among other spiritual teachers and/or amongst uniquely adept scholars – before the end of the lifetime of that teacher? Certainly Alan Watts and Ken Wilbur, both “seminal” figures themselves have made profound statements concerning Adi Da’s greatness. The latter has made some less flattering statements as well – without repudiating his earlier endorsements.

And yet, you would have it, the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that Adi Da Samraj, Absent that, you contend, there is no reason to write a WP article in that way any more than we would do so for L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones etc. In the blink of an eye you’ve gone from invoking the standard of consensus to suggesting the default option putting Adi Da Samraj in the same basket as an individual, Jim Jones, who was directly responsible for one of the most terrible atrocities of the era of television. In your estimation, this is “useful food for thought.” To me, it’s libellous insinuation. Moreover, the category of “new religious movements” is just that – a category of presumptive insinuation that becomes ludicrous by elaboration, lumping Gurdjieff with Fred Phelps, George Fox, a founder of the Quakers, with Marshall Applewhite. And so on. The fact is that Adi Da Samraj’s accomplishments as a writer, as a visual artist, as a commentator on dharma and yoga, as a sage on the death and dying process have ALL been acknowledged by genuinely auspicious commentators in these respective fields. That is not to diminish or to be coy about the fact that Adi Da IS the founder of a new religion. And yet it is to contextualise that achievement by justifiably highlighting Adi Da’s uniqueness.

Then you say this: there are some scholars and authors who have praised Adi Da in blurbs solicited by Adidam; those have some weight, but it would be better to find some non-Adidam published material and use that. But as you already know, there is a paucity of “non-Adidam published material. And your subtle imputation here, your dainty intimation that non-devotee praise for Adi Da Samraj’s books is somehow less reliable than a chapter in a book by Georg Feuerstein. It well may be the case that rather than “some weight” these blurbs, or given blurbs, carry weight that is very considerable. It depends on the context of the endorsement, also on whom the endorser is, also on the degree to which the opinion of the endorser sorts with the generally acknowledged expertise of that individual.

The upshot of all of this is stating a position that I would like to take clearly from the outset – at the very real risk of being pedantic, I feel there’s a lot of questionable logic on these talk pages that I feel inclined to challenge directly. Contrary to your intimation, augmenting a coherent summary of Adi Da’s life requires more than a distillation of a favoured quote using a Wiki style manual. It means evaluating the context of any quotation and asking seriously and honestly, whether or not this or that is the right information in the right place. I hope early in the new year to contribute to that process by putting forward a number of edits.

I hope that other editors will feel the same wherewithal to challenge me directly also, as you yourself have already done.

Ira Jai (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ira Jai - with limited time, I will focus on two things in my reply for now, which I hope get to the heart of the matter.

We completely agree on, as you put it, "values such as coherence, tenable scope, veracity, fairness, cogency and relevance". Absolutely! Gotta take exception, though, when you go on to say "none of which are explicitly stated in Wiki policy". Have a look at all the policies listed at Wikipedia:LOP#Content_and_style. Those completely affirm the encyclopedic values you mention.

Which leads to a question: Do you think it makes for a better encyclopedia if the main sources we rely on are primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article? Thanks - Comesincolors (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Briefly: First point cheerfully conceded without inspection of Wiki sources. As to the somewhat rhetorical question that follows, I think that I’ve already gone some way toward answering it – at least to the point of stating a clear position. Since there’s sure to be more that can be usefully said about primary versus secondary sources; maybe you’d consider contributing more in answer to your own question. One comment: I fail to see what you mean by “sources affiliated with the subject.” Which sources are you talking about? Do you mean individuals who have written endorsements of Adi Da Samraj’s books? If I’m sent a novel by David Eggers and asked to review it and I write something positive about it that doesn’t make me a “source affiliated with the [author.]” As it happens, being a novelist isn’t the full extent of David Egger’s activity; he is a teacher and social activist and founder and editor of a noted literary periodical. Because of that, if I, as one reviewer among many, endorse one of David Egger’s books, then endorsement of other spheres and even every sphere of Eggers activity may be somehow implied – unwittingly or no. Even so, that endorsement doesn’t “affiliate” me. Nor would it be proper - or even useful - for "affiliation" to be intimated, whether by the author's associates - or by his detractors, if any. Ira Jai (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring, in this case, to Adidam-published material, as well as any self-published material (whether pro-, anti-, mixed, or neutral, e.g. adidaupclose.org, beezone.org etc.). Do you think it's good to base the article mainly on such sources? Is such an approach generally a good idea in an encyclopedia? I don't think so. Nor does the WP community, hence WP:SOURCES. Thus, when you say above, "But as you already know, there is a paucity of “non-Adidam published material," my response is: yes, so it's better to have a shorter article with good sources than a longer one with questionable sources. Quoting Trungpa, for example, using an Adidam site as a source, is just not acceptable (see The Way of Adidam). thanks Comesincolors (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear that you're referring to "Adidam-published material." Yet if you read what I've posted above you'll see that you've not addressed my point at all. Based on what reasoning do you contend that quoting Trungpa using an Adidam site as a source is not acceptable? Clearly, Trungpa Rinpoche was not an "associate" of Adidam, so why is his opinion, amongst others, diminished by sheer dint of the Adidam site being the putatiive source of the quote? What is your reasoning here? Really?

