Talk:Adi Da

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adi Da article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Welcome to the Adi Da Samraj Talk page.

Please read Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines if you haven't already.

• /Archive1: January 2005 - March 2006
• /Archive2: March 2006 - July 2006
• /Archive3: July 2006 - July 2006
• /Archive4: July 2006 - February 2007
• /Archive5: February 2007 - February 2008

Please add new content under old content. Please start new sections at the bottom of the page. Thank you!

Contents 1 Outrage perpetrated here in the guise of balance, endlessly. 2 Changing Line in Controversies Section 3 Wikipedia is not an advertising or proselytizing soapbox 4 Regarding the insertion of text from a lawsuit into a BLP 5 Specific Objection to the Use of Negative Distortion in the Controversy Section of the Lead 6 Lying Adidam functionaries removing sourced criticism 7 Censorship by Adidam functionaries here! 8 Hate Group Agenda Being Propagated Here 9 New Tags and removing lawsuit from lead section 10 Why I fight for critical material 11 Miller Suit Covered by Reliable Source? 12 Removed Feuerstein Material From “Life” Section 13 Today Show quotes; what subject is notable for 14 Message to 128.120.60.219 15 Second message to 128.120.60.219

[edit] Outrage perpetrated here in the guise of balance, endlessly.

There are adidam cleaners whose job it is to clean material from this site. They use less well sourced material than what they remove. They overwhelm the system with their false statements and propagate lies. This is part of the systematic whitewashing of history by Adidam.

[edit] Changing Line in Controversies Section

I would like to change the line The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million. [46], to, The church counter-sued for abuse of process, extortion, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought $20 million in damages. It is a statement that adheres to the truth more than the minimization of charges does. I am just trying to add more neutrality to the statement, Adi Da and his church were sued by an ex-member for (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery;David Starr 1 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. You are just an adidam cleaner doing your "service" to your "guru" whom you hardly know. The above is not even true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.67.31 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not an advertising or proselytizing soapbox

Clarifying the record by including relevant parts of one of many actual lawsuits is relevant. Pointing out that Franklin's belief, expounded in the unexpurgated Knee of Listening, that there are astral beings on the moon that eat souls is a psychotic belief - that is relevant. The book "Stripping the Gurus" is excellent, and highly recommended for anyone thinking of getting into a cult.

Frank is smart. He understands how people work. Your cognitive dissonance is forcing you to re-edit this article over and over again. Oh, well!

These facts will remain online and available. Time to deal with it. Actually, folks, you are really pissing me off to the point where what I am probably going to write and publish will make this bit of the iceberg seem like a love pat. Seriously - the smart thing for you to do is back off. Perhaps a few of you genuinely believe in your guru. If you don't know, time to sit back, time to dig and find out the truth.

You think I'm anti-Frank. Oh, you betcha. Matter of fact, you go tell Frank. You won't though. You're cowards and we all know it. Brainwashed. The only good thing is that most of what you are thinking and doing has nothing to do with Frank. 169.237.214.122 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Nemesis

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.^[1] David Starr 1 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And how badly sourced is it David? Let's see - Franklin's own book! The Knee of Listening! Which is cited elsewhere and listed as one of his myriad "works". Oh, yes, that must be false or questionable. What is false and questionable is YOU. You know exactly what you are, and it is vile. You are a coverup man because you are a fanatic. Shut up and learn what Franklin really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.67.31 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

David Starr is a pseudonym for a whitewashing cult member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.60.219 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the insertion of text from a lawsuit into a BLP

The text of the lawsuit would be considered to be a primary source. It would first have to be published by a secondary reliable source. (Lightmind is not considered to be a reliable source. The SF Chronicle is.) This is WP policy. The text of the lawsuit as you have included it is also violates NPOV the text of a lawsuit inherently takes only the plaintiffs POV and is designed to take as extreme a POV as possible.

Also from WP:BLP

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Also from Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

==Are Lawsuits Original Research When Text From Them are Inserted Into BLP's?==

Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but it can inherently violate neutral point of view for exactly the reasons you state. A lawsuit should never be included in a BLP unless it is covered by secondary reliable sources. In such a case, content should be lifted from the secondary source itself, and not the lawsuit. One can still make an external link to the lawsuit in this situation (so long as it's not hosted by an attack site, which is often the case). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also from BLP: Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Objection to the Use of Negative Distortion in the Controversy Section of the Lead

“Allegations by ex-members of what is now known as Adidam that Adi Da (then known as Da Free John) and some of his followers engaged in financial, sexual and emotional abuses were widely reported in American news media in 1985, [5] [6] including The Today Show. [7] Adidam rejects these allegations [8], acknowledging only a period of "sexual experimentation" that some members had not been told about "because they were not advanced enough spiritually", while conceding that such "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction. [9] Eventually the claims were settled out of court. [10]”

Specifically I object to “that some members had not been told about "because they were not advanced enough spiritually", while conceding that such "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction. [9]

These comments are taken out of context and are paraphrased. And taken as they are, and inserted into the Adi Da entry, only serve to create a further distortion from source material that is not a direct quote.

If you look at the original article, the only actual quote from a church official says "There have been incidents up to the fairly recent past," said Crane Kirkbride, speaking for the Johannine Daist Communion. "And we feel it is our right to experiment into the future. There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced.” The rest of the article as it pertains to concessions by church officials are all paraphrased by the writer Katy Butler and there is use of weasel words.[9]

In regards to the use of the term “spiritual theater”, that term is not explained here in the WP entry as it is in the Chronicle article. So there is no way for someone reading this to know what this actually means.

