Talk:Adi Da/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The self proclaimed messiahs

Don't like this tag ( which it is, a tag ) rather than a useful category , what is it with the WP people -- list madness -- cat : blonde eskimos etc , short for " freaks" , " wacko's" " ,weirdo's" " nutjobs by category "

Is Adi Da a messiah at all in the Judeo-christian sense ? He clearly states he is not the "Creator God" here "Therefore no one should misunderstand me. By Avatarically revealing and confessing my Divine status to one and all, I am not indulging in self-appointment, or illusions of grandiose Divinity. I am not claiming the status of the 'Creator God'."

Messiah is really a judeo-christian-Muslim cultural construct . Avatar is much closer to the Hindu root of Adi Da's lineage ( and he is listed in the list of avatars ). Although Adi Da is salvatory in some sense he is not a messiah ( definately not in the Judeo Christian sense as this cat seems to indicate ) in my opinion and does not fit this ( rather silly cat )

I have met at least 2 unfortunate messiah claimants in my life , both were clearly and very sadly tortured and sad souls in need of help , both claimed to be JC , this is the usual pattern and is a medical condition but even then many don't like to categorise people -- you know "mad" etc , should not be in WP at all perhaps

New Tags at top are good --Scribe5 08:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, agree that categories should be used with care and not applied if they are controversial, per WP:CG. They can be too sound-bite-ish. Better to present sig POV's in the article body. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Future of Adidam

Would anyone else be interested in a short section on the future of Adidam? I am curious to know what will happen to the movement on the passing of Adi Da, and what sort of political/philosophical ramifications this may have. Are there procedures in place for when this occurs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celebrityguyxy (talk • contribs).

Jones has written/said in the past that he may designate "murti-gurus" as successors if he believes anyone has attained to his unique 7th stage. (Can't remember where -- Dawn Horse Testament?) Their role would basically be to channel him aka God; he'll always be the FLO Narcissist in Adidam. My guess would be that Jones keeps it all in the family and designates one or more wives a/o daughters as successor(s). I wouldn't be surprised to see some wrangling after his death; the group's accumulated wealth (real estate, art etc.) that Jones controls[1][2] is not trivial and may be worth an attempted schism or two. The usual, IOW. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Celebrityguyxy, re your Q about the future of Adidam in the event of the Gurus passing , Adi Da as an authentic Spiritual Master has put and continues to put immense spiritual and practical effort into the survival of Adidam as an authentic New Religious Movement, a means to God Realisation for devotees , now and into the future. He has also stated Adidam is unlikely to, or cannot survive ( with true integrity ) without spiritualy mature ( or enlightened devotees )into the future, so nothing is for sure, as with all things --Scribe5 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

This article has a negative tone and needs re working the teaching section has been written by active enemies of Adidam and weighted for a negative impact , rather than a neutral positon, it has been argued over and again that the Lead should not have these allegations in it, as it burdens the overall life to a negative critical degree. The tag should remain until ( and if ever ) balance is restored --202.63.42.221 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about the Lead section from Da advocates, but from WP's standpoint, the sources cited for 1985 are the most reliable ones in the article (see WP:RS). These events occurred, and Jones bore substantial responsibility for them. The teaching section should comment on books actually in print, e.g. his most notable ones like KOL, Easy Death, DHT, etc. I have no objection to expanded it in that way as long as it's written encyclopedically and not devotionally. Overall, it's up to the reader to decide the overall good/bad balance; as editors we need to allow all verifiable, significant views adequate space to be expressed. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you tag[3], please explain why on talk. You explained your thoughts on POV above. What specifically is unverifiable, unsuitable material, or original research? BTW, your assumption that "the teaching section has been written by active enemies of Adidam" is pure speculation and unsupportable. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING, affadavits and blogs

WP:LIVING requires that one not link to potentially slanderous material that may not be reliable. This includes affadavits written on behalf of others, which simply contain their unproven assertions. Only court transcipts and rulings are considered to be reliable court documents. The same applies to blogs. Anyone can write whatever they want on a blog, they are not reliable sources. Their use is discouraged by WP:EL and is absolutely unacceptable in reference to a living person per WP:EL. I have removed links to affadavits and blogs. —Hanuman Das 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right regarding the blogs, but I don't think you're right regarding the lawsuits. Hard copies of the O'Mahony and Miller complaints are available respectively from Marin and Lake county courts. They're a matter of public record, they have been republished online, and verifying them is only slightly harder than a trip to the library. They've also been referenced in various news media ca. 1985-86. WP:LIVING says:
Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source.
peace, Jim Butler(talk) 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a difference between the report that a lawsuit has been filed and the possibly false details in the filing. If a court has not ruled on the facts, such an affidavit should not be referenced. Many suits are malicious and the "facts" contained in them may be no more than slander. Note that WP:LIVING says the court filings of someone notable, not court filings about them. There is a difference. Again, I do not believe documents filed by others are acceptible under WP:LIVING, only their existence is verifiable, the facts in them are not unless and until a court rules on them. Then the rulings of the court are an acceptible source. —Hanuman Das 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll note that WP:LIVING mentions "the court filings of..." as one example of what could be included, but does not exclude other court documents. This article is a case where the content of complaints and depositions was reported by news media that are V RS's, so I would argue that's it's fine also to cite those primary sources to augment the media reports. WP:LIVING says to remove unsourced potential libel, not material that represents a sig POV and comes from a V RS, even if an editor worries that it may be libelous. Again, cf. WP:LIVING#Public_figures. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. - thanks for archiving. Jim Butler(talk) 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Lead section