In other words, what I'd like to ask you to do here is show the good grace of presenting a clear and reasoned, if not rigorous, line of argument. I would like to suggest that presenting yourself, blithely, as an arbiter of what the WP community thinks or doesn't think is not a substitute for such argument. Neither is your equally blithely stating what you deem to be "acceptable" as if what was "acceptable" was a self-evident truth based upon your say-so alone. A source is not "questionable" based upon your aspersion. What is "generally a good idea in an encyclopaedia" may not be such a very "good idea" if the "good idea" is applied unconsciously without real examination. Either you are merely invoking a standard or you're applying it discriminatively. If the latter is the case, then you demonstrate how and why you're applying it discriminatively. All the more so, if there are people who may disagree strongly with where you're coming from. There's no substitute for that on your part, none. There's no substitute for it on mine. Ira Jai (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Adidam not an acceptable source for quoting Trungpa? See WP:SELFPUB. There's no way to know whether Trungpa really said so-and-so in reference to Adidam. I could publish a blog, or a book using a vanity press, and claim that Trungpa said something or other. Why should I be believable, and why would an encyclopedia want to quote me?

I think I've pretty clearly and accurately explained the thinking behind WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES, both of which are parts of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which reflects long-standing consensus among the community. Your comments about Trungpa above suggest that your problem is not with my intrepretation of those policies, but rather your unfamiliarity with the policies themselves. If you disagree, you might want to ask around at WP, maybe at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or WP:RSN.

As for "what's a good idea in an encyclopedia", I'm referring to the overall mission of this project, and the reason for all the various policies that have developed. There is even a policy called Ignore all rules, the essence of which is "break the rules if doing so improves the encyclopedia". To the extent that you may like to break or at least bend them a little bit, you need a really good reason. See Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I don't get how repeating a rumor, which is all a poorly-sourced report like that on Trungpa really is, is good for either the spirit or the letter of the law. thanks Comesincolors (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you be believable? Well, there is a test of common sense that would be applied here, wouldn’t there, Comesincolors. Given that the use of the source may be incommensurable with self-pub guidelines, what could be reasonably said concerning the overall veracity of the publication concerned? This taken into general account – along with the quote itself, and the context in which the quote appeared – could it reasonably be argued that the quote is unreliable or even a gratuitous fabrication? Or a self-evidently self-interested and self-serving exploitation of somebody else’s incidental good will – in this instance, Trungpa’s?

Or could it reasonably be argued that the quote and the use of it appears to be consistent with the given quality – that is the given veracity and assiduity of the publication – to the extent that good faith on the part of the author could reasonably be assumed to be the case?

What is the name of your book, Comesincolors? I know a book - Love of the God-Man, written by James Steinberg. It is, without question, a self-published book from Adidam. It is also, as is consistent with wide appraisal of that work, honest and assiduous by any conceivable standard. In it, Trungpa says, I believe, that Adi Da Samraj is “genuine” and/but that “it is extremely difficult to found a new tradition.” Now I don’t know if I’m quoting 100% exactly but that’s pretty much it. One thing I’ve noted is that the good will, or apparent good will, in these statements is very far from effusive. The second of Trungpa Rinpoche’s statements could even conceivably be read in one or more ways.

You say I think I've pretty clearly and accurately explained the thinking behind WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES, both of which are parts of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Contrary to clearly and accurately explaining anything at all, I can see that you are returning again and again to the mere citing of these references in themselves to a bulwark an argument that you have so far failed to articulate clearly and persuasively. Explaining “the” thinking is not, in any case, and as already I’ve pointed out, not your role, nor your prerogative. Your role, your prerogative as an editor here is the same as mine, which is explaining your thinking and interpretation. Who are you, in any case, to say that what Trunga Rinpoche said or didn’t say to devotees of Adi Da Samraj is a “rumour?” What makes you think you can justify that kind of aspersion? James Steinberg is an honest man. What gives you the right to casually gainsay his honesty – and contend that you are defending the spirit of what another honest man, Jimmy Wales, has created here? Ira Jai (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of WP:SELFPUB don't you understand?

quote:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Those conditions must all be fulfilled. You're intelligent enough to see that citing Steinberg on Trungpa doesn't pass muster.