In regards to the “not advanced enough spiritually” statement, evidently this is not actually what Kirkbride said or this would be in quotes in the article. Once again the writer is extensively using paraphrasing. So the choice to not actually use his quote creates a question as to why.

And the concession that "spiritual theater may have consisted of members having sex in front of others at the gurus instruction is also taken out of context and is not backed up by any actual quotes, but again is simply paraphrased. Also note the use of the weasel word “may” as in “Officials of the group conceded that "spiritual theater" "may" consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction. This weasel word is taken out in the Adi Da entry creating an even further distortion from the original source.

I feel that the responsible treatment here, which would actually be a neutral counter-point to the original inclusion of the “allegations”, would be to use part of the only actual quote from a church official in the article, “ There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced.”

To summarize; I suggest a fair way of handling the controversy section of the lead would be to change it to the following: “Allegations by ex-members of what is now known as Adidam that Adi Da (then known as Da Free John) and some of his followers engaged in financial, sexual and emotional abuses were widely reported in American news media in 1985, [5] [6] including The Today Show. [7] Adidam rejects these allegations [8], acknowledging only a period of "sexual experimentation" saying that “There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced.” [9] Eventually the claims were settled out of court. [10]”

This obviously will not appeal to those seeking to portray a negative bias here about Adi Da. But he is a living person and WP demands that BLP be a fair treatment of the subject matter. In my opinion, using an actual quote as opposed to using Katy Butler’s paraphrasing is also a more responsible way of reporting what was truly said.David Starr 1 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree; reverted accordingly. There is no WP policy suggesting that a direct quote from an Adidam proponent would be required, as you suggest. The San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable source. According to WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." So this should stay. It's unfair not to include well-sourced material (and the article already has way too much self-published Adidam material). The material you propose substituting is just a variation of the existing sentence "Adidam denies these allegations". --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to address the specifics of what I proposed. I spent a lot of time on it and I waited 2 weeks before changing the edit. So perhaps you could address the specifics instead of simply disagreeing and reverting with no discussion. I feel that its a basic matter of style, fairness and neutrality. If the assertion is that Adidam rejects the allegations, then the rest of the sentence should support that.Please discuss the points that I have made, before reverting. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I plainly said above. I explained exactly why I reverted and am going to do so again. The material you want to delete is directly quoted from a reliable source. You have not provided a good reason not to use it: specifically, you have not shown where WP demands that the article quote Adidam representatives directly rather than indirectly. That is my rebuttal to your reply above, and you ignored it, so when you accuse me of reverting without discussion, you're really just doing the thing you're accusing me of doing (see WP:KETTLE.) Additionally, regarding the use of the word "may", WP:WEASEL applies to what editors write, not what sources themselves say. Finally, see WP:BLP regarding unflattering but relevant, verified material. That covers your arguments. Try addressing these counter-arguments rather than falsely claiming I'm not making them.

In fact, the news media articles are considered better sources on WP than self-published Adidam material. The latter are already overrepresented, so we should be relying on good secondary sources more, not less, whether or not they are flattering. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am saying that it is not neutral the way it is now. You are suppressing the POV that is stated in the SF Chronicle “that no one was forced and that no laws were broken” which seems highly relevant given the allegations. So I am saying that the phrasing you are selecting suffer from undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording. Also from WP:NPOV “Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." So based on this I am also reverting. I really am only trying to make the article better by trying to find neutrality and getting away from bias.David Starr 1 (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about your claim that you're reverting because the previous version "suppresses a POV" expressed by an Adidam functionary, when your version does the exact same thing with a slightly different POV from the same source.

• The specific phrase you want to include is this statement: "financial, sexual and emotional abuses "

• The phrase you want to delete is "[a period of "sexual experimentation" that] some members had not been told about "because they were not advanced enough spiritually", while conceding that such "spiritual theater" may consist of members having sex in front of others at the guru's instruction."

Why one and not the other? They're both from the same source, on the same topic, and equally relevant to the subject's notability. Remember what he's notable for: he only hit the bigtime (in terms of media coverage) when this stuff broke in 1985. Prior to that, he was fringe city. So he's known mainly for this stuff regarding sexual abuse and exploiting his devotees. Consequently, a large part of the article is going to have to cover this.

So, what I'm proposing is just including both for now. The only reason I can see for omitting the second phrase is simply that it's unflattering. That's not the same as an NPOV (or BLP) violation, and not a valid reason on WP. Indeed, NPOV isn't even about including a single point of view. All verifiable, properly weighted points of view go in. Including those from Adidam cited in mainstream newspapers, whether or not they portray themselves and their guru in a flattering light.

All the stuff in the SF Chronicle articles are much more reliable on WP than any of Adi Da's asserted yogic experiences in his autobiographical works. That's a little bit of a different paradigm than prevails in some quarters. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Comesincolors, you seem to only be happy about a statement that is weighted heavily towards your agenda. What about making Wikipedia better? The controversy section of the lead is supposed to be a brief summary presented in a neutral tone. And again:“Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." You have inserted allegations of financial, sexual and emotional abuses, your right, very unflattering, so there is that point of veiw, I have inserted There have been no violations of the law, and nobody has been forced. There we have a brief and fairly weighted statement showing both sides. Why the need for all the other conflicting statements? Is it becuase there is a need to not have it be balanced so that there can be the advancing of a personal veiw? David Starr 1 (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I don't think that adequately presenting critical material doesn't improve Wikipedia? I'm happy for both criticism and praise to exist side by side on WP if both are well-sourced. I'm happy with the lead as it currently is, more or less, although the rambling (and not wholly accurate) summary of Adi Da'a teaching could use work. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lying Adidam functionaries removing sourced criticism

Reviewing the history, David Star 1 writes that he removed content added to do harm that is libelous and unsubstantiated. This is totally false. He has claimed also that my content was added without discussion. And yet that discussion is right below this article! David Star1 and the rest of the cleaners are bowdlerizing functionaries for Adidam! This article is continuously updated by Adidam religion fanatics to prevent people from knowing the truth! David Star 1 must be blocked from editing this page! This systematic removal of real history is utterly unacceptable! I have also been accused of "vandalism"!

