Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Archiving

The page has now been archived, and I urge all parties involved to abide by the request now at the top of this page, to limit their comments exclusvely to discussion about improving the article. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou John for your moderation. I will abide by your urging and yes you are right, it should be about improving the article and posts I make will be about how to get new material onto the article in the best way, pitfalls to avoid, or be about improvements themselves. It should be remembered that it was blocks to improving the article which started this dispute. I am happy to let it go now and stay on topic as I had my say in refuting these biased allegations. However I would like to ask you to monitor the article if you could to see just how older editors perform in the future. --Jones.liam (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested

A quick question: In my last addition to the now-archived discussion I had mentioned posting an OCR-ed version of Eruch's 1992 article here (within the talk/discussion), realizing views on its weight probably won't change, but just since it's so inaccessible now. Given the new banner at top, I just wanted to check (in all seriousness): should I even bother to post the text to the talk page, or will it just be deleted? I am familiar with the talk page guidelines. (Hoverfish had stated, "…I am waiting for the precise wording of the Glow magazine article to see what exactly is claimed there"; Nemonoman had stated, "I would like to see the actual article…") I'm happy to post it as a new talk section, already understanding that its weight valuation isn't that likely to change in the minds of others here, but I don't want to bother if it will just be deleted.

Also (again, in all seriousness): in the coming months, if I were to start a historical/summary "breaking the silence" sub-section (of course, with neutral POV, quotes, sources, starting with Baba's own quotes, etc.), would others prefer I add it to the article fully-formed & sourced, or post it to the talk pages first, to enable feedback & group editing, rather than just a quick deletion? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be 100% safe, you can paste it in a subpage of your user page (say User:Hdtnkrwll/Notes) and link to it here. I am very interested to read the OCR text. I would appreciate a copy. Hoverfish Talk 04:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't suggest this is the only or the best way, but what I had done in the past is develop a full section in my sandbox and then ask others if they accept it as it is. Hoverfish Talk 04:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes its probably the safest way on the sand page. Seriously I should have done so. Also seriously make sure you also dont use a computer in a large network that someone else may get on either. Thats plain wrong. Im prepping to do a PhD in a few years and I can tell you the rules here can be just as harshly enforced by some users, but in a more haphazard manner. Also dont let any new users get involved too soon after creating an account. Thats sock puppetry, even though these new users are sincere people. And lastly dont let any friends come to your defence on the discussion page as guests. Thats an abuse apparently and they may be confused as someone else. I do mean all this. Remember though Wikipedia wants you to Be Bold. and there are some good articles out there --Jones.liam (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Hdtnkrwll intends to work on this section, I think it might save us time and frustration later if we could somehow determine the relative size and placement of such a section. Would it come as a subsection of Silence? If on its own (and therefore bypassing the decades sections) what relative size (and therefore importance) should it have? And if we include this, then how many other possible such sections could claim inclusion as being of equal importance (biographically)? Hoverfish Talk 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Hdtnkrwll wish to write something on what is a key part of Baba's life. You do raise a good point Hoverfish about what else could be in. --Jones.liam (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hoverfish that taking this advance approach makes sense, although I am by no means wedded to writing it, and I hope others will feel free to write it also -- I may not have time to work much at all on it for some weeks, in fact.

But along those lines, I'm seriously wondering: are people even in agreement that describing all the different issues involved is worthwhile -- not in terms of belief, but in terms of distinctions already internal to the sources themselves? (For example, just to use Bhau's terminology as an example, the "man silence" literal aspect of things, as distinct from the "God silence" deeper/symbolic/metaphysical aspect of things?) I think in the earlier discussion, these two different realms were often conflated -- partly due to sourcing concerns, obviously -- yet if there's not even minimal agreement that the issues involved are distinct issues then I think even trying to objectively describe existing sources on the matter will keep running aground, frankly. And just to be especially clear: I'm not talking about personal belief one way or the other, but at least a willingness to describe distinctions which are already internal to the sources themselves, to go to that level of conceptual detail (which does not nec. have to mean lengthy), whether it be within one of Baba's own quotes, within Bhau or Eruch's account of Jan. 1969, or within sourced recent stuff on various silence-breaking interpretations. To me, this would not be original research, if it's just briefly describing or summarizing the various existing, sourced interpretations. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it wont be original if you stick to the above brief. It would be merely expressing different viewpoints if you describe distinctions which are already internal to the sources themselves. You are right too, in hinting that more authors mean less chance of running aground --Jones.liam (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pushed and pulled by the discussion above. See WP:ENC. There are several themes or motifs that run consistently through Baba's life and teachings that I'd like to show with focus. Breaking His Silence, for example -- hasn't that always been a Big Deal? How about Baba's "Become as Dust" stuff, which pervades so much of his teaching and his work with individuals? How about "Nothing is permanent" -- the way Baba created and destroyed whole projects, ashrams, etc., at the drop of a hat? How about "Nature of the Avatar"? "Constant Companion"? etc.

I don't know how you can convey Meher Baba's presence without touching on these and other similar themes. In the company of BLs, these themes emerge rapidly and become the pervasive fabric of the discourse: teachings (no offense, Liam), catch phrases, etc., mixed with vignettes an stories that illustrate these elements in action. It becomes clear that MB's work in the world was not in Big Events but in _{small things} done with a thematic consistency, and the totality of the picture is devestating, and constantly unfolding.

But like the man says:

• WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNVERIFIABLE MATERIAL
• WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX
• WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS
• WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS

and for my money it will be hard to find reasonable reliable and verifiable sources that convey this information -- and to present this is a way that is encyclopedic, and not just a soapbox.

Please note that this page is monitored -- now more than ever. The active editors who promoted the GA for this article did a lot of work to create an article consistent with WP guidelines. I have refrained personally from developing more content along the lines I describe above simply because I don't know how to do it consistent with WP guidelines. Because of increased scrutiny of this article, it is not likely possible to bend the rules of WP to support personal agendas, desirable as one might find such agendas.

