Talk:Adi Da/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JN466 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I appreciate the genuine and good-faith effort that has gone into writing an even-handed article on Adi Da and his movement. In many ways, this effort has been successful. Even so, there are still NPOV and OR issues that preclude this article from reaching GA status. These do not appear to be about any obvious suppression of praise or controversy, more about the fact that not enough reliable third-party sources, especially scholarly sources, have been used to shape the article. For example, the lede states

"Adi Da taught that unhappiness is caused by the illusion of ego, or separate self, which he described as an activity called "self-contraction."[3] He said that all efforts or techniques to become happy from this already assumed separation were futile, and that only devotional meditation [4][5] on him as avatar and satguru could truly liberate one from this activity of separation.[6]"

This is sourced to four different primary sources, raising concerns of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Compare this to a scholarly third-party source like Lewis's article on Adi Da in Melton and Baumann's Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, which says,

Adi Da points out that seeking means constant activity and that activity prevents the conscious realization of perfect happiness. He further asserts that he has realized this Most Perfect Happiness -- God, Truth or Reality -- and has the power to transmit that Divine Self-Realization to others. The Way of the Heart, then, consists of a devotional relationship with Adi Da, whom his devotees assert is the source of Divine Self-Realization.

This shows that the summary given in the article lead is quite appropriate, but the point is that this is not verifiable for the reader, who merely sees a couple of sentences synthesised from four different primary sources, making the passage an instance of original research.

The overall assessment of the article is as follows:

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are problems with synthesis from primary sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (main aspects): b (focused):

   Given that the available scholarly literature has not been processed, this is not verifiable without additional source research.

4. It is neutral.

   Fair representation without bias:

   WP:DUE weight, which is a key consideration in WP:NPOV, must be established by reliable third-party sources, not primary sources.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I would like to encourage editors to revise the article using such scholarly sources as are listed here for example, and by drastically reducing the use of primary sources (books by the subject or movement websites); ideally, given that we have plenty of third-party sources to call on, such sources (the websites in particular) should only be cited where they are cited by a secondary source. Once this process is complete, please resubmit the article.
• I am failing the article at this time because I think that these revisions will take more work than can be accomplished within a GA review.
• I have access to a number of the scholarly sources concerned (e.g. Rawlinson, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Forsthoefel/Humes, Melton, Partridge), and would be happy to help interested editors out with their source research etc. (just drop me an e-mail).
• Thank you for your work on this article. There are many promising aspects about this article; I am confident it can make GA at some point in the future. --JN466 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues: WP:PRIMARY, WP:BK, WP:RS.

The following are all primary sources:

• Jones, Franklin. (1972). The Knee Of Listening, CSA Press. ISBN 978-0-87707-093-1* Samraj, Adi Da. (1998). Aham Da Asmi, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-049-1
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2000). The Seven Stages Of Life, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-105-6
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2004). The Knee Of Listening, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-167-6
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2005a). My 'Bright' Word, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-205-2
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2005b). Eleutherios, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 1-57097-187-0
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2005c). Da Love-Ananda Gita, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 978-1-57097-166-2
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2007). The Spectra Suites, New York: Welcome Books. ISBN 978-1-59962-031-2
• Samraj, Adi Da. (2009). The Boundless Self-Confession, Dawn Horse Press. ISBN 978-1-57097-260-7

Dawn Horse Press, is the Adi Da publishing house, may not be WP:BK

Overall, there is a general lack of referral to reliable, independent secondary sources, on matters relating directly to the subjects life, views, teachings etc.

A number of academic NRS texts feature relevant material on the subject, none are referenced here.

There are multiple footnotes that are not WP:RS so should be removed. Measles (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Measles a few questions on your comments:

1)independent secondary sources, on matters relating directly to the subjects life, views, teachings etc. While clearly The Dawn Horse Press is the publisher of Adi Da's books, they are a direct and reliable source of the views and teachings of Adi Da. The are the official publishers of his teaching etc.

2) Relative to general lack of referral to reliable, independent secondary sources, on matters relating directly to the subjects life could you be more specific quoting areas of the article where this is necessary or required or possibly disputed.

3) Relative to academic NRS sources I am not familiar with that term ... what does it mean? Could you give some examples? Are you saying there are NRS sources you know about that are not used ? If so again could you give examples?

Thanks for your clarification Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP guidelines link above:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

It's pretty easy to see that the vast majority of this entry is from primary sources, MAINLY interpreted by WP editors with a sympathetic POV. Those primary sources are largely Adi Da's own books published by his own publishing company - not a reliable independent publisher as noted in the policy. Dawn Horse has a record of radically editing subsequent editions of these books, and clearly are propagandistic by design and intent in their creation. I have maintained all along that this overwhelming reliance on Adi Da's own statements does not make for a satisfactory entry. The lack of secondary or tertiary interpretive sources remains deeply suspect. I think Measles is rightly again questioning this.--Tao2911 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks understand... I will start finding secondary sources. Tao have a wonderful holiday season Wish you the best for the coming year! Jason Riverdale (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)