THIS MUST STOP!!!!! People need to know everything about Franklin! Not just his own self-adulating drivel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.122.196 (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship by Adidam functionaries here!

I have repeatedly added critical material from well-sourced third party sources, as well as critical material sourced from Franklin Jones' own writings. It is all removed by Adidam each time. This is utterly unacceptable! This makes the wikipedia entry dangerously lacking, it is a missionary tool not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.191.243 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to reiterate my criticism of this article. It is a ridiculous puff-piece, nearly complete in its lack of scholarship. I find it astounding that direct quoting or even reference to the lawsuit filed in the 1980's is so hard to squeeze into this article. In the context of a guru supposedl in Sahaj Samadi, this article becomes preposterous. People have a right to be informed. This incessant bowdlerizing of any criticism of this cult leader has no place in a public open encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.208.62 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add stuff from the 1980's news reports. Wikipedia has a policy about articles needing proper sources, especially in biographies of living people. Feel free to ask for clarification if you like. Thanks Comesincolors (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added quotes from the only lawsuit that was not sealed by the court as part of the settlement. Added quotes from Alan Kazlev's interview with a long-time ex-devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.214.117 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my comments below (under the section "Why I fight for critical material"). --Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hate Group Agenda Being Propagated Here

This article is being destroyed by hate group propagandizing in a way that can only be found historically in the Fatty Arbuckle case of the early 1900's. The person below continually is using this discussion page to spread libelous assertions. I have recently removed this persons libel in the past but I am leaving this material here for now and I ask, is anyone interested in Wikipedia being fair and balanced?

It is really beyond the pale to try and define someone by a decades old lawsuit. You could just as well call it an extortion attempt as there was a lawsuit also filed by the church claiming this as well. Unless you want to completely destroy an almost already incomprehensible lead section by including both points of view, then we must get rid of the lawsuit there and really try to make the lead section better as it really dismal right now in my humble opinion. I also think this whole entry should be way scaled down. Its just too long and self-serving. Also, if we are going to have Mark Miller’s lawsuit here then we must have the churches also. Both the pro-daist rhetoric and anti-daist rhetoric are destroying this article. I suggest editors take a look at the Roman Catholic Church entry as it is similarly religious and controversial and hated by some yet this entry is considered by Wiki staff to be a very good example of the perfect entry. That entry is protected and does not mention any of the thousands of lawsuits against the church anywhere, not to mention in the lead section.

So what-up editors? Are you interested in creating a good encyclopedic entry that really defines Adi Da, or is it just going to be a polarized hack-job between two competing agendas? There is definitely a great deal of evidence thus far that there is a polarization here that is about the hate group continuing it‘s campaign of negativism and myth-making relying on the 1985 lawsuit/extortion attempt as their sole centerpeice.David Starr 1 (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool the Adidam derived PR rhetoric about a "hate group", a illusory, defamatory and diversionary claim from a group that by its own admission withheld critical information from those outside an inner circle, and whose revisionism of fact is proven and constitutes documented mythology. Comparison with the Catholic Church and lawsuits against priests is bogus logic, for one thing, since only a few priests are so accused where here is is the "Promised God Man". Even a comparison you did not make, if hypothetically the Pope himself was being so accused, which would justify similar coverage in an article, gets closer; but even that is not a full comparison. Here the allegations are published and credible and made against the equivalant of what is in Judeo-Christian terms a self-claimed Messiah (basically what an Avatar is in western terms), and published accounts come from credible former members who left as early as 1973 and as recently as 2002. Whereas there are now a small, minority group of long time devotees who stayed, compared with the 90% who left voting with their feet, claiming only their skewed version of what happened is correct when such belief is a litmus test for involvement. True, newer converts may well think the accounts of those who stayed are a majority opinion, an argument being used as long ago as 1975 after the post Garbage and Goddess defections, but they are not. The lawsuits are what Adi Da is most widely noted for, like it or not, and were settled to avoid Adi Da having to testify under oath, and occur in the context of a long history of similar accounts. That being said, however, and despite what actually happened in the inner circle which was far worse than anything in print, and despite the obvious absurdity of Australian advocates claiming to know anything about what really happened, the article must stay enclopedic. Assuming good faith, you may really believe there is a hate group, but that is your belief. Make your point without engaging in hate speech yourself.--Dseer (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, so “Lying Adidam Functionaries” is just fine, but “Hate-Group Propaganda” is a foul”. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are inappropriate on talk pages and distract from substance. BTW, Dseer is right that the lawsuits are highly notable: maybe not the single most notable issue, but at the highest tier of notability for this subject. That is based on sources, not opinion. The best sources we have (secondary ones, per WP:SOURCES) all cover the lawsuits. That's why the article gives them salience. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