Namaste Hanuman Das! In your edit summary, you wrote "lead is limited to three paragraphs..." WP's three-paragraph guideline for medium-length articles is no reason to delete notable and verified material (besides, the Wilber paragraph is just a single sentence).

Your also said "... and critical material belongs in its own section, not the lead." I can't find any WP policy supporting that. WP:LEAD clearly states otherwise: "The lead section....should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." There isn't any question that Da's 1985 controversy was notable; it made the Today Show. Also please note that the material you deleted was well-sourced with reliable secondary sources, which in WP terms are better sources than the self-published Adidam material on which much of the rest of the article relies. For these reasons I'm reverting your removal of this material from the lead. peace, Jim Butler(talk) 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Hanuman Das, you again removed this material, and with a puzzling edit summary: "reverting to compliant version"[4]. Complaint with what? Not WP:LIVING, which says:
"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."
If we need to take this article to an RfC that's fine, but I would appreciate it if you edited collaboratively and addressed the points I made above about WP:LEAD. Please re-read WP:DR and don't revert without substantive discussion.
The material you and others have been removing from the lead is notable and well-sourced:
  • Allegations that Adi Da and members of his group engaged in financial, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse were widely reported in American news media in 1985[5][6], including The Today Show.[7] Adidam disputed these allegations.[8] In 2005, the Washington Post reported: '"The lawsuits and threatened suits that dogged the group in the mid-1980s were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements", says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases.'[9] No new reports of such abuse have appeared in the news media since that time.
Given WP:LEAD and WP:LIVING, I'm not sure what your disagreement is with including this, Hanuman Das. Other editors who have disagreed over similar edits appear to do so because they're offended by them a/o believe self-published Adidam sources are superior to the secondary sources I cited. Those reasons, as I'm sure you know, have no foundation in any WP policy. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a overview or summary. It is way too detailed for the lead. That in itself is POV, thrusting the details of the controversy in the readers face rather than a summary with the details later. Hmm, maybe I will revert again tonight... —Hanuman Das 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that feedback, Hanuman Das. I wish it wouldn't have taken your reverting three times[10][11][12], without commentary on talk, to find out what your specific objections were. Looking at the para above, removing the sentence on lawsuits would give:
  • Allegations that Adi Da and members of his group engaged in financial, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse were widely reported in American news media in 1985[13][14], including The Today Show.[15] Adidam disputed these allegations.[16] No new reports of such abuse have appeared in the news media since that time.
That's a concise summary, and doesn't repeat anything from the article either (except for that slightly-rephrased last sentence, the inclusion of which pro-Da editors have insisted on, and seems fair). Of course, WP:LEAD doesn't forbid such repetition, and I notice you haven't objected to it with the Wilber sentence. Perhaps, as your earlier edit summary suggested, you do have a problem with critical material in the lead. But it's notable and verifiable, so according to both WP:LIVING and WP:LEAD, not to mention NPOV and VER, it belongs there.
Anyway, I'll put the edited version back in. BTW, please re-read WP:DR, which says "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I'd have been happy to adjust the lead as above if you'd been clear about your objections. Please extend the same courtesy, and try to improve notable/verifiable stuff rather than removing it. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim, I agree with Hanuman Das. The critical material does not merit such a lengthy coverage in the lead. It is all out of proportion with the amount of critical material in the article. Do you have some sort of axe to grind with this teacher? If so, I suggest you not edit the article. Ekajati 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Ekajati. As I explained above, the critical material clearly merits some coverage in the lead. (There's much that could to be added to the article as well, and not only critical material.) Four times Hanuman Das removed it altogether[17][18][19][20], without acknowledging (until now, at least implicitly) that WP:LEAD explicitly says it belongs there. Please re-read WP:AGF before questioning my motives the first time you've met me on WP. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't interpret teaching to your taste

Removed section of text that was interpreted and contrived to be offensive to Christians and Buddhists , please do not interpret teaching to suite personal agenda , as with other religions stay close to orthodox format , interpretation is original research by WP standards , also removed irrelevant quote, if they are returned will contiunue to remove , deliberate offensive material does not belong here. Lead section should remain this version which is possibly as close to neutral as possible. Thanks also Hanuman Das for removing the hate rant blog links , the second piece of the Lowe article with its homophobic, sophomoronic(def Exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment)introduction perhaps should be removed for sexual bias (prejorative homosexual term ) and personal bias against Rudrananda and Adi Da , also a Google cache ? suitable for wikipedia, what about copyright etc ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scribe5 (talk • contribs).