As I have said before, if someone wants to work up new material, I'll be very pleased to work with them. The creation of that new material is not something I can do -- I've tried and failed. But I've had some success with editing WP, and will work with anyone who wants to give it shot and who is willing to work within the guidelines. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of the meaning of Baba's silence, including sourced discussion of metaphysical interpretations of that meaning, would not fall within the scope of a biographical article because it is not biographical information. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest if there is a consensus to do research into the brief history of interpretations of MB's life, that a new page beyond the biography be started. Something like this: Religious perspectives on Jesus. Something like this relating to new perspectives on Baba's life can then be summarized briefly within the biography and linked to as a main article. Note that there are already about 60 or so such subarticles related to Baba's life:Meher Baba. I'm worried that once the article begins to move away from the mere facts of Baba's life and his own explanations from his own books, that the article quality will go down drastically. Because I can see no obvious place that such a slippery slope could possibly end? It is problematic to simply leave the choice of which subject areas of interpretation deserve weight up to each individual's personal interest. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it may be somewhat early for such an article, mainly because of lack of notable literature to back such an attempt, but I may be wrong. However since such an article will start from a low class, if criticized for OR or POV, it will not cause any big damage, and eventually it may even find a way to improve, so I do not oppose its creation. Otherwise, I want to make sure that this article stays focused on mere facts of Baba's life and only the most notable and historically important ones. As Nemonoman pointed out, there are many themes characteristic of Baba's life that run parallel (to his facts-only account), and as Dazedbythebell points out we can easily overload the article and end up with a huge mess if we open the door to them. So I make it clear that I am not for expanding and adding "new stuff" here. If we are talking about improvements, I only accept edits that could bring the article closer to FA. I would expect this to be done in terms of small and careful content changes, discarding of possible bias (say, due to devotional views), improving NPOV and enhancing the phrasing where needed. I will oppose personal agendas, if I detect any, and material based on personal interests. Hoverfish Talk 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, and seems like the only real solution, then. (I'll spare everyone from trying to argue further why I think Bhau & Eruch could be considered exceptions to some of the source weight concerns surrounding their respective testimonies...) I'd personally be more interested in an eventual "On the 'Breaking' of Meher Baba's Silence" sub-page, rather than a "Religious perspectives..." sub-page, but if others want to start that one, or work on the first one, it's fine with me. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the broader title and here's why. It is likely that as time passes there will be other people who want to add sections on interpretations of other aspects of Baba's controversial work, such as his speaking about the Dark Cloud, his Universal Work, and so forth, and this starts off on a good footing with room for expansion. Partly it depends on how much secondary material can be dug out of solid sources on Baba's silence. So it will be clearer when Hdtnk finishes his draft. Right now I have a hard time picturing how it can be turned into a whole article without either turning into original research or becoming a mere list of ambiguous and apparerntly contradictory quotes by Baba on the matter and meaning of his silence. But I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

All excellent points. Dazedbythebell is talking about precedent, ( expanding on Nemonoman's 'other themes also' issue ) Precedents open the gate, meaning others will in all likelihood follow, so the template needs to be good. Hoverfish cover quality control, talking about being careful to keep it real, and free of personal interest: Nemonoman is laying out whats in and out re the rules based on his extensive experience and raised the insightful question of other worthy small themes in MB's life This is the key issue of priorities, that is what should be improved first. Hdtnkrwll had the good idea and is a diplomatic editor. (something I could learn more of).

My Rupees worth. The above good discussion has the answers in it, hence my sum up. Slow steady and careful will lead to a nice tidy piece that when done well will enhance the article a lot by providing depth and breadth which will help toward an FA --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the more general title intended for the new article that Dazd suggested should not be "Religious perspectives..." (which was just an example of an existing article) but "New perspectives..." Right? Hoverfish Talk 05:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To be effective and consistent with the material inherent below any title, (material as discussed above), the new title would need to include in it the idea of  : developing / evolving views / interpretations / reevaluation/ new perspectives / alternatives and a touch of awaiting events / mystery even. It should really avoid words that will in time be replaced, words that are inconsistent with Babas work, words like religious. --Jones.liam (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I only named Religious perspectives on Jesus as an example to look at for a sub-page on a religious person which deals with interpretations. It is only a very rough idea to show how they separated it from the main biography page. It is far less controversial that way -- but notice even that article on interpretations of Jesus is not without fighting: Talk:Religious_perspectives_on_Jesus#POV_Dispute Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. Its a good example you picked, though. Works well. --Jones.liam (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lines from Bhau's chat in relation to the issues we discussed

I have uploaded a few parts, relevant to our discussion, from Bhau's Chats as I had copied them live: User talk:Hoverfish/Sandbox. Hoverfish Talk 11:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats a true reproduction and significant too. --Jones.liam (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Eruch's Glow article uploaded

I've uploaded a PDF version of Eruch's Glow article. (Text-only version is also viewable, but may be a bit difficult to read because of the original two-column layout, and text-only view has not been proofread against the magazine type.) The article may need to come down from archive.org eventually, because technically it's still under copyright by the Glow, but it's up there at least for now, since it's become so inaccessible. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for that! Quality is fine too. Thats quite a read when you consider how long Eruch was with Baba. Bhaus statement on what he heard is good too but Eruch was with Baba longer and very close to him a lot of the time. I like it that despite how being so close to MB made Eruch think everything was natural, (as he put it) Baba had put in place a circuit breaker to get info out. Which worked. Quote: So I had to give the details of what was happening, day-byday, day-by-day, to make them feel that they were not absent.

Its kinda quaint too looking from outside, and from here, but if one tries to imagine the life Eruch had, I am beginning to understand why he kept quiet. This statement is very significant. With his hand covering his mouth, a loud, startling shout. Personally I rate this high and think it needs to be in the article or the sub page because its part of the Meher Baba story. Based on the five Pillars of Wikipedia if the article is referenced its Ok to do so. --Jones.liam (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly surprised to see the PDF of this article. I have just gotten back from the Center. Incidentally, for some reason, practically every conversation I had included a moment when the person I was speaking to, unprompted, felt compelled to tell me something about Eruch. I found that very surprising.

As soon as the library was opened, I found the May 1992 Glow and the article on p. 13. I wanted to get a copy, but the librarian was adamant that the issue was not to be removed from the library. About 8 hours later, I found a copy of that issue elsewhere, and brought it home to scan. Then I saw the message. So what do you know??

I'd like to make some observations:

First the article title "True to his word..." and the byline Eruch suggests that Eruch wrote the article. Closer inspection shows this is not the case. The article was written by Tony Paterniti (pg 18)., or as the note says 'This is a verbatim record of Eruch Jessawala's revelations, marginally edited by Tony Paterniti." Marginally edited means, apparently, adding the first 3 paragraphs explaining the circumstances of the 'verbatim record', interpreting Eruch's gestures (At this point, Baba made a gesture which I read as Baba calming Eruch and assuring him that everything was all right.) and reactions (he actually seemed startled...I think many of us sensed that something was afoot) leaving parts untranscribed (Q: (unintelligible)), etc.

Now Eruch has had a close relationship with the Glow's editor, Naosherwan, who edited and publised a volume of Eruch's memoirs. So one might suppose that if Eruch wished to announce that "Baba has broken his silence", as Bhau to chose to do in his "Awakening", that Eruch might have had little trouble making this announcement unequivocably in his own words. As it is we now must trust the honesty and accuracy of Tony's transcription. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt Tony's honesty, but the accuracy of the transcription, I do question somewhat.