David, no need to misrepresent what I stated. I asked you to "make your point without engaging in hate speech yourself" because you asserted without any evidence there is a hate group and I do think you have a legitimate point. "Lying Adidam functionaries" was not endorsed, and is inappropriate also. Outide of that being a personal attack, evidence you are knowingly asserting what is false or are an Adidam functionary doing so is lacking in any case. What I am pointing out is that the person making these characterizations can show it is a documented fact that Adidam admitted it did not did not disclose significant information regarding the nature of activities around its guru to much of its membership, let alone potential converts, from 1977 through April 1985, and over those years presented a false picture of a renunciate guru who ceased the practices in 1976 later shown to have continued until the revelations. This admission only came only after the allegations became public from multiple defectors who were in a position to know, allegations consistent with multiple published accounts by ex-members, whose private accounts are much worse than what is published, and which Adidam settled for a sum of monies rather than refute the accounts in court. "Lying" is an inppropriate word to broadly describe editors here, but that Adidam was not truthful during that period is fact, while the hate group agenda claim has no evidence other than Adidam PR to support it. It is obvious that anyone who was not involved and present at the Northern California location during the period prior to the allegations surfacing who makes claims about a hate group and extortion is simply choosing to believe and repeating what they have been told about what happened by the minority of those still actively involved of those who were active at one time or another between 1974 and 1985, including the Australian group editing here. --Dseer (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dseer, since you are not on the receiving side of the anti-Daist hatred, I can see why you would be so offended by the term hate group. But much of that hatred can be seen right here on this talk page. Here's a few for you. "You're cowards and we all know it. Brainwashed." "This article is continuously updated by Adidam religion fanatics to prevent people from knowing the truth!" "THIS MUST STOP!!!!! People need to know everything about Franklin! Not just his own self-adulating drivel! " And thats just the stuff I left on here. The hatred and rumor mongering and myth making from Lightmind has inflamed many many people. And including the lawsuits, with little or no verifiability. And now many fans of Adi Da are ritually abused in print. I think it would be best if we just stick to discussions about the article and not get into personal attacks and rants about how awful you think Adi Da is. Also, I would appreciate if I weren't referred to as Adidam. I have no formal affiliation with Adidam and I am an individual. Thanks.David Starr 1 (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to pay attention to what I actually wrote. I did not refer to you as "Adidam", I referred to attributable and evidenced assertions about Adidam from varied sources over a long period that significantly reflect on its credibility, while pointing out there was no evidence you were an Adidam "operative" or knowingly lying. My other point is that you are not being helpful in not acknowledging that in stating there is a hate group you are simply acting on a belief that assumes that these allegations have no validity, based on the views of a population of advocates that is a small minority of the totality of those involved during the controversial period up to the lawsuits. Unless you were actually sufficiently involved during the most controversial period in question to make assessments of relative credibility, you have no way of knowing whether the allegations are true, and if they were and Adidam was totally deceptive in that regard, the attitude of some editors would be understandable and not just an irrational hate group, even if unencylopedic. You see lots of similar language from former members of many charismatic groups and often their charges have at least some validity. Sticking with Wikipedia guidelines is sufficient, no need to make such assumptions about a hate group. --Dseer (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP, hate speech is defined as: speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

Therefore, hate speech is speech intended to degrade someone based on their religion. To call me a coward, or a liar or to say I’m brainwashed is not hate speech. To call me a coward, or a liar or to say I’m brainwashed because of my religion is hate speech. And the reason for this my dear friend is because peoples religious beliefs are those beliefs that they hold most dear to their heart. So to be abusive towards me because of my religion, as has happened to me many, many, times at Lightmind and here on this talk page, just in the past few weeks, is classic hate speech. (It cuts to the very core of those on the receiving end of it.) And a group of people organized around a website who ritually support the denigration of those associated with the religion of Adidam are, I’m sorry to say it, a hate group.David Starr 1 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Every exploitative group calling itself a religion whines "hate group" when its abuses are outed. Poor, threatened cult leaders living on their tropical islands. Cue the world's tiniest violin. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Tags and removing lawsuit from lead section

It’s quite clear that there is a very strong anti-Adi Da agenda being supported here. I can’t find any support for including a decades old lawsuit in a lead section in a BLP. The idea that Adi Da is best known for that lawsuit is an opinion, not a fact. I stand firmly against this un-neutral stance of including the lawsuit in the lead when it already is well covered in the controversies section. The fact that it is in the lead is evidence of editors here having a bias against Adi Da. For this I am submitting a neutrality tag. Also 128.120.52.38 postings of libelous assertions in the talk page which have been allowed to stand without deletion against WP policies are strong evidence of this persons conflict of interest here using WP to further libelous assertions and editing the Adi Da page at the same time. So while this type of editing continues I am submitting the COI tag. I am also submitting the unbalanced tag for including the lawsuit in the lead section, and for lack of balance in the controversies section. Please do not remove these tags until these disputes are settled.

Here’s some facts for you regarding other BLP articles affiliated with religious groups that have been sued and how that lawsuit is never included in the lead :

Swami Kriyananda as Ananda Church of Self Realization sued by clients of Ford Greene and lost to the tune of $1.6 million for fraud, coercion, and sexual exploitation. No mention in the lead section, only in the controversies section.

Maharishi University of Management founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi sued federally in US District court for failing to protect it’s students after 2 stabbings one resulting in death. No mention whatsoever of this on that Wiki page.

Church of Scientology loses $39 million lawsuit for fraud. No mention of this in the lead section.

Rick Ross found guilty of conspiracy to violate the civil right to freedom of religion of Jason Scott. Ordered to pay more than $3 million in damages. No mention in the lead section, only in the “cases” section.David Starr 1 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, welcome to Wikipedia. A comment about talk page guidelines: please add new sections at the bottom, not at the top (just as new comments go under old comments within sections). I will try and rearrange the page accordingly and archive it. My comments below refer to various guidelines on Wikipedia; it may sound a bit jargon-filled, but it's just stuff that all editors gradually become familiar with.

