"

 POV Tag Vandalism? 

David Starr has re-posted the POV alert tag on this page. I do not feel he ever fully addressed my questions. He is asserting that the page shows overwhelming bias in some way - according to him there are only two specific single line instances that he cites of bias on the page, both in the bio. This does not a biased page make.

I have clearly refuted both of these claims at length, with no response (despite repeated requests) from Starr. 

1) The ""garbage"" passage is balanced with an explanation from a Da spokesperson. The source is quoted, phrase is neutral, and source (scholar Georg Feuerstein) is not in dispute by Starr. The mention is crucial because it explains the ""controversial"" aspect in first line of lead, and period is alluded to in Adidam apologies for ""controversial"" earlier behavior and in the numbers of lawsuits, news articles, and analysis by authorities linked to and discussed in Da page. Also, further explained by Da himself in ""Crazy Wisdom"" section in teaching.

2) Mention of 1986 breakdown/Divine Emergence. This is a significant event, as attested by Adi Da press. Source is not biased, all mentions of events are phrased neutrally within basic journalistic standards. Balanced with Adi Da self-assessment as personally significant event (about which an entire book was written.)

3)""Undue weight"" was shown to be unreasonable, as each line is short without subjective exposition. On balance throughout page, all potentially ""controversial"" material (in every case sourced, cited, and neutrally phrased) is far outweighed by neutral info and Da ""self-assessment."" 

Every potentially controversial mention is carefully contextualized and phrased to reflect source, and balanced with an alternate explanation. In every case. 

Source disputes:
1) Gurdjieff Journal: no specific instances of bias are alleged by Starr from this source. Starr is simply questioning the source without saying why it is an issue. Did not address my point that source is only used because it summarizes bio info from Da, Rudi, and Siddha Yoga accounts. No bias is reflected in WP entry, no has any been revealed. And Starr has failed to show how magazine is biased or ""self-published"" simply making assertion that it is a ""competing religious organization"" which is simply unproven (there is no Gurdjieff church or ""organization"").

2) Lake County News: source has been used for other articles, Starr only questions it for single mention that he subjectively finds to his dislike (the Divine Emergence passage). He has not worked to find alternative source that would allow the material about a significant event to remain. Source has been found acceptable to all other editors in past months, as demonstrated by its repeated use. Starr cannot singly enter now and discount source, when not showing WP guideline that effectively discounts it (only his own subjective analysis of the quality of the ""contact"" page on their website.)

All other editors, including myself, have been involved in give an take on this page, making allowances and corrections for each other - even yesterday I made changes to accommodate other editors, including Starr. I do not feel that Starr is meeting this standard, and in particular completely failed to address my repeated specific requests. Because of this, I am removing the POV tag as vandalism and an attempt to discount page. I have requested third party review, and perhaps further dispute resolution.   "