That's per official WP policy. Think it should be changed? Great! Wikipedia is an evolving project, and is open to change. Just make your case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. If the community agrees, then you can proceed accordingly. Comesincolors (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your impudence in suggesting to me - or to anyone here - what I'm "intelligent" enough to see or not see is quite breathtaking, given that you've once again failed to address, in any meaningful way, any argument that I've put forward. Why, I wonder, are you incapable of seeing that your pretence of championing the Wiki community is a silly affectation? Can you actually demonstrate - or put forward a reasonable, reasoned argument to show that Jim Steinberg's book is incommensurable with the mainstay of the selfpub criteria you've cited above? Are you going to bother to actually respond to anything that precedes your last post at all?

The thing I feel you really don't understand is that there's a world of difference between invoking a standard and defending a standard by applying it purposively. As far as I can tell, the Wiki rules are standards - standard being the operative word. They are about applying a high standard and doing so discriminatively. Discriminative capacity is something you have to bring to a discussion such as this. That doesn't mean that your logic will be flawless, but at least you'll be providing some impetus to a discussion that is worthwhile.

So when are you going to be a serious interlocutor on these pages? Assuming (fundamental) good faith on your part, I have to enjoin you to lift your game, put forward a coherent argument, read what your interlocutors have written here, and show the respect and wherewithal of responding meaningfully, without the Wiki plenipotentiary act. Ira Jai (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"So when are you going to be a serious interlocutor on these pages?" -- OK, time to tone it down a notch. That and a number of your other comments are contrary to civility and talk page guidelines. We're all human, but let's deescalate the personal side of this. Per WP:DR, focus on content, not the other editor.

I can't add anything more to the discussion re Steinberg as a source for Trungpa's opinion. It transparently violates WP:SELFPUB. If you want to vet other opinions, you might try Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or WP:RSN. (I am virtually certain other editors will agree with me, but go ahead and find out yourself.)

Beyond that, I have no idea what you mean by a "meaningful" response. If I've missed a point, please state it concisely again, and I'll respond. thanks Comesincolors (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's the end of it for me, Comesincolors. I think any explicit conclusions on what's unfolded above are best left to other contributors. If appropriate I'll respond to them, but this is as far as my dialogue with you goes for now. Ira Jai (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Adi Da article has been through this type of dispute before before which is why the article was trimmed based on RFC consensus. I am not prepared to assess yet whether two articles separating Adi Da and Adidam are better than one yet (although I understand Adi Da himself has said "I AM Adidam"), but regardless, you need something besides predominately self-published materials and they should be cited precisely and conservatively in this article to make a point. Adidam sources may say, for example, in the Adi Da article that Adi Da was an exhibitor at the Venice Biennale while not noting that this was actually a "Collateral Exhibit", a far less prestigious means by which less noted artists commonly seek exposure, a signficantly less significant and noteworthy accomplishment as documented in third party secondary sources, begging the question of how notable Adi Da really is as an artist. That is just an example of why self published sources on a subject according to Wikipedia should not dominate an article lacking secondary sourcing, and secondary sources are preferred where they exist. The burden of proof is on those providing self-published sources to establish such self-serving and suspect claims about, for example, Trungpa are valid and sufficiently significant, particularly when there is not evidence such claims are supported from primary or secondary sources associated with Trungpa himself (is there even any mention of Adi Da in anything associated with Trungpa other than Adidam sources?). Similarly, while Watts did write a forward for Adi Da's first book, an autobiography, Watts died in poor health in November of 1973 without even meeting the then Bubba Free John and Adi Da only began his public mission at the end of April 1972, an insignficant period of time to assess his opinion regarding Adi Da or Adidam based on actual interactions or over the elapsed period since, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. Other than what is in the forward which is a pretty generalized endorsement of the first book (and the entire forward should be provided in the cite referencing this for context since it is linkable), you find nothing in the published or posthumous materials of Alan Watts or his biographers indicating that Watts endorsed Adi Da's organization or subsequent actions nor has the Watts family said anything positive to say about Adi Da or Adidam in print. The lack of secondary sources confirming Adidam statements on a given subject to put the claims in context places inherent limits on the article itself under NPOV. If this article is put up for RFC, and there are no better sources, I don't expect the results to be any different than the last time regarding the apparent excess of self-published and primary sources. --Dseer (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have to say I haven't personally sighted the RFC or examined it in light of the article as it currently stands (i.e. is the RFC being applied cogently, facetiously, indifferently or otherwise?) I’d like to briefly comment on the above. The notion of "precise" and "conservative" citing of self-published materials suggested by Dseer is a tenable standard, providing it isn't applied parsimoniously. The same applies to any source - all should be applied purposively and yet discriminatively - and the result should be a lucid distillation that really does cohere. If the article is sub-standard, and it is, then a thoroughgoing evaluation of the use of sources is what needs to be applied. On the topic of Adi Da's art, the article should certainly refer to the fact that Transcendental Realism was a collateral exhibit, which as far as I can tell - and my knowledge of the Biennale process isn't exhaustive - is true by definition, given that Adi Da Samraj was a stand-alone artist not represented in a national pavilion. As to "prestige" and the noteworthiness of the exhibition itself, and Adi Da Samraj's art in general, there is a great deal indeed that can and should be cited in support of this. And even if this was not the case, Adi Da's work as an artist is a critical dimension of his work that bears summarising in any serious article about him. As for your opinion over the validity of Trungpa's remarks concerning Adi Da Samraj as cited by his own devotees, Dseer, I fail to see how these fall into the ambit of "suspect" or "self-serving" based upon your aspersion alone. As I've already suggested, a common sense, scrupulous and unjaundiced evaluation of the primary source is what should be applied. Either it’s that or it’s the “pornography is what you like, erotica is what I like” game. (On the subject of what's Watt, I'd like to come to this later.)