Please read WP:LEAD, which explains why the lawsuits belong in the lead section here. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as newspaper articles. The lawsuits were extensively covered. The fact that they happened in 1985 doesn't make them less notable. See Bill Clinton; his impeachment is mentioned in the lead, even though it happened well over a decade ago.

I'm not familiar with the lawsuits of other religious figures that you mention. Maybe there's a good reason to exclude them in those cases, or maybe they actually should be included, but have been kept out by groups of determined editors; who knows? Anyway, here it's a matter of how much weight we give to sources. Secondary sources (e.g. news media) have more weight than primary sources (e.g. self-published Adidam material). For more on that, please read WP:SOURCES.

Regarding COI, please read WP:COI. Just because you believe an article is unbalanced is not sufficient reason to assume a COI exists. There needs to be evidence that an editor's real-life affiliations are affecting the article at the expense of WP policy, and there has been no evidence of that. I'm removing the COI tag. The neutrality tag is fine, but the unbalanced tag is just redundant. We don't need to clutter up articles with tags. thanks, Comesincolors2 (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I fight for critical material

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. 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 am traumatized to some degree. But I have to do this. No, Mark Miller was no saint either. But he didn't lie, and the salient points of that lawsuit NEED to be quoted.

Also, I have, so far, left the adidam supplied stuff alone. While obnoxious, the fact that this is there is something I can live with - but there must be a section that has serious criticism of Franklin. 128.120.52.38 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Dave

Regarding critical material: we need to adhere to policy whether the material is critical or not. Quoting from lawsuits is generally OK, within reason, if the lawsuits were covered by media (which they were in this case). Still, better to quote from the newspaper articles than to cut and paste whole slabs of the lawsuit. The Kazlev stuff is at best borderline; I'm not sure that site qualifies as a reliable secondary source. Same with Falk; I think that book is self-published. (Whatever; even if it doesn't go in Wikipedia, all that stuff is still accessible via Google, and someone stupid enough not to google probably deserves to join a cult.) --Comesincolors2 (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I am going to remove the wholesale inclusion of text of the plaintiffs complaint from the entry as per dicussuions here and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.David Starr 1 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Text of lawsuits is what gives newspapers license to publish. People deserve to see this. You are just giving license to an Adidam cleaner to remove material. No, people don't go google everything under the sun. They come to Wikipedia and expect it to have reasonable links to relevant material.

[edit] Miller Suit Covered by Reliable Source?

I’m not finding any reliable source for the Miller suit. It’s my understanding that this is required by WP policy for inclusion in the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. This is just licensing of Adidam cleaners to get rid of things they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.169.172 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Feuerstein Material From “Life” Section

Besides the fact that it seems like Feuerstein is a critic and I think his writing uses insinuation to create bias, (see WP:NPOVT, Insinuation), for people who are relatively unknown, such as Adi Da, (meaning that he does not fit the category of a well-known public figure), WP:BLP says: “editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability.” (See WP:NPF) I don’t believe Adi Da’s health issues are relevant to his notability. Neither are his children. So I removed the Feuerstein material from the life section based on this policy. Also WP:HARM says: Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. David Starr 1 (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your second point first: Mainstream media includes books. Feuerstein's Holy Madness is, in fact, a book available anywhere in the world where there is an internet connection and mail. As soon as Feuerstein's book was published, that information entered into the mass media along with all the stuff from the SF Chronicle and so on. I don't see the violation of WP:BLP or WP:HARM here.

On your first point: Is the material relevant to his notability? Indeed it is, just as similar verifiable, widely-disseminated information about any controversial would-be guru is relevant. According to the best secondary sources we have (newspaper articles, Today Show, Feuerstein, Wilber, Lane), Adi Da is most notable for being a controversial guru who was embroiled in scandals involving exploitation of his devotees as well as his personal, addictive excesses. That's a simple fact, from those sources. So if such sources discuss his paranoia or personal excesses in the context of his would-be guruship, let alone basic biographical information like his having three kids, that should go in.

Again, material should not be deleted just because it's unflattering. It's a massive NPOV violation to gloss over such material when it is verified and relevant to the subject's notability, as is the case here. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream media or mass media is a term used to denote a section of the media specifically envisioned and designed to reach a very large audience such as the population of a nation state." So no, even though it is a book, it doesn't even come close to qualifying unless it had sold millions of copies. Just becuse it is a book it isn't "mass media". Also, Adi Da is most notable for being a spiritual teacher, so material relevant to this specifically would be in alignment with WP:NPF. If he were some type of a health and fitness expert, then his medical problems would be relevant, and if he were a very famous person then his children and his medical problems would be relevant. Also the Feuerstein quote is quite communicative of his bias against Adi Da, so it violates WP:NPOV.David Starr 1 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that books aren't mass media, but I see your point that some forms are more "mass" than others. However, isn't this portion of the Feuerstein quote relevant to his notability as a guru? "...he announced to his devotees worldwide that their lack of support and devotion were killing him—a complaint he made on several previous occasions." And I'm puzzled why information about his having children is somehow off-limits. I think some of these issues can be discussed in an article RfC once we narrow then down. --Comesincolors2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today Show quotes; what subject is notable for

Expanding on my comments just above re Feuerstein, the Today Show quotes that I added are absolutely fair game. The material is central to his notability. The secondary sources we have for this article are:

• Newspaper articles covering 1985 controversies
• Today Show on same
• Scholarly types like Feuerstein and Lane (and would-be scholarly types like Wilber) talking about Adi Da, frequently in reference to the above

That pretty clearly establishes what he's notable for: being a controversial guru who was embroiled in lawsuits and allegations of abuse. Not being a world-teacher or a yogi or getting a merit badge from Muktananda or being a great artist. Under WP:HARM, this material is not a BLP violation. It is certainly well-sourced. Not including it requires a better reason than complaining that it is controversial and wasn't discussed before adding. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying the scandals are the only thing for which Adi Da is notable. Feuerstein and Wilber (and even David Lane) also say he's written some lucid, insightful books and so on. But the scandals are certainly one of the most significant things, and very probably the most significant thing in terms of coverage and weight given in the secondary sources. That's a straightforward conclusion that any editor can make. From that, it's obvious that a significant part of the article should cover the scandals in significant detail. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: my reversion, please see above info box which states: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." As this was not done, I had no choice. Re: The material you added. WP:HARM is a guideline, not an official policy. It appears that your edits are a violation of WP:NPOV. Also your assertion that Adi Da is most known for the 1985 allegations is only your opinion and you cannot prove this as it is unverifiable.