This dialogue, says Tony, occurred after Eruch had just concluded the tale, and the lunch bell was already being wrung [sic]. So this was not even the main topic of conversation of that morning.

The topic was introuced by Merwan saying "Tell them about Baba clearing his throat".

Now Merwan suggests later in the dialogue that Eruch wrote to him that it seemed that he has broken his Silence., or as Merwan remembered It was like he was clearing his throat as if to prepare to break his Silence . .. Yet the topic is introduced tell them about Baba clearing his throat.

Liam.jones above quotes this section Eruch demonstrates, with his hand covering his mouth, a loud, startling shout.. Also the article says In effect, Meher Baba shouted with great intensity:. But these characterizations aren't Eruch describing Baba's sound, this is Tony describing Eruch's sound. At least Bhau's account gave Bhau's direct characterization of Baba's sound ("feeble").

Later Eruch is quoted as saying Somebody else said...did he break his Silence?" I said, "Forget about it.) So is this Eruch announcing, declaring or averring "True to his word, he has broken his silence" ??? Or is this Eruch saying "Forget about it?"

I don't know what to make of Tony's statement: I subsequently learned that the subject had come up again in Mandali Hall after I returned home, at which time Eruch revealed that Francis Brabazon had also been present at the time of Baba's dramatic sound.

To my knowledge, Francis never mentioned this incident. Eruch never published his own version of this incident, but neither, to my knowledge, did he repudiate this article, which he might have done.

If Eruch had followed Bhau's example and declared with his own hand "this is what I heard and this is what it means", I would have a much higher level of confidence about how to approach this article. As it is, I find the whole thing a confusing mishmash and I don't know at all how best to handle the matter.

My current bottom line is that Baba's silence related to Spoken Words, and this article doesn't describe the breaking of the fast from spoken words. Bhau's account, however clearly does.

In terms reliability vis a vis WP:RS one could probably argue the reliability of the Bhau sources. I give that a little better than 50-50 success odds. However in terms of WP:RS, it is very hard to argue the reliability of the content of this Glow article. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your right of course and very good observations too. Id better qualify what I said. The sounds Eruch heard are part of the Baba story: Though there are issues with its reporting. As you pointed out more questions are asked and are left un answered by this Glow article. Why didnt Eruch refute it? How much is of this is Tony? Can it be referenced for Wikipedia? Did Francis ever corroborate?

I see you Nemonoman have a bottom line about spoken words as opposed to? sounds I suppose. Fair enough. Im not sure myself if breaking the silence is a sound or a spoken word or both. Is Ommmmmmm a word or a sound. Really I dont know. We also dont know about Time in relation to the breaking of the silence and us on Earth. Is a sound made or word uttered (both seem to have been done)in '69 the beginning of the breaking of the silence? Are we expecting something sudden when its a rolling cascade event? Is the silence breaking over Time in terms of Earth changes / global events he mentioned? We just dont know. We can perhaps only report what only verifiably occured and it seems this event with Eruch occured (as evidenced by a lack of refuting) but may be problematic referencing. --Jones.liam (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your summary: more questions asked than answered by the article. Breaking of the Silence is to me a Big Concept, used by Baba constantly throughout his life. Tony quotes at length a mini-discourse by Baba written as the intro to Stay with God which describes the glorious effects to be felt by all humanity when Baba Breaks his Silence. Does anyone see any evidence of those effects? Sometimes Baba describes the Breaking as something that will be heard by everyone all at once. If that sound happened, I missed it, as did most of my acquaintances, if by that breaking, one means a clear physical sound. Baba's mmmmm wasn't that, or the article and discussion in Mandali Hall would not have been necessary. Ditto Bhau's 'feeble' word. So I take the Word that will happen when MB Breaks the Silence in a much different sense than that described in either account. So sue me. In my view Baba has not Broken his Silence in any concerte or universal sense, and since I am big fan of his, I add at least not yet and I wait in joyful hope for the moment that it happens.

I bring up my beliefs in this matter not to discuss my beliefs, per se, so please don't delete them JohnCarter. I bring them up because I am not alone in having an indivdual interpretation of some very ambiguous phrases uttered continually by the subject of this article, and to lay out at least one reasonably common interpretation of those of phrases (in this case an interpretation held by me, but also by many others in my acquaintance, including some Very Smart People who have Been Involved for a Very Long Time). There are other interpretations -- many others, in fact -- and as any non-BL reading this discussion might see, these interpretations are very much the product of personal reflection and personal opinion.

Yet these phrases are core matters for most followers of MB -- I know of no BL who hasn't pondered at length on what Baba meant by Breaking his Silence and what form that event might take. But there is no single, agreed doctrine about that matter (or many others --Manifestation for example, or 3/4ths of the World, etc). In fact, these matters are so personal that no current sources, "Reliable" or otherwise have any authority to treat them conclusively, in my opinion. So it is a concern for me as a WP editor to discuss them in the Meher Baba article: They are key to any review of Meher Baba's legacy and teachings -- but what is to be said about such pervasive concepts, so highly personal, so undefined? What's to be said?? "Some say this, others say that..."?? With citations only available to sources that would never pass the WP:RS smell test, which seems to me to be getting stricter all the time.

Many Big Concepts are discussed by Baba in grand but often vague terms that resonate in the heart, but are very hard to reduce to citable facts. I would very much like to have the article say more about the Big Concepts, but the problem of citable facts makes this difficult.

I realize now that I had a forlorn hope that the Glow article WOULD have had Eruch announcing unequivocably and forcefully: "Baba has broken his silence" despite my expectations to the contrary. That would have been a very helpful fact. The mishmash I found in the Glow, however, only makes the whole problem more obviously hard to solve. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Points very well explained by Nemonoman. Allow me please to add my view on what a person not relevant with Meher Baba reads in this article. A complete newcomer learns here that Meher Baba considered himself to be God in human form and according to him, he observed silence because of "man’s inability to live God’s words", and because "instead of practicing the compassion he taught, man has waged wars in his name", "given way to hatred, greed, and violence" and has generally "been deaf to the principles and precepts laid down by God in the past". Please keep in mind that such a reader has never contemplated on any esoteric aspects of Baba's silence, or on its breaking, or on the manifestation, or on the 3/4 of the world, and neither is it up to this article to clear this out for him. If such a newcomer, were to read that shortly before his death Meher Baba has broken his silence, (in the light of the above quote) he would come to the conclusion that Meher Baba must have changed his mind about man's behavior, and would most probably make a parallel to Jesus excusing the crowd while on the cross, "for they know not what they do". In other words, I think that all talk about "breaking his silence" is way too "advanced material" for a simple concise biography of Meher Baba for the uninitiated reader. Hoverfish Talk 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is true, because the article does not treat Breaking the Silence in any meaningful way. Maybe that point needs explaining? If someone would explain it to me for example, I'd be very appreciative.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it hasnt happened as a big huge event everybody heard. Thens theres that my language your language thing. Lost in translation? On purpose? I said earlier he broke his silence. On a personal level he has, for me. (John C this will get somewhere soon) But personal levels are probably not good in the article. On a Universal level? I can only think that his language must have been used as I dont see the glorious effects either N. seriously on the contrary its getting worse IMO. And he gave insight into that too. I believe we are still in the phase its getting worse before it gets better. So bite me. Seriously there is not enough in the Glow to improve the article. That was my first read of that Glow, and its like so much stuff with MB, mysterious. I have faith in MB but sadly think its going to be a long slow painful breaking of the silence. So what can be in to improve the article from this Glow article re Silence? A little. From Bhau? A little more --Jones.liam (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm getting a bit confused here. To avoid any further "general discussion" on my part, I'd just like to ask:

