Talk:Adi Da

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!

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. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 besides the lawsuits, without any 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 aweful you think Adi da is. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)