Hi Comesincolors. My apologies for reverting/undoing your material as I know that you probably spent a lot of time on it and I do not mean to be disrespectful to you, or your time and energy. As you know this article is both “controversial” and “under dispute” for neutrality, so thanks for bringing your edits to the talk page.

Obviously your point of view deserves to be heard, but it has to be done in a neutral way. WP:NPOV says: “Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.”

There are two sides to every story. Even the Today show report, as biased as it was, gave some time to the other side. In your expansion and renaming of the “Controversies” section, you have only added detail and weight to the allegations, but you have added nothing regarding the church’s defense. Including the other side of the story would add more detail to the allegations of extortion, abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, a smear campaign, [[1]] why the judge said there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, why there were demands for money before the suit by the ex-members, etc. etc. etc. If you don’t include these details as well then it would seem that the scales tip and neutrality is lost as only your POV is given weight which is that Adi Da is a destructive cult leader. And the POV that “disgruntled ex-members” as the Chronicle put it, might have an axe to grind and were just out for money, that POV is not represented or it is suppressed.

So I am tagging that section with a neutrality tag for now, and if expanding this section is how you want to proceed, then I will have to work on your expansion of that section to try and bring both sides of the argument to bear, or I will revert it based on the fact that it suffers from undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view. My question to you is, is this what we want? An expansion of both sides of this controversy? Also your title of “Lawsuits and allegations of abuse by former followers” is already a violation of NPOV as it is exclusive to one side of the story only. It would have to be something like, “Lawsuits and allegations of abuse by former followers and allegations of extortion and a smear campaign by Adidam”. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, David, re discussing substantial additions in light of the "controversial" tag above. My apologies for overlooking that. I'd also like to say that you are doing a magnificent job of learning and applying WP policies and being civil in the process. If everyone behaved that way, WP would be a joy to edit.

Yes, WP:HARM is a guideline, but it is one that specifically clarifies a policy, WP:BLP. So what I mean is that the content I'm adding is appropriate under WP:BLP, especially those aspects of BLP you mentioned above regarding Feuerstein material.

Speaking of policies, you are correct regarding the relationship of NPOV and VER, but we disagree on the "undue weight" aspect of NPOV, as I'll explain. Indeed, my edit was intended to restore NPOV to that section. Have a look at the earlier version: It has quotes from Ford Greene (speaking of the cases' outcomes), two Adidam spokespeople, and a Feuerstein citation of Adi Da himself. Notice what's missing: quotes from any ex-devotees involved. It seems proper to include those views, doesn't it? Especially given that the Today Show focuses on them? I don't see how your criticism of non-neutral fact selection follows, given that fact.

Of course we can include Adidam responses as well; it simply seemed to me that the material that's already there was perhaps a little more lucid than Bakker's and Lesser's comments. Also, as far as advancing a personal view goes, I have no idea what you mean, given that my edits stuck close to secondary sources. "Advancing personal views" refers to views of WP editors, not views of Adidam critics or supporters that are cited in reliable sources.

Determining proper weight can be complex, but I think it can be done fairly easily here. Per WP:WEIGHT (a subsection of NPOV), "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So all we have to do is see to what degree various views have been represented in reliable sources, and structure the article accordingly. As I mentioned above, I believe a reading of those sources shows that the 1985 scandals are a prominent (perhaps the most prominent) aspect of Adi Da's notability.

So of course we can and should include multiple sides to the story, but it has to be in proportion to which those views are already represented in reliable sources, particularly secondary sources. That's why your proposal for changing the section header is problematic; it represents a false equivalence given that secondary sources have covered ex-dev complaints far more than Adidam's attempted rebuttals. I'm not saying exclude it, but I am suggesting that it shouldn't be weighted nearly as much. The prominence of various views in the few secondary sources we have at hand isn't very hard to determine objectively. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So I revamped the section. I used the “Article structure” section from WP:NPOV which says: "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Examples that may warrant attention include:

"Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;

Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue; or

Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints."

So based on this I removed the bullet-points and also returned the name of the section to “Controversies”, for NPOV. I found it difficult to retain all of the allegations that you had included without sounding totally POV. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As a title, how about "Lawsuits and allegations of abuse"? That's fairly precise and encompasses both sides.

Agree re article structure and avoiding "segregation" of text and content, but that's not license to trample on paragraph structure. It's confusing to alternate "he said" - "she said" statements, particularly when some of those statements are all slight variations on the same Adidam lawsuit/rebuttal and all sourced to the same article. Having discrete paragraphs, successively presenting POV's, is clearer. I've retained the substance of the Adidam rebuttals, removing outright repetition, and combined them into the subsequent paragraph.