1. Are people at least OK with keeping Bhau & Eruch's remarks as they currently stand, cited within the Silence section? The quote from Eruch is from the transcript of the tape, not from any of Tony's added description of the occasion.

2. (#1 stated differently) If not (although I do hope what people wrote earlier still holds, that people are fine with retaining the currently existing quotes to verified sources, as moved back to the Silence section), it strikes me as a bit strange to all of the sudden be preoccupied with these grander interpretative issues, re: the "breaking of silence" -- I understand why it would make sense to address them explicitly separate from the main biographical article, but when it comes to "silence" in the common, everyday sense of the term (the sense Hoverfish's newcomer would have of the word, for example), none of the grander themes really matter anyway. Silence = silence; vocalization = vocalization. Am I missing something here? It just strikes me as odd that when the issue was raised in the discussion earlier (now archived), due to the same fact already being described completely differently between sub-sections at the time, everything came down to Wikipedia undue weight concerns and neutrality, etc.; now that the facts are basically accepted (vocalizations were made, just not "words," perhaps), it seems to be shifting into the broader interpretative quandaries again.... If the concern really is for encyclopedic objectivity, then I think "silence" would be defined in the common sense of the term anyway, right? Not as "I purposefully wasn't silent but really was still silent-in-the-deeper-spiritual-sense," right? Now, I'm not a literalist myself, I fully accept all the uncertainty and mystery surrounding MB's own silence explanations and acts, yet from the purely descriptive point of view it seems very clear that some sounds were purposefully made, however one interprets the meaning of it all. But I'm stating this not to cause a big stink again, but just to ask what this discussion is intended to resolve -- are we all OK with at least retaining the cited quotes as they currently stand within the main article? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking any further steps personally regarding those quotes. I let them alone for months, and I have recently moved them around, so it seems hypocritical now to remove them.

To say that "Eruch" is responsible for the "True to his promise..." quote is a stretch to me. The whole article is a mishmash, and I don't see how that phrase escapes. Further the title of the article reminds of an interesting discussion I was involved with on the NPOV noticeboard, something like this: Althought the FACT being cited is neutral and verifiable, does the source's TITLE affect its neutality. For example suppose the fact is "Rush Limbaugh was born on Jan 12 1951" -- but the source is "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Is the cited, verifiable fact still neutral. This article's title raises a similar question in my mind.

Bhau's statements that Baba spoke. A word. To him. Is not something that can be disputed, and I will argue any WP:RS dispute in favor of accepting it as verifiable. This even though I personally don't believe it's true that Baba spoke or Bhau heard, but it don't think it can be disputed that Bhau has SAID repeatedly and verifiably that he heard it.

The dubious toothpaste is out of the tube, so now it's up to us to make these elements as sensible and integrated as possible for the intelligent novice reader. Any attempt to ignore them out of hand is bad juju, and I will not be the one to delete them.

That said:

• is the Eruch article Title overly suggestive of an illegitimate conclusion? I think yes.
• is the Bhau announcement TRUE? I think true that he SAID heard Baba speak, although I'm dubious about the memory.
• Does including these facts constitute UNDUE WEIGHT considering the level of detail in the article. I think yes.

Someone smarter than me will clean up the mess: I'm just going to keep it neat until he or she shows up ready to make the changes in perfect fashion. It might be one of the current editors even. Just not me. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hdtnkrwll My rupees worth is that you are right here when you say ‘yet from the purely descriptive point of view it seems very clear that some sounds were purposefully made, however one interprets the meaning of it all’. IMO that’s been agreed upon already, call it (a).

As to the broader general discussion above , call it (b) it was about seeing just how far the former (a) can go, should go and what it means, as far as I can tell. Its still green to go with no deletions IMO (that is ‘retaining the cited quotes as they currently stand within the main article as a minimum. Yes.

-Nemonoman said Someone smarter than me will clean up the mess: This is a gracious comment. Maybe its you Hdtnkrwll , perhaps start writing a draft sub page. You know what they say, good writing is re writing. --Jones.liam (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the title of the Glow article suggestive of an illegitimate conclusion but it also suggests that someone placed undue emphasis on Eruch's own words. I read that Eruch was cornered into making some statements, out of which one that expresses a very personal conclusion, almost unwillingly confessed, was brought with large letters as the title of an article, followed by a misleading line suggesting that it was written by Eruch himself. That its mention here is Undue Weight is 100% certain. I will also not be the one to remove it. I would at least suggest that its mention here should not be "...Eruch Jessawala said..." but "...Eruch Jessawala is quoted to have said..." as this is the case in the source.

Also I would like to point out that this talk about "silence" being defined in the common (or everyday) sense of the term is misleading. Who says that in Meher Baba's quote the word "silence" was limited to its "common sense use"? This reminds me of how mathematical paradoxes are created. Let's cut triangle A of surface X in twelve pieces, let's rearrange them to form pattern B and, surprise, pattern B has surface Y which is less than X. Hoverfish Talk 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish in the first paragraph above that you wrote could you reference what you claim please? esp this bit I read that Eruch was cornered into making some statements, . That would advance the discussion and take out the POV.