Hi Scribe5. The material you removed[21] is well-sourced. Please read the references. Da is still saying he's the First, Last and Only Seventh-Stage Adept-Realizer[22]. WP isn't censored (see WP:NOT and possible offensiveness to other religious groups isn't a criterion for removing material from the article. Nor is WP paper, so there's no reason to remove verified material. Da has said many things over the years, some of which are out of print, and WP provides a chance for readers to be exposed to a wide range of what he has said (irrespective of the current Adidam "official versions"), and what others have said about him. Deleting this verified material isn't appropriate. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. - I didn't author that section, btw, and can see how it could be rewritten to be less "in your face" toward other religions while still conveying that basic point that Da says he's the FLO. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC) .... OK, removed the inflammatory "even"; the rest sounds like a neutral presentation of what Da says. (I may have at some point in thr past edited the Jesus and Buddha stuff to tone it down as well.) If others are offended, that's their problem; no censorship on WP. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Again that is your emphasis and interpretation and language (FLO) nothing to do with Adidam and Adi Da, try giving your own interpretation and emphasis on a majority religion on Wiki and see what happens ( rather than a minority religion as Adidam is) , and yes since friends supporters of Adidam study current Adidam texts it stands to reason they know a of a lot more about current teaching than an former devotees ,since Adi Da is a living and very active creative teacher , current teaching trends should supersede former works , they could be accounted for in time but that would be be in future as the Article is refined and that may take years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribe5 (talk • contribs)

FLO refers to "the first, last, and only seventh stage Adept-Realizer", which are Da's own words [23]. See also these.[24][25] Sounds like you may want to study Da's teachings a little more closely. However, I checked those references again, and they don't explicitly mention Jesus and Buddha. Da did, in a talk once, clearly say Jesus was 5 and Buddha 6. Till we find that, I agree it shouldn't be included. However, the FLO thing should stay. Lots of other religions say their guy is the grandest of kahunas, so it shouldn't be a big deal to tell the truth about what Da says as well.
Jim, what you are looking for is in the unofficial advocacy site mentioned in the article, DAbase, and found in the article entitled Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj Is Once and For All, in this link: [26].
In this talk, Adi Da direclty and explicity claims to be the first, last and only Seventh Stage Avatar, that there can never be another, and from this claimed divine position, declares: "Jesus fifth, right. Gautama sixth. Okay? Ramana sixth. Okay?"
Adidam's position on traditional Realizers is one of "tolerance", while actually denying they were fully enlightened. Simply reading the link shows that beyond doubt. Dseer 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Dseer
Excellent find, thank you! That's exactly the one I was thinking of. I guess Adi Da does qualify as a "sig POV" here, doesn't he?  :-) regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
On "Mark My Words": WP's purpose is not just to present "current Adidam teaching" or the current status of any topic. It also presents historical material about other groups or people. So please stop deleting such material. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikiquote

Continuing comments from User talk:82.103.133.39: The reason Wilber is mentioned in the lead is that he (a) notable and (b) has made various comments (pro and con) over a period of a couple of decades. Watts apparently went on the record twice: the first time authoring a forward to Jones's autobiography[27], and the second apparently around the time Jone's second book was published (interesting sympathetic account from Jack Garvey in East-West Journal[28]). Watts never met Jones. It's theoretically fine to cite Watts in the article, but we should be careful of "quote creep", wherein the article gets overpopulated with various quotes from various POV's. Hence Wikiquote. I don't think Watts' two comments are notable enough to cite in the lead, however, cf. WP:LEAD. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Facts are that despite Adidam claims that Alan Watts intended to join Adidam, he simply liked what he read in Knee of Listening, and original Method of the Siddhas, consisting of talks from the opening of the Ashram on April 25, 1972 to early January 1973. His "avatar" comment was written after being personally visited and recruited by members of the group and watching a video of the then Bubba over a meal and wine, and Watts was known to have a weakness for alcohol. He did not visit the Ashram or Da, and he did not rush to become a student, he agreed to a future meeting with Bubba (Da) to consider their future relationship, and the Ashram at that time was in a more conservative period of strict conditions, preceding the wild period described as "Garbage and the Goddess". There is no reason to believe that Alan Watts would have remained enamored with Adi Da, since as he said in his forward: "...But if you genuinely know this, it is nothing to be proud of nor humble about. It is just what is so, and there is absolutely no necessity to parade it by defying social conventions, on the one hand, or by coming on as one who is extremely holy, on the other. The hapless Rasputin was, perhaps, an example of the first case, and Meher Baba of the second though he had a jolly face and a lively twinkle in the eye..." Even if he had eventually joined, had he lived, after a little experience he would have left as disillusioned as Mr. Garvey did a few years later. Furthermore, the Watts family has apparently requested Adidam to stop misusing the "endorsement". Mention of Watts in the article is fine in principle but not in the lead when it is falsely implied that Watts "repeatedly" commented favorably about Da or that he had any personal knowledge or experience of Da. It just isn't so. Dseer 06:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Dseer