I strongly disagree that the quotes from the Today Shows (the ones that had been bullet-pointed) should have been deleted. The article as a whole is far too heavily weighted toward Adidam's POV's, cf. self-published sources. We can and should cover POV's to the extent that they are salient in reliable sources. I've restored those quotes, omitting the bullet-point highlighting which I agree can appear non-neutral. Finally, I moved the Ford Green quote re settlements down, approximating the chronology. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure about your view that the material on the subject of a BLP should be balanced by criticism of that subject to achieve NPOV. I think that’s against policy. WP:BLP says:

“The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.”

So I left all of the claims that you felt strongly should be added. I added some beef to the church side of the story in order to compensate for those claims, and I put them in a paragraph instead of splitting them into two. Also I feel very strongly that it would be irresponsible and biased to subject the reader to these claims without first allowing the reader all of the information available about those claims. Otherwise these claims only serve a particular bias and POV.

I don’t agree with the naming of this section or the amount of claims that you have sourced, but I am not going to change it. I feel this section is fairly balanced the way that it is. Also I feel that the lead section summary of controversies needs to be updated again. So I will want to do that as well. Thanks. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - The naming of the section is not a big deal for me. Please feel free to change it back if you like. I think I remember reading something about discrete "criticisms" sections being poor form, but I can't find it.

Regarding BLP concerns about giving a "disproportionate amount of space to critics", remember that "disproportionate" is measured relative to what reliable sources say. The vast majority of our secondary sources establish that Adi Da is notable as a guru who was involved in abuse scandals ca. 1985. That is arguably the main thing he's notable for, and certainly a major thing. The newspaper articles and Today Show go into that stuff in detail, so there is no BLP violation in sourcing views therein in proportion to their coverage. We simply report the sources and let the facts speak for themselves.

Covering Adidam's response is entirely appropriate, and you've done a good job of summarizing it. However, it is not the case that every sentence describing a critical view necessarily has to be "balanced" by a pro-Adidam sentence (and correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the trend of your edits). Rather, per WP:WEIGHT, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I'm pretty sure that you've about maxed on the Adidam responses, whereas there is a whole lot of critical ex-er material that we haven't yet included.

In other words, I think we should be careful of false equivalence. The Adidam counter-suit did not receive as much media coverage as the criticisms of ex-members, and the article (and lead) should reflect that. I understand that you believe anything greater than a 1:1 ratio of critical ex view to Adidam view seems un-neutral, but I believe that the above quote from WP:WEIGHT demonstrates otherwise.

Finally, there is still a lot of Adidam-sourced material that should be pruned, per WP:SOURCES, which says articles should not mainly be based on primary sources. Do you have any ideas on how to proceed? And on how to summarize Adidam teaching more accurately in the lead? The centrality of the guru, a primary theme from "Method of the Siddhas" all the way to "The Promised God-Man Is Here", is kind of underplayed, isn't it? --Comesincolors2 (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Comesincolors, Can you show me where it says BLP critic proportion is only measured by what reliable sources have to say? With all due respect, I am not editing by adding pro-Adidam statements. I am only trying to bring balance to the claims that are being added so that it's balanced and not just simply biased. If I don't add the stuff I'm adding, then the claims have to go because of bias. It is my understanding that what I am doing is in line with what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. I believe that prominence has to do with the prominence of a particular view, not the amount of coverage a particular view was given. There's a difference. In the case of flat earth vs. round earth, it's an easy call, but here I think it's impossible to know which view is more prominent. Also NPOV says: When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. The Today Show didn't even mention that there were charges of extortion and that one of the people in their report making allegations was part of that alleged conspiracy. Also you mentioned in your edit summary keeping the section chronological. Didn't the claims and lawsuit for extortion come before the Today Show report? David Starr 1 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) To answer your points in order:

• Can you show me where it says BLP critic proportion is only measured by what reliable sources have to say? -- When WP:BLP doesn't change, qualify or clarify basic policies like NPOV and VER, those policies apply to BLP articles just as they do to any other article. Thus, again, per WP:WEIGHT, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So, let's look at our secondary sources: newspaper articles, Today Show, Wilber, Feuerstein. What is prominence of reports on Adidam's views that critics were engaged in a smear campaign, extortion and so on? Moderate; it's in a few articles. What is the prominence of reports of what ex-members say? In nearly all of them.

• I am only trying to bring balance to the claims that are being added so that it's balanced and not just simply biased. - The key issue here is that balance and bias issues can be assessed according to fairly objective criteria: the prominence of various views in reliable sources. Do you disagree that that is the criterion we should use, per WP policy?

• I believe that prominence has to do with the prominence of a particular view, not the amount of coverage a particular view was given. There's a difference. In the case of flat earth vs. round earth, it's an easy call, but here I think it's impossible to know which view is more prominent. - It's an easy call for flat v. round earth because (a) everyone knows, and (b) all reliable sources say round. Here, the issues aren't well-known at all, but we do have a finite number of sources to look at.

• Also NPOV says: When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page ... The Today Show didn't even mention that there were charges of extortion - Omission is not contradiction. I don't recall any substantive disagreement about basic facts in the news articles at all. They all pretty much reported aspects of the same thing: allegations of abuses by ex-members, Adidam's responses, and various facts about Adidam and Adi Da.

• Also you mentioned in your edit summary keeping the section chronological. Didn't the claims and lawsuit for extortion come before the Today Show report? - I'm not sure, but you're not addressing my other point, which is: style and NPOV matter. Edits like this, which split up paragraphs and put Adidam's response before the substance of the critical allegations, read as spin. Along the same lines, this edit, a revert, has no edit summary; can you explain your preference?

Finally, I'm quite puzzled by this edit to the lead. I understand your desire to properly cover Adidam's claims in their countersuit, but you've eliminated two more mass-media-sourced statements that are germaine to the article, including substantive material from both Adidam and critics. How is that balanced, or an improvement?