Your tone is a little bit confrontational in the second paragraph and we have seen escalation start from this before. Lets just keep it factual and civil. When Hdtnkrwll says Silence = silence; vocalization = vocalization its a reasonable statement. Hdtnkrwll is making a good point. Silence was broken according to Bhau and Eruch. The former references well. As to whether its THE Silence being broken , discussion (b) above probably sorted out that this is not something we can know, but that dosnt preclude its inclusion. So when Hdtnkrwll says Silence = silence; vocalization = vocalization he is being very logical. That cant be faulted. Following on from this logic when Hdtnkrwll says none of the grander themes really matter anyway, well hes also right there too. What is Our job? Just to report what did happen, if that can be referenced well--Jones.liam (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to preface this by saying that I think as long as we seem to agree that the current quotes are fine within the Silence section, I don't see any real point in discussing this further (unless or until there's some new sub-page on the "breaking of the silence" theme?), especially given the recently added prohibition against "general discussion." So for my part, after this, I'm signing out.

I did want to just quickly clarify the earlier comments that Hoverfish refers to, though. I've never claimed that MB's own sense of "silence" is at all limited to the common sense meaning of the word; what I'm claiming is that factually reporting on his known vocalizations from 1969 is limited to the common sense meaning of the word. We can't objectively report on the profound symbolism, or on his presumed impact on subtle or mental spheres, but we can objectively report on "gross-world" eyewitness accounts of hearing him purposefully use his voice. Earlier the comment was made that even explicating the more metaphysical issues, even just describing how verifiable sources already understand or theorize the silence-breaking (or lack thereof), is "advanced material" inappropriate for the biographical article -- if that's the case, then what is left to address apart from the common sense meaning of words, really? This doesn't seem controversial to me, if the concern really is encyclopedic objectivity. The meaning of MB's silence can be quite paradoxical, open to all sorts of interpretation on our level, but reporting on eyewitness testimony of sound waves hitting ear organs is not. For whatever it's worth, I actually tried to address these very issues earlier, in the now-archived discussion -- why, IMO, it's not an either/or issue, how MB's silence can have meaning on multiple levels simultaneously -- but I presume that sort of speculation was partly what got shut down as "general discussion"? So I'm sticking to the facts now, and am content that Eruch & Bhau are mentioned in the Silence section, rather than in the 'seclusion & death' section, and that at least the article doesn't currently contain an outright narrative contradiction between sub-sections in how the silence is factually characterized. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Agreed 100%. Where it is now is good. The discussion has come back to this and its what you tried to say before, now archived. This time without the grief its now possible to say what you previously said, without the distractions. I got it then and I get it now. What you wrote needs no summary. IMO case closed. So whats there now in the article is fine and should stay. Some one one day may write a sub page. --Jones.liam (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think putting it in the Silence Section, without any qualification, in light of all that has been said, is irresponsible. I think it belongs where it was. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The conventional place for statements of such Undue importance is a section called "Trivia". Hoverfish Talk 05:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish that is uncivil. When you call what we are talking about Trivia, You are putting down all the above sincere and thought out discussion above and the editors as well. Are you aware you are doing this? Please phrase your discussion in a helpful and mature manner. --Jones.liam (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually he isn't. What he is saying is that placing much emphasis on this apparently questionable and interpretative material might be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and it had been the case that such material is placed in "Trivia" sections, although I believe that has been subsequently changed so that such material, if it is to be included, should be included in the body of the article, and that trivia sections are now themselves discouraged. Coming in as an outsider who has little direct knowledge of the subject, the first thing that comes to mind to me however is whether the matter at hand is Baba's "silence," or Baba's "breaking the silence," considering that the latter is a rather widely known term used when someone finally, after a long period, makes a statement regarding a matter which he or she had not addressed earlier. The fact that Baba was rather ostentatiously silent for so long does not necessarily mean that the phrase was referring to his not making any sound whatsoever. If it is possible that "breaking the silence" does not in fact literally refer to making no sounds, or if there is even any real question as to what it did exactly mean, then there is a real question how much weight to give this matter. Personally, as an outsider, particularly considering the comments above that this breaking of the silence was supposed to be an indicator of major changes beginning, and that such changes have not evidently yet been described as beginning, I tend to think that such information should be given rather little weight or space in this, the main article on the subject. My own guess would tend to be that it shouldn't be placed here, because it seems to me to reflect only one opinion regarding an uncertain matter, although I could be wrong. My own guess would be to put such material in a separate article on "Teachings", "Philosophy", or whatever, because it seems to me much more about that subject than really about anything related to the biography of Baba itself, which is the more or less central theme of this article. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you John Carter, I stand corrected in that Trivia sections are now discouraged, especially in GA's. I appreciate your "outsider" opinion and suggestions, as it is mostly "outsiders" this article addresses and it is primarily to them it should make proper sense and read well as a coherent simple biography. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

John, I very much appreciate your comments. 1st: I agree that Hoverfish's comments reflect reasonable editorial discussion and are not uncivil simply because they may not reflect the opinions of other editors. The editors of this page need to find a middle ground of allowing active discourse -- even argument -- without getting into a food fight...and labelling a reasonable comment as 'uncivil' is just as much a lit fuse as actually being uncivil. So once again, I exhort all to assume good faith and make nice.

John: Second, I very much appreciate your comments regarding the weight being applied to the items under discussion. I have bent over backwards trying to accomodate NPOV, and this means leaving my personal feelings behind. But I am rudderless about what elements are useful to establishing a good NPOV, and what elements should be identified as carrying undue weight. I will have to re-read and reconsider your thoughts before commenting on them, but I am so grateful to get an disintersted pair of eyes on the subject. (Note: if you don't recall the difference between disinterested and uninterested, you should look here.) I'm glad you're keeping an eye on this article,, and I hope you will continue to be free with helpful comments. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

John: Was just curious to get clarification, re: "My own guess would tend to be that it shouldn't be placed here..." -- is "here" referring to the article as a whole, or just to the Silence sub-section? N. had moved those quotes to the Silence section from the "final seclusion & death" section as a result of the now-archived discussion. I think you're right that the larger "breaking the silence" theme & its symbolism is very "uncertain," in terms of consensus of interpretation within the MB community, yet I don't at all think there's any uncertainty about Bhau & Eruch's factual claims of hearing purposeful speech/sounds. My only concern is that that factual level should at least be fairly represented, regardless of the larger interpretative issues. (For example: the article previously wavered between characterizations of the very same period of "silence" even on a purely factual level: in one section saying it lasted up to his death, in another that it had lasted "until shortly before" his death, etc.)