If you're advocating putting The Way of Adidam article up for an RFC – is this what you’re saying? - I may be a little lost at this point - at this early stage I would suggest you instead made some specific as distinct from general comments on how this article has been improved. So far the article has been tagged for deletion, tagged for merging and now an RFC is being mooted. Business as usual? I hope not. Ira Jai (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that statements be properly attributable and NPOV, and states "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." It is clearly Wikipedia signficant to distinquish between being an exhibitor at the Venice Biennale and a collateral exhibitant, which only requires that some local gallery decide to exhibit your works during the event, as noted in this more accurate (relative to that claim) secondary third party source [13] which the Adidam sources do not do, as the source points out. This is an example of why secondary sources are needed and preferred. Self published sources are not considered as reliable as secondary sources in matters of assessing notability in a given area either. One significant question is this: "Adi Da is an artist, but is Adi Da sufficiently notable as an artist on his own to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia based on his art, or does not his primary notability come from his being a controversial guru rather than artist?" Secondary sources suggest the latter. That Adi Da is an artist whose work was exhibited as a collateral entrant at the Venice Biennale is a conservative statement and secondarily sourced, more subjective claims from self-published materials are suspect and probably not appropriate in the text of this encyclopedia. For example, the current statement: "These are typically produced at a so-called "monumental scale", as he describes, to eliminate the ego's need to objectify the reality they convey" is subjective and POV rather than objective fact. A more neutral and conservative statement would be "these are typically produced at a so-called "monumental scale" to eliminate what he considers to be the ego's need to objectify the reality they convey". Regarding referencing Trunpa, I believe the quote generally accepted was something along the lines of Trunpa saying regarding Adi Da that "it was difficult to start a new religion". In an article limited by the relative lack of secondary sources, and lacking anything reliably sourced from Trunpa himself or some more objective third party source indicating an actual endorsement beyond such a statement, which is not only a historical truism taken at face value but open to multiple interpretations, given that the two never even met, the self published sources do not justify encyclopedia language implying an endorsement and are so tangential as to seem to lack sufficient relevance for inclusion, period. Whereas the secondarily sourced Wilber's endorsements and subsequent redactions and Fuerstein's endorsements and subsequent criticisms at least in part would be sufficiently relevant because they met and Wilber and Fuerstein were very clear about their endorsements, the context, and their intended scope. In summary, primary, self published sources that contain claims should provide commensurate evidence and must meet the criteria I see comesincolors has copied from Wikipedia above, including the requirement that the article is not based primarily on such sources as confirmed by the earlier RFC. Thus the article can use primary sources such as those from Adidam, but should not be primarily based on them. --Dseer (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dseer - That North Coast Journal piece[14] was B.A.D.-asS.!

P.S. Ira Jai - It's fine if you don't want to talk to me, but only till you start proposing and making actual changes to the article. Then, you gotta. Sorry, it's the rules. Read WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS. In fact, read them all, and kindly abandon the unsavory (and rule-breaking) practice of attacking other editors who point them out to you.

Speaking of reading things, the RfC, aka Request for comment, is further up this page, under its own heading. We're still in the process of fixing up the article, since there remains far too much self-pub material. We'll do our best to do so cogently, and not at all facetiously. Discriminatively, too, methinks. But few things can exceed this in discrimination, imho:

“ You have to wonder, don't you -- how does a guy go from cheesy holy man to international art celeb in zero time? But it's not that strange, really. There's an overlapping skill set: First and foremost, both rackets require the ability to corral a pile of detritus and imbue it with all the mystery and meaning and wonder that has supposedly escaped our dull, quotidian existence. And then to sell it back to us at a premium. If this art racket doesn't pay off, it wouldn't be surprising to see the B.A.D.S. don a suit and tie and begin shilling a revolutionary new business management program. ”

--Comesincolors (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just preface these remarks by saying that I'm on a public computer and - what do you know - I don't have the remotest recollection of my password. Hence, what will inevitably be an irregular signing off below.