I understand that you may not like seeing prominent statements in the article that appear to trash Adi Da, but please understand that it's true that some highly unflattering material did appear in the mass media in the '80's, and it's WP's obligation to let the facts speak for themselves. And I'd again urge you to consider that balance, on WP, isn't in the eye of the beholder, and doesn't involve balancing every "he said" with a "she said". It's assessed relative to weight given in sources. We have a finite number of sources to assess. Shouldn't be that hard. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I apologize for the lack of edit summary. My mistake. I changed the controversy summary in the lead to better summarize the contents of the controversy section in the article according to weight, I.E. the info about keeping sex practices secret was a separate incident of reportage that was a much smaller issue than the 2 lawsuits. And so that is now reflected in the controversies section of the article by the inclusion of more of the allegations by both sides. It is my understanding that the mention of controversy in the lead is supposed to be summary in nature. I disagree that I have eliminated any statements as those statements still exist in the controversies section of the article.

As far as the idea that negative coverage of Adi Da outweighs neutral coverage of Adi Da is really just an opinion right now as one would have to prove that statement somehow definitively. It can’t be done just by analyzing headlines. One might be able to do it by analyzing each article and defining a paragraph as either critical, neutral, or off-topic and then tally it up. But as I see it, it’s not that cut and dry because many of the articles which talk about the allegations also contain a lot of information that is simply neutral. So I don’t think we can definitively say at this point that the view of reliable sources is prominently critical. Also Wilber would not be a reliable source unless it is in print. I have found it difficult to locate Feuerstein’s updated book but I did find it available directly from the publisher today, so I will get that. I disagree that I have a problem with negative statements being made about Adi Da. I am only about making sure that the accounting is not biased one way or the other. That’s also what Wikipedia asks for as well. I do appreciate your candor however. But I really believe that all of the info should be out there and available as long as it is done responsibly.

So to be clear I object to the use of prominence criterion that has not been defined or proven. If it is simply an opinion that reliable sources are mostly negative, then no. Also WP:NPOV says: Verifiability is only one content criterion .….. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.” So if I am reading this right, sourcing is only one criterion, undue weight and the facts selected being neutral seem to be mandatory by WP standards. Undue weight isn‘t just about prominence of a viewpoint in reportage. Thanks David Starr 1 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilber's web-published stuff is fine from Shambhala, which publishes his books. I was able to find Feuerstein via inter-library loan.

We seem to be going in circles about undue weight. You say "Undue weight isn‘t just about prominence of a viewpoint in reportage." What else is it about, then? Please cite policy. WP:WEIGHT is clear that weight is assessed from reliable sources. What other standard would you propose? The section you quote from NPOV refers to the same principle: one can't just say that because something appears in a source, it should be included; one has to consider principles such as undue weight, which are assessed by looking at all sources. Then one includes views "in proportion to the prominence of each". I'm not saying this means we should turn the article into a negative coatrack for Adi Da's misconduct, but we do need to base the article on what has been reported, and not assume that just because X said one thing, we have to "balance" that by Y's counterargument: we only do that if X's and Y's views are equally reported in reliable sources. If X's views are reported significantly more, tit-for-tatting with Y's view isn't acceptable. Does that make sense? I agree with you that assessing weight is not trivial, but it's not that hard either given how few sources we have in this case. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd reiterate that we need to be careful about what we think is "balance". Above, you wrote, regarding critical claims, "Also I feel very strongly that it would be irresponsible and biased to subject the reader to these claims without first allowing the reader all of the information available about those claims." In this edit summary, you described your edit as "balancing, sourced statements woven into previously added critical material." This edit was similar. These are good examples of violating NPOV's Fairness of tone.

Consider what the article would look like if we did that elsewhere. Following your example in this edit, we might reword the second paragraph of the lead as:

"Adi Da's teaching is summarized as follows: suffering is the result of the (false) presumption of separateness. In media reports in 1985, however, former members argued that Adi Da's conduct has little to do with his teaching, and that following him caused them more suffering than it alleviated. According to Adidam, the assumption of separateness forms the basis of all conventional human activity, and must be undone..."

Do you think it would be proper to make that edit with the justification that "it would be irresponsible and biased to subject the reader to these claims without first allowing the reader all of the information available about those claims"?

I think it's pretty obvious that the answer is no, and the reason is clearly stated at NPOV: Fairness of tone. Obviously, this principle should apply to all sides. Also, fairness of tone and undue weight don't contradict each other. If one view is covered in sources less than another view, each can still be given a fair presentation without spinning and caveating from the other side.

Up until now, the article has been slanted heavily toward Adidam's side, relying heavily on self-published Adidam sources, which plainly violates WP:SOURCES. There was an article RfC in September 2007 in which it was agreed that the article needs to rely more on secondary sources. (Link here.) We're moving somewhat in that direction, and I expect a great deal more material from news media to be added. I hope we can find agreement on ground rules, like fairness of tone and undue weight, as we go forward. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message to 128.120.60.219

I reverted your material because basically it was vandalism, or you haven't read the talk page. To be honest with you, I actually hate the whole book section that you deleted, and if you bring it to the talk page, maybe we can come to a consensus. The rest of it was against Wiki policies so far as I could tell, but maybe if you try and bring your edits to the talk page and actually keep it about the edits and not go into a whole personal thing like calling me an Adidam cleaner, etc. (yawn) But thanks for that, if your trying to be funny, then LOL. Otherwise, if it's just about vandalism, then you should give this a read: seeWikipedia:Vandalism David Starr 1 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) This is not about vandalism. What is vandalism is the wholesale removal of material time after time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.169.172 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second message to 128.120.60.219

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Adi Da. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.