So, I do appreciate your comment and fresh perspective, yet wonder, for example, what inclines you to view the quotes from Eruch and Bhau as being "interpretative," beyond just being factual reportage of their respective eyewitness testimony? We've been purposely avoiding a broader, thematic "breaking of the silence" sub-section within the main article (it was deemed too unrelated or interpretative by others). Bhau and Eruch were two of MB's closest male disciples, so at least minimally, in passing, documenting their respective eyewitness testimonies doesn't seem like giving undue weight to me, especially since editors have been very careful to distinguish simple factual claims from broader interpretative characterizations, it seems to me at least? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is, regarding the "Mm", that such sounds can at times be made involuntarily, so, in effect, it is kind of an interpretation that they weren't. My question to you all is how important are these issues of silence and noise-making/speaking to the followers of Baba. If the silence has been given, over time, a lot of attention as part of his metaphysics, and there is some sort of spiritual significance given these sounds, then I might move the "Silence" section and much of its content to a new subsection of "Metaphysics", which would also give the opportunity to address the significance given to his "breaking the silence" and, if such is discussed in reliable sources, the possible multiple interpretations as to whether these sounds qualify as breaking the silence. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying -- that was actually the intention behind my note addition, which started this whole mess (although the original note needed to be sourced more thoroughly). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally am more and more feeling the 'Baba made sounds' section should be moved back down to Final Seclusion and Death or out of the article. If it remains in the Silence section as it is, it should be given much more explanation, including:

1. Pointing out that neither Bhau nor Eruch claimed this was Baba's "silence breaking."

D.: This is true, re: Bhau (his "man silence" vs. "God silence" distinction), but not true, re: Eruch. To me, taking their respective testimonies at their word is not at all being "careless" or "irresponsible," but I understand your desire for more context. (Which, by the way, had been my motivation for adding an explanatory note to the silence section earlier...) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. A bit about what Baba predicted about the impact of his breaking his silence.
2. The fact that Baba more than once joked "Did you really think I was going to break my silence?" (LM is off-line right now so I can't give a page number)
3. That many people who met Baba (Darwin Shaw comes to mind) said Baba made minor sounds, humms and kissing sounds.

These kinds of points are needed to give this somewhat off-topic comment some context and some qualification. Otherwise it gives the impression that Baba's 44 year silence, and thus his entire life, was a joke. What is the value of that? People could really learn from what Baba has written. It's a shame to summ him up so carelessly. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, everyone seems to agree the material is 'interpretive.' This needs to be articulated along with the material. It should not be left for readers to guess what it is doing there, or its implications. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input John about trivia. N is right about a middle ground too. As a Baba follower any sounds made are / were important (but I dont claim to understand their meaning = interpretative) and if they can be verified they are part of the story and deserve to be included, somewhere. What they mean is another story, but as H says if its factual well, they need to be in (with perhaps an explanation). How much weight they carry will depend where they go it seems. They carry 3/5 stars weight to me and could go further down the article somewhere rather than so early in the article. I dont mind where as long as they slot in sensibly. --Jones.liam (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the logic of this: "...if its factual well, they need to be in..." There are millions of tiny pieces of information far more important that are not in, that are factual. Without some context or clarification it sticks out as a hanging fact. This is why the suggestion of it belonging to a trivia section was made, that was pointed out is no longer a convension. When people read something on Wikipedia, it is my exprience, the true researchers come not to find out small details but to find out original sources. Every other cited fact on this article as far as I can tell leads to a source where more can be learned about that statement so that a fuller understanding can be drawn. But this one factoid leads to a dead end with no further clarification there either, except the editorial addition that Baba was "true to his word." Interestingly if Baba went 'mmm' or "Remember this" to one person each, then he broke his promise. So why open up this can of wax if it isn't necessary. Because 'everthing true has to be added'? By the way, what exactly is here in these two additions that is true? That hasn't even been determined by anyone. That's why I say it has to have commentary for clarity or to at least clarify that there is no clarity. Without such clarity, the mere addition of these two items of Baba trivia is really not true, in the sense that no clear truth is communicated by way of them. Pleae determine what the point is. And at the very least include that. So that something is communicated to the reader. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

D.: I honestly don't follow you on why, to you, Baba speaking to Bhau or Eruch means he "broke his promise"? If anything, I take Eruch's remark "What have we to do with this sort of thing, you see" to mean the ultimate meaning is beyond us, it's not up to us to assess it on that highest level, right? But that's a separate matter from reporting the facts we do know. I'm all for more context and explanation, actually. If I remember correctly, though, weren't you yourself commenting earlier that it wasn't worthwhile to include summaries of sources reflecting on all the issues involved? I don't mean this with any disrespect, but if one has issues with MB speaking to Bhau and Eruch, I honestly think one should be upset with MB about it, not with the act of trying to report the testimonies we do have, right? (In The Everything and the Nothing, MB actually explicitly says, "if you want to blame anyone blame me…I am the only one who can be blamed," for whatever that's worth.) It's interesting to me, though, this discussion, because after so much deferral to Wikipedia policies those earlier accusing some of having personal agendas (or let's just say assumptions/interpretations, etc.) seem to be voicing their own quite openly, now, it seems to me? I prefer that, though, since at least we know where we're coming from & can work from there. But that's just to say: I agree with you, more context should be provided. That's what I've been trying to suggest, but gave up when it was dismissed as "advanced material." Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See new section at bottom.

Metaphysics vs. Teachings

I changed the heading Teachings back to Metaphysics for the following reasons.

1. All three of the subsections, Evolution and Involution, Reincarnation and God-realization, and Avatar and Perfect Masters, are metaphysical subjects.
2. All three are described most completely in God Speaks where Baba laid out his metaphysics.
3. The term teachings, if applied to Meher Baba, would not stick just to the metaphysics of God Speaks, but would necessarily also include teachings on love and honesty, on sex and marriage, on drug misuse, and morality and practicality, staying out of politics, avoidance of false gurus, etc.
4. After much thought back and forth I think the term "teachings" is clumsy in this context. "Metaphysics" is much more precise than "philosophy" because philosophy is a more general term and includes numerous branches besides metaphysics -- yet everything mentioned in the section is within the scope of metaphysics.

Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Metaphysics.Hoverfish Talk 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I just corrected the spelling. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ive remembered my password and logged in from a work computer. I cant guarantee that someone else has already or may use this computer at some point. I have a nightshift and seeing the above I thought I'd reply and I am making an exception after I saw the demise of the Title Teachings. Finally! Yes Metaphysics is much better and your reasoning is sound. Keep in mind an extension of your same logic leads to a bigger heading which includes metaphysics in it, his Work. But based on what is currently under the title metaphysics is good and far preferable to teachings --Jones.liam (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank God we all agree on something. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, Nemonoman didn't say anything. Last I remember he wanted to stick with Teachings... Hoverfish Talk 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant guideline for Eruch and Bhau facts