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, there seem to be two issues here: copyright and reliability of source.
  • On copyright, the links in question say: "NOTE: For non-commercial and educational use only. It is believed that this low-bandwidth video clip constitutes "Fair Use" under copyright law." WP:C says: "If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine." FWIW.
  • On reliability: this is arguably the equivalent of a newspaper article reproduced on a third-party site, which WP does allow in the EL section. If it's up to editors to review reliability of offline sources reproduced online, well, I can attest that the videos posted aren't faked; I've seen a videotape of this material, and also the script appears to be the same as a transcript that's been posted by a notable third party [29].
I agree WP needs to be careful with YouTube, but each case should be evaluated individually. In this instance, there's a good case to be made for reliability. As for copyright issues, I lack the legal expertise to make that call. -Jim Butler(talk) 08:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This video of the Today show expose on the Da organization back from 1985 is genuine, I've seen it before, and the transcript is available on one or more of the links, and that was published long ago. This is not some music video or a video of commercial value being improperly linked, and fair use provisions apply. No issues of copyright violations have been claimed during this period. There is no commercial market for this expose, nor is it being exploited for commercial purposes or in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the story, an expose on Da Free John. Here, not only is the link publically asserted to be in compliance with fair use provisions, but it is the subject of directly related discussion and commentary in the context of the article, not commercial exploitation or violation of copyright. Dseer 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Dseer
On Reliability: Do you know who this "somavd" is? Even if you do, should we trust this person to have not modified the video? Anyone can upload anything to YouTube and with the technology we have now it would take little effort to make the segment say anything I wanted. If you have a transcript from a reliable source, then use that instead.
On Copyright status: The material is clearly copyrighted. 1985 is well within the 100 year limit. Ok... so a fair use claim is being made. However, "fair use" does not count in this case since "critical commentary" is not being made, "YouTube.com" is not an educational site and reproducing the entire segment has a major negative commercial impact on the value of the clip. (Yeah, they aren't selling it now... but that's largely irrelevant.)
Moving forward I'd suggest replacing the YouTube link with a citation to the program directly. An online source is not required to do that. ---J.S (t|c) 05:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi JS, thanks very much for your input, which is quite helpful. The YouTube issue is apparently mooted by WP:EL, per User:Dmcdevit[30]. However, the general issues of copyright and reliability are relevant to non-YouTube sources, so I'd like to comment on them, and seek your thoughts.
On reliability: let's say a textual source exists offline in a V RS, and editors cite it in the article. Then a copy of it is found online. The online source is self-published and not a V RS, and being just a string of ASCII characters could easily have been faked, but editors familiar with the original offline source are able to verify that it is indeed an accurate copy of the original. Copyright issues notwithstanding, may articles link to that online source, simply as a convenience to the reader? If so, how is YouTube different? (I believe an earlier version of either WP:RS, WP:V or WP:EL said something about this issue, but can't find it now.)
On copyright: a highly Google-ranked site hosted at Stanford Univ. says this:
Q: How will I know if what I'm doing is Fair Use?
[A:] Get sued and get a court to determine your case. Sadly, unless your facts match perfectly with a previous court case in your jurisdiction, this is what you need to do.[31]
That being the case, by what metric should WP editors determine Fair Use?
best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"On reliability:" - Your right... YouTube is no different then any other dubious self-published "copied" text. I have simply singled out YouTube in my work because its is such a MAJOR problem (11k links from wikipedia to youtube, 4k in articles). Websites on free-hosts have a the same problem.
"On Fairuse" - Yeah, fairuse is complicated. The basic rubric is "When in doubt, leave it out." As far as I know Wikipedia hasn't had to fight any FairUse battles yet, so I think sticking to that philosophy will be a good idea. ---J.S (t|c) 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks JS; agree about being extra careful on Fair Use given WP's potential liability. On reliability of online copies, I'm not sure where to draw the line, especially in the case I mention where the offline source has already been vetted and cited by editors, and is confirmed by those editors to be accurate. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'll ask at WT:V to clarify. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)