Dseer, on the subject of collateral exhibitor status at Venice, I'm not sure the accreditation process is precisely as you describe it. I suspect not; but, as I say, I'm no expert on the Biennale. What I will do is check up on this. That aside - and notwithstanding your sometime over-reliance on the mantra, as distinct from the discriminative evaluation, of both primary and secondary sources - I agree that Adi Da Samraj appears in the public domain first and foremost as a spiritual teacher and to a "lesser" extent as a visual artist. However, as I'll show when I edit this section, establishing notability in respect of the latter is a straight-forward matter. Your opinion that subjective claims from self-published materials are suspect is, as I've already suggested, pure aspersion - but if you wish to persist in that kind of speculation, that's up to you. Your remarks on Trungpa mirror to some extent earlier ones of mine - more on this later.

Comesincolors, this para replaces another written by me 30 minutes before, which I've struck from these dialogue pages. The striking was done in full consciousness that my preciousness reflects directly and immediately on me - and what I had posted was very precious. That said, I'd like to suggest to you that, as with me or any editor, what you do on these pages reflects directly and immediately on you too. If you use a word like "unsavory" and then wind up a post, with apparent glee, with a highly unsavory quote from something folks are supposed to take seriously as a reputable secondary source, then that reflects on you in a given way that I suggest is very telling. Moreover, if you pointedly avoid an argument by repetitively invoking Wiki guidelines without commentary - as if somehow those guidelines magically "agreed" with you - and then rejoin with something like "here it is in black and white, Jack; ask around if you don't believe me" - this reflects on you on a given way too. What it does do is suggest that you are not serious.

More than once here you have asked people to "kindly" refrain from personal criticism of you and stick to the guideline of playing the ball, not the humanoid. I have to disabuse you and say that there is no rule or guideline of ordinary civility that precludes forthright criticism of you or anyone, where that criticism is sincerely felt. Not only is this kind of criticism a legitimate and necessary form of communication, it is by no stretch of the imagination a breech of civility or ordinary decency simply because it makes you uncomfortable. If it’s outright abuse or bitchiness, then that’s another matter. If a given allegation is unfair, and you can this point out, then you’ll find that I’m the first person to withdraw and apologize. On the other hand, if you're attracting personal criticism from me and others here (and NO ONE is above such criticism) it is either the case that you're being unfairly targeted or that you conduct here leaves something to be desired. I personally feel that the latter is the case. Moreover, your suggestion that I'm declining outright to dialogue with you only illustrates my point that you don't actually read what others have posted here in dialogue with you. If you had read it, you'd have seen that I used the words "for now." Believe me when I say, there is NO chance that I, for one, will not dialogue with you in the thick of the editing process! I couldn't be plainer on the last point if I tried. Ira Jai (sans login) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.171.11 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For Ira Jai: thanks for clarifying your comments re "for now"; I appreciate it. Several additional points:

1. My expressing appreciative agreement with a sources's critical (and cynical) view of the article's subject is OK. Editors get to have opinions about topics and express them on talk pages. That is not an attack on you or any editor.

2. Regarding my "invoking Wiki guidelines", WP:SELFPUB is clear as can be that articles should not be based mainly on primary sources, and that the latter are acceptable only under certain conditions, etc. The rationale (e.g., all self-published sources are equally "questionable", no specific aspersion intended) is on that page, and there's not much point in reinventing the wheel here. It may be helpful to think of yourself as a newly-arrived member of a community that has developed certain norms; like actual countries, WP has certain "laws" (or policies) and "customs" (or guidelines). So for certain things, yes, it is fair to depict my comments, at least in substance (I don't mean the tone to be uncivil), as "here it is in black and white, Jack; ask around if you don't believe me". Please do ask around; that's preferable to continuing to dispute basic policy here. Past a certain point, it is not reasonable (and in fact very "un-serious") to expect other members of the community to engage in long debates about whether or not it is good to drive the left side of the road. It's just the way things are done around here, and we all deal with that.

3. You wrote: More than once here you have asked people to "kindly" refrain from personal criticism of you and stick to the guideline of playing the ball, not the humanoid. I have to disabuse you and say that there is no rule or guideline of ordinary civility that precludes forthright criticism of you or anyone, where that criticism is sincerely felt. In fact, "play the ball not the humanoid" is an excellent depiction of WP:DR, which is indeed a rule against such criticism, however heartfelt. If I were in your shoes, I'd try and read these policy pages, and avoid making too many comments asserting that X policy doesn't exist when it plainly does (and others have taken the time to link to them, repeatedly, as explanation). Please understand that such comments are considered (a) entirely forgivable in a new editor, and (b) entirely disruptive and trollish in a long-time editor. Both (a) and (b) are very important aspects of Wikiquette that I hope you take to heart.