I've been involved in a little food fight about Akbar, and have been re-reading WP guidelines on sources. I think the relevant guideline here is WP:PRIMARY. I'm open to hear other opinions. If that is the relevant guideline, however, then those facts should not be included, not even as "Trivia". --Nemonoman (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think PRIMARY is a big problem in this case, as we don't explicitly make any interpretation of the primary source. The problem is that by adding these descriptions we are implying quite a bit, so IMO the main guideline here is UNDUE. Hoverfish Talk 20:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline makes our problem more clear: we editors are trying to weight the significance of those quotes; we're trying to understand what they mean in the big picture, etc. What the guideline suggests is that this job belongs to the creators of the secondary sources they recommend as references -- let the academics sort it out, then report what they find. If there are differences of opinion, present the differences fairly. We're out of our depth with these primary source reports, and we're making a mess of it. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In this small debate above Nemonoman is right IMO. Its not about explicitly making any interpretation of the primary source as Hoverfish states, rather reading why Primary sources are not prefered gives here WP:PRIMARY gives insight into potential problems with primary sources. Is The Glow article at least one step removed from the event? Is The Glow as reliable as a mainstream newspaper? Flicking thru some mainstream newspapers can reveal bias. Is the Glow worse better or the same as a maninstream paper. What about Bhaus quote. Is it a secondary source?--Jones.liam (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight

I copy this from UNDUEWEIGHT: Neutrality requires 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 not sure what exacly the 'viewpoint' is that is being conveyed in the Silence section. If this is a singificant viewpoint what viewpoint exactly? That Baba spoke or broke his silence? Also, and even more relevant to UNDUEWEIGHT, is this material expressed in proportion to its prominence? One quote from a Website, the other from a small Baba magazine, against all the above named book sources (not all included). Yet the two facts take up more type-space (minus the quote) than the main documented fact above it that he was silent for 44 years and this is the source of a major Baba Holliday. I think there is a definite UNDUEWEIGHT problem here that's not being addressed. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I will answer here to the above questions of John Carter. Meher Baba's "Silence" is a historical event. He did not speak for 44 years and the reason he gave for this is very straightforward. It does not involve any metaphysics. The main body of Meher Baba's "metaphysics" and "teachings" (though these terms do not best describe the content) can be found in his books "God Speaks", "The Nothing And The Everything", as well as in the "Discourses". In none of these books is the issue of Baba's "silence" (or its breaking) brought up or discussed as any metaphysical or ideological concept. So, in Meher Baba's biography "his silence" is a historical event and a statement to humanity. Now, within lots and lots of other controversial issues, several times did Baba promise to his followers that he would break his silence at some fixed date, which he didn't do. And several times the issue was brought up to Baba and he gave some prophetic descriptions of what it will be like when he breaks his silence. There is a lot of speculation about this, but no notable publication that treats this issue. In the 20 volume biography "Lord Meher" p.4365 there is mention of this Ommm sound in connection with the breaking of the silence. So what is attempted here is to provide this statement of Eruch, and therefore imply that Baba has indeed broken his silence before he died. The problem is not whether "Eruch was one of the greatest human beings to ever walk this planet" [1] or how credible his account is. The problem is that we take material from a magazine article and from a collection of Bhau's emails to change the history as described in such reliable sources as the 20 volume biography "Lord Meher" and other prominent books. Hoverfish Talk 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to supplement Hoverfish's account: There's a whole section of Meher Baba's 1963 The Everything and the Nothing book (The N. & the E. is Bhau's book, based on points from MB) devoted to the silence theme, and it's explicitly metaphysical in content. As for a more recent publication that treats the issue, see Ken Lux's "Has Meher Baba Told Us When He Will Break His Silence?" (just as one example; I personally don't 100% agree with everything in there, or even with how he goes about framing the issues involved). If one honestly thinks that taking Bhau or Eruch's testimony seriously is "changing the history" (normally historians take eyewitness testimony rather seriously…), then there's not much I can say to change one's view of historiography, I guess, and I may as well back out of attempting to edit or discuss this topic further. Hoverfish: For whatever it's worth, despite imputing motives to me, I'm honestly not trying to "prove" anything by insisting on the merit of Eruch's account (beyond the facts he himself reports), as difficult as that may be for you to believe? I simply think that thematic accounts of MB's silence should report what is known by way of eyewitness testimony, especially if it's coming from the person who was MB's explicit "mouthpiece" for all those years. Myself personally (at the risk of delving into "general discussion"), I've said several times that for me it's not an "either/or" issue -- I don't think the fact of purposeful vocal utterances belies any supposed "failure" of the silence-symbolism, or the meaning of the silence, nor even necessarily that the "silence" on that level was or is even "broken" in any knowable way, in that more metaphysical/symbolic sense. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll mentions the Everything and the Nothing where Baba's silence is mentioned. I read carefully each and every mention and they are all prophetic in content ("when my silence is broken..."), with no metaphysical interpretations whatsoever. There is only one generalized mention of "God's silence" (page 74 of the pdf version) which does not refer to the historical fact we are discussing here (or its breaking). Please note that the biography at the end of the book mentions that, since he started his silence in 1925, "He did not utter a word" and this is not contradicted up to the mention of his dropping the body in 1969. So even if I am to believe Hdtnkrwll is not trying to prove anything, and in spite of his claim that he is not implying anything beyond "facts", he is still synthesizing a new history (based on Eruch's eyewitness testimony and credibility) here in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 06:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

H.: I just don't think one can so easily separate the "prophetic" from the "metaphysical," when it comes to MB's own silence explanations (re: the "Upheaval" chapter). The biographical text in my '67 printing of the '63 edition appears to be different. Factually reporting Eruch or Bhau's testimony would not be considered "synthesizing a new history" if it is presented with due weight alongside the sources others seem to prefer (usually written much earlier and based on secondary, summary sources). But I agree at this point that that fuller summary of the thematic issues involved probably belongs as its own sub-page; I'm just not convinced B. & E.'s statements need to be completely removed from this article, though, perhaps just moved to a note or back to the historical narrative sections. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hdtnkrwll that If one honestly thinks that taking Bhau or Eruch's testimony seriously is "changing the history" (normally historians take eyewitness testimony rather seriously…), then there's not much to say to change one's view of historiography.

However: there may be a bit more to say, yet;

The silence question is an enigma and is very much part of the history of Baba. It does appear in many literary sources, enough anyway to warrant a good representation and context in the article. Its signifivcance is heightened by being shall we say unresolved.

Some further back ground on the Silence issue from Don Stevens in Listen Humanity. p X1

I feel one must draw the conclusion that Meher Baba did break his silence and manifested during his lifetime. Others whom I deeply respect feel differently. In any event, there will be hundreds of learned treatises on this subject in the future.

From then on there was no question in my mind that Meher Baba's true manifestation was already in flood tide. It only remained to trip across a few clues to the "word" and the "breaking of the silence" contained in the Bible and, among others, in Guru Nanak's utterances* to round out the picture. Then all of Baba's cryptic, intriguing, almost abrasive statements on his silence appeared to fall into place.

--Jones.liam (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The above quote from Don Stevens is an excellent example of the interpretive nature of the issue, which is why I suggest moving this issue to a new article where statements and views of various notable followers on the issue can be presented. - For the issue of "eyewitness" I have to point out that an eyewitness report, under most circumstances, is more reliable the closer it is to the event. Years later many factors may have modified the eyewitness' memory or its evaluation. - As for Bhau's report, the source is primary, as it happens to be in an email addressed "to my loved ones". But Bhau's memory of the event has been "awakened" during a dream/vision, which makes it much harder to place it in terms of factual reality. Also Bhau often says that Baba "told me" this or that, years after Baba's death (or dropping the body), which raises the question of what kind of experience Bhau had when he "awakened" to this memory. Hoverfish Talk 11:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

H.: According to Bhau, it's not the memory that was "awakened," but the nudge to go public with the info. Re: Bhau on mentioning things Baba told him to do -- are you personally in the habit of publicly telling people in one-full-chunk every single thing that was ever requested of you within a 16-yr. period of constant obedience? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

UNDUEWEIGHT: Neutrality requires 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 put in this background material to show that many Baba people have and do think about the Silence issue.

Hoverish when you say He did not speak for 44 years and the reason he gave for this is very straightforward. It does not involve any metaphysics. i think we cant really know that it does not involve any Metaphysics. I quote from the article: His silence was not undertaken as a spiritual exercise but solely in connection with his universal work.

Are you saying that you can split metaphysics from universal work? From wikipedia Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Hoverfish I do have a little trouble when you appear to get interpretative about The Silence. Surely we as little humans just cant be that interpretative about the Silence. What I like about the Hdtnkrwll approach is that it presents what happened and wants the discussion out there in context fairly represented. Fair enough. You have stated before that you will be watching out for personal agendas. fair enough.

It (silence) does not involve any metaphysics. IMO that sounds like a personal agenda. If you wanted to discuss that in a sub page Ok, maybe, Id be intrested to read it --Jones.liam (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Silence we describe here in this article is NOTHING MORE than 44 years of not speaking, plus a statement to humanity as such. This is the only thing we document here, whether you like it or not. There is no interpretation involved and no metaphysics involved. We report here a historical fact. Any personal interpretations about what "Silence" involves are not included here and are not to be included in the future either. If there is a notable person who has done a study on the matter and has published a notable book, start another article about this other book and its interpretations. In my opinion, keeping the article clean of original research, undue importance and misuse of primary sources is not an agenda but the proper way of writing articles here. Hoverfish Talk 08:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the 'vocalization' facts

These facts have 3 problems, anyone of which could and should lead to their deletion.

• WP:PRIMARY -- they come from contemporary, primary sources.

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

• WP:RS -- they have not been published in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards for reliability

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;

• WP:UNDUE -- Forty-four years of silence takes up less space than 2 unconfirmed reports of a grunt and a word in the last days of MB's life.

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. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views;

Those are factors weighing against their continued inclusion. I'm personally hard-pressed to see factors that weigh in their favor. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately tend to agree, particularly as there is apparently sourced information indicating that he did make other "noises" while alive which are seemingly not being considered for inclusion. Also, as pure conjecture on my part, is there any indication of Baba making a death rattle or other noise at his death? If there is, that might be perhaps the easiest to understand time and way for him to "break his silence." John Carter (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: primary -- as it stands, we're only making descriptive claims anyway.

Re: RS -- Glow magazine contents have actually had a more robust editorial review process than Lord Meher. Now, I'd argue that both of them are reliable enough, but I don't think one could honestly claim that the Glow is any less reliable than LM.

Re: undue -- Then let's expand the section and spell it all out, in proportion (seriously). In itself, that's not an argument for leaving the testimony out altogether. Almost everything we do know from MB these days is also via Eruch or Bhau. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: primary -- as it stands, we're only making descriptive claims anyway. Please read the rest of the sentence -- the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

Re: RS -- Glow magazine contents have actually had a more robust editorial review process than Lord Meher -- I am not impressed that is the case. Anyway, it's not a Reliable Source based on prima facie evidence. If you want to argue the case at the RS noticeboard, please have a go. (Here's the link to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard)

N.: Would you mind explaining why your valuation of the Glow as a RS has changed, since the now-archived discussion? I'm genuinely curious what criteria has changed for you, in your valuation, since your earlier comment supporting it as a valid source in principle. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: undue -- Then let's expand the section and spell it all out, in proportion (seriously). In itself, that's not an argument for leaving the testimony out altogether. -- actually it IS an argument and a reasonable one, since right now the silence section is mostly about 2 doubtful facts, and scarcely about silence at all. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is: why not at least, at the very least, move the quotes back to the lower section, or move them into a note, or follow John's suggestion of expanding the theme into a new sub-section section within 'metaphysics'? To arbitrarily just delete the sources entirely is unfounded. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not for expanding within this article at all. I am for moving this issue in a separate article with a specific or a broader title. I would suggest a more generic title as it would have more chances of growing into something substantial and surviving OR. If half of the time spent on discussing here had been placed in developing such an article, it would have been well past start level by now. Hoverfish Talk 07:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

@John: Also, as pure conjecture on my part, is there any indication of Baba making a death rattle or other noise at his death? There were about 6 people at Baba's deathbed, but none mentioned any noise of any kind. It's entirely likely some were hoping to hear something before he passed, and if something HAD been heard, I think it would have made the rounds. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll says Is The Glow any less reliable than Lord Meher? Good point. Also lets face it Lord Meher gets a lot of referencing but it its a big chunk of writing thats online and easy to source. Is it over represented? Probably. My point? Diversity is good. Having The Glow in is good if its as reliable. Is it as a reliable as LM? Probably.

I agree with Johns C's idea of expanding the silence section and Hdtnkrwll idea of moving it down. As Nemonoman says in relation to expanding , actually it IS an argument and a reasonable one, since right now the silence section is mostly about 2 doubtful facts, and scarcely about silence at all

This is true. I agree --Jones.liam (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind request to Hdtnkrwll. Please do not comment in the middle of someone's comment (before his signature at the end of his comment [2]), as it is not easy to follow who wrote what and when without searching the page's history. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved Bhau's and Eruch's reports to "Final seclusion and death" as per general agreement here. Hoverfish Talk 12:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you -- I agree with you that these silence-discussion efforts are better served at this point on an (eventual) sub-page. At some point, I would still like to know what the specific basis for N.'s concerns re: the Glow as a RS are, though -- why his valuation of it as a RS has changed. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Glow as RS

N.: Would you mind explaining why your