Finally, I'd like to repeat my apology for the snide tone with which I responded to your initial post. I think my response may have gotten you off on the wrong foot here, and that would a very grave sin indeed on my part as Wikipedian. I'm not sure how else to make amends, so I do hope you accept my apology and we can move forward. In that spirit, I'd like to encourage a fresh start and a little bit of a course change.

I hope you take all of my above comments in the sincere spirit in which they are intended. I don't presume to be an authority on WP policy; I do presume that said policy is indeed authoritative when I edit WP. And you should too!  :-) Editing is much more pleasant and productive that way. thanks, Comesincolors (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I honestly appreciate your conciliatory spirit and don’t wish to appear mean-spirited, I still get the impression that you are genuinely confused over the difference between "disputing basic policy" and actually utilising basic policy as evaluative criteria for assessing, on its pure merits, any given source at all. You say that "it is not reasonable (and in fact very "un-serious") to expect other members of the community to engage in long debates about whether or not it is good to drive the left side of the road." I think that this is amiably facetious, and I say so, in part, because it was you, not I, who raised the topic of Trungpa, and then pointedly avoided any discussion as to the source in question, in this case Love of the Godman at all, beyond, of course, quoting rules at me, which I see you are still contiuning to do, as if somehow I knew nothing of them. As to the source I mentioned, I wonder that you’re even familiar with the source in question; if you aren’t, then you might have the wherewithal to say so plainly.

I’d like to suggest that remarkable as it may seem, this isn’t a trifling matter, where fairness and scope in an article are at stake. In any event, avoiding an argument by portraying me or any other interlocutor as longwinded will just not do, Comesincolors. This is really the reason, that while I take heart from your sentiments around "a fresh start and course change", I continue to decline to share your view of yourself as someone qualified to dispense laconic advice about "the way things are done around here" and "what we all deal with." As it happens any regard that I, as one editor, will have for you at all, will be based on the strength of your clear reasoning on whatever is salient here and on that alone. I can’t make this plainer. If rigour is what you desire, then you must be rigorous. "Certain norms" in a community are to be expected; and where they are based on a sensibility that is highly moral, respected too. And yet for that, in the case of this community real and constant rigor has no substitute; the uninspected presumptions of self-professed old-timers least of all.

Hence, I'd suggest that rather than presuming to tell me what you’d do "if you were in my shoes" you might like to stick to the demanding business of inhabiting your own. If "rea\d the rules, read them all" is the book you determine to go by, if it’s what works for you as an editor, then that’s the law by which you must abide. But when you ask me to "avoid making too many comments asserting that X policy doesn't exist when it plainly does" when I have not once, even in passing, asserted any such thing at all, then I have to wonder about just how rigorous you’re intending to be. For that, one of the first things I came across perusing the Wiki manuals, was the observation that you can apply common sense in your editing without so much as reading, much less citing a single rule at all. That doesn’t mean that a tenable standard is a thing you can disregard blithely, and yet the observation is just one more pointer to the genius of the project itself.

As a constant user, I think the project is ingenious and I think it reflects a standard of work and commitment overall that is often very high indeed. And I think that that is a reflection of attention to detail, as distinct from an attention to rules. If you’re constantly invoking rules, you’re risking looking like an amateur; all the more so if your article or articles aren’t first rate – and, as I can’t stress enough, the article on Adi Da Samraj is anything but. In any discussion over the real value of sources, there’s a world of difference between being judicious and being lawyerly. For that, shortcuts in logic are as inadmissible as moot court or, worse, broken-down-gramophone invoking of Wikilaw. It’s ironic, and yet not I think particularly surprising, that the three seem to go so much hand in hand. And hand-in-hand they do.

As it happens, I do take to heart your advocacy of an environment where editing is a “pleasant and productive” just as I applaud your railing against “trollishness” in editor behaviour of any kind. I can see, from reading it, that Wiki’s taboo against personal criticism is not only pervasive but extremely moral and I am sure that I, for one, haven’t adapted fully to the spirit of it. For me that means overcoming my tendencies to be sententious and cranky. I genuinely appreciate your repeating your earlier apology, and I am sorry if you continue to feel belittled by any statement or insinuation of mine at all. I will have to work harder. If your intention, overall, is to hold me to a high standard, good and well. The intention is mutual. It will continue to be so. This I hope you will take to heart. Ira Jai (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ira Jai: It's not necessary for you to read all the rules before editing. However, when other editors point them out to you, you should heed them. James Steinberg's Love Of The Godman doesn't fly as anything other than a self-published source, is not citable for what Trungpa ostensibly said, and there are venues for getting further input on that if you disagree. We can discuss this and other matters when you propose particular changes to the article. Until then, I don't see much point in further discussion. thanks, Comesincolors (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This published article/review provides an illuminating perspective on the 2007 Venice Biennale and also the role of collateral exhibits [15]. Also, note that Wikipedia does not have articles on every collateral artist associated with past or present Vienna Biennales. The point is that a brief mention of his art in a biographical article based on relative notability as a contemporary, controversial guru seems reasonable to me since that is where he's put a lot of effort recently, provided the tone is neutral and conservative, but as an artist, there is a dearth of evidence of sufficient notability in the art world outside of Adidam to justify much more. Adidam consists of a few thousand who naturally consider everything Adi Da does as having great divine significance and his explanations about his art relevatory, but that opinion is only held by a very small minority. The fact that Adi Da has independent means to pursue an artistic career and may find some curators who showcase his work does not constitute proof of sufficient notability in the art world lacking a significant number of secondary sources asserting it so. Wikipedia policy is not to be used for promotional purposes, either to gain publicity for a future event contrary to Wikipedia policies such as was tried with the Vienna Biennale reference before it even happened, or to promote Adi Da as an artist beyond his true notability in the collective art community by undue weight in Wikipedia, and more critical third party secondary sources should also be included for balance. It is not my opinion that primary Adidam sources are suspect based on the criteria listed in SELFPPUB, it is clear from Wikipedia itself. We are talking here about a biographical article up to encyclopedia standards based on the subject's actual notability as a guru based on secondary sources, which per Wikipedia needs to be substantially based in secondary sources not just self-published Adidam material, and perhaps the proposed separate article on the New Religious Movement Adidam which consists of only a couple thousand formal members based on independent sources and which is not well known outside of new age circles per independent secondary sources, and that is notable primarily for its claims that Adi Da is the first fully Divine Incarnation in history, clearly contentious and hardly the maintream POV Wikipedia emphasizes. A lack of secondary sources in a critical area where only Adidam sources exist to support the claim means, as Wikipedia itself states: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". I think there is more than enough out secondary sourcing out there to make this article work, and see no reason you can't fit in essential elements of Adi Da's life and Adidam teachings within those constraints without violating SELFPUB, and the external link to Adidam is always there if readers want more Adidam based perspective. Why not at least give it a shot?--Dseer (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for including a paragraph (the existing paragraph being a fair start) is based on a bit more than the fact that "this is where he’s put a lot of effort recently." You say that Adidam consists of "a few thousand who naturally consider everything Adi Da does as having great divine significance and his explanations about his art revelatory, but that opinion is only held by a very small minority …" Call me pedantic, but I think there’s a rule of thumb that precludes the idle summarising of a point of view you disagree with – and in particular inverting glibly what is an axiom of value for someone else, such that it becomes an implied trivialisation. I believe if you were to take the time to evaluate the primary sources on Adi Da’s "Transcendental Realism" art, you’d see that the scope of his studio practice is very considerable by any standard. Similarly, the manner in which Adi Da Samraj presents his art in his broader context of spiritual initiation is complex in format as well as rigorously elaborated in terms of a precise philosophical argument. Adi Da’s argument concerning the transcendence of point of view in art dovetails with references to Cezanne, Kandinsky and Alberti in a manner that is not at all trivial – and that is predicated on much, much more than "great divine significance" – not that I’m contending, of course, that the subject of what is of "divine significance" is irrelevant to his avocation. When you say "it is not my opinion that primary sources are suspect based upon the criteria listed in SELPUB, it is clear from Wikipedia itself" what you’re asserting is doubtless irresistibly sunny; what is "not your opinion", on the other hand, bears examination. "Suspect" – what a broad and suggestive brush. Similarly, your citing of Wiki's "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Here's a rule that has an intrinsic meaning such, that when you use it only for the meaning that you intend - a suggestive but otherwise insubstantial one - then I, for one, demur. If there is likely "misleading of false" information abroad, then what that information is needs to be established clearly, whatever the potential source may happen to be. Regardless, where is your actual evaluation, even in summary, of Da Plastique’s sources, generic and Biennale “Eventi Collaterali” exhibition websites, and the printed catalogues and literature? I notice that you have exhorted other editors to "try to follow Wikipedia guidelines, including the evaluation of sources for statements within the article." Going by your by your arguments on Watts and Trungpa and other sources earlier on, I gather that you take this very seriously; so I take it that you realise that "evaluating" means being more than simply suggestive concerning those sources that are not to your taste.

Of course, the argument is only partly around primary sources in and of themselves; it’s around demonstrating actual, as opposed to putative notability. On this you contend that there is a "dearth of evidence of sufficient notability in the art world", begging the question, again, as to whether you’ve actually taken the time, even in passing, to look into this. I think if you were, you might start to glean an idea of the scope that a "neutral and conservative" paragraph on Adi Da’s art might encompass. Yes, Da Plastique has found "some curators" to exhibit Adi Da’s art. And yet, as you no doubt realise, not all curators are created equal. If you’re in any doubt as to the notability of curators and critics who have embraced Adi Da’s art, I think you may be in for a surprise as the article evolves. I don’t believe there’s any doubt that notability in this instance doesn’t mean being a Jeff Koons, or even of being of lesser renown either; it doesn’t even mean being written up in Artforum or some such. Notability does, in this instance, mean that not only has the art has received serious attention from cognoscenti of very more than passing renown, but serious, sustained engagement from them for good measure.

The attention of redoubtable cognoscenti in itself – and the instance of art bears some, though not blithe, comparison to other sections of the article – is sufficient to establish notability. You say that "more critical third party secondary sources should also be included for balance." "More critical?" Is this a reference to art critics per se, or to anyone "critical" at all? Regardless, applying fair as distinct from undue weight is a matter of using "conservatively" what is reasonable and purposive based upon available information – not upon engineering “balance” for its own sake. To use an example, the mere statement Angels in America opened at the Mark Taper Forum to widespread critical acclaim is demonstrably balanced and would likely to continue to be so, even without reference to the say, an objection by a conservative critic who admired Ronald Reagan to the dramatist’s depiction of some of his friends. If it was the case that critical reception of Adi Da Samraj’s art had been divided, or if there was significant demurral on its merits from a notable source, fine – neither happens to be the case. Still, by any measure, the article should be and need only be “conservative” and plain, and not at all effusive. But the context viz. notability should be what critics and curators not affiliated with Adi Da Samraj have said and done. And where the latter are concerned, there’s difference between being benevolent and engaged on the one hand and being "affiliated" on the other – a source of confusion for at least one editor here and perhaps a favoured one.

Then there's what’s Watts, wot? You refer in one of your comments above to Watt’s "pretty generalised endorsement." Perhaps it's the case that Watt’s "it is obvious from all sorts of subtle details that he knows what IT’s all about … a rare being" makes for "a pretty generalised endorsement;" - for all I know, his later "It looks like we have an avatar here, I can hardly believe it, I've been waiting for such a one all my life" is a "pretty generalised endorsement" too. Even so, here’s something that’s useable in an article; likewise, the fact that Watts praised but never saw Adi Da Samraj ought to be included. You say Watts died in poor health in November 1973; I understood more than that, that he died on his way to meet Adi Da at Persimmon as it then was. Regardless, you contend that that Watts had "an insignificant period of time to assess his opinion regarding Adi Da or Adidam." That would imply that you had a notion, or evidence, concerning what prompted Watts to make his statements in the first place; a notion that took precedence over the ability of the referencer to draw her or his own conclusions. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I think you said somewhere; to the best of my knowledge, it isn’t a séance medium either, whether the Seer is in the house or not. With WIKI:SÉANCE unavailable, best present what’s pertinent and let the reader do the rest. As to your allusions to the Watts family, these remind me of nothing so much as Total Eclipse, if you’ve seen that movie, and Isabelle Rimbaud’s and Verlaine’s diverging convictions on the role of family members in protecting a writer’s legacy. Fortunately for literature Verlaine’s view prevailed. So saying, that’s less a point about literature or about a poet’s intimates, than about something that should be self-evident: a family’s feelings are not a measure of a writer’s intentions. All in all, the fact that Watts never saw Adi Da Samraj might be echoed in the article by the fact that Trungpa never met him either. You say "regarding referencing Trunpa, I believe that the quote generally accepted was something along the lines of Trunpa saying regarding Adi Da that 'it was difficult to start a new religion.'" (I think rather, as I suggested earlier, "a new tradition.") As earlier noted, Trungpa said that he regarded Adi Da to be "genuine." Again, though Trungpa’s comment was pointed, it was not effusive. Also as I suggested earlier, and as you yourself echoed, the first bit could conceivably be read in one or more ways. Far from being "tangential," I think the latter, by its potential ambiguity, shows a good example of something that would be useful in a neutral point of view article. It has a commensurate, but quite different implication, from any notable who was or is, as you say, "clear about their endorsements, the context and their intended scope."

As to extending the themes of primary vs. secondary sources a good deal further, I good and even should do so, but I feel sure that this is enough for the moment. Even so, I'll end with this comment from you: "I think there is more than enough out secondary sourcing out there to make this article work, and see no reason you can’t fit in essential elements of Adi Da’s life and Adidam teachings within those constraints without violating SELFPUB." Well the contention is yours, the proposal too, so it’s up to you to do your best or worst accordingly. But the question arises, where or what is this sufficiency of secondary sources that you're implying? Which sources? What is the real scope and how much authority in those authorial voices? Yes, there are tenable secondary sources. And, as I should hardly have to point out, tenable primary ones too – without any real risk of, as you put it, "violating SELFPUB" Ira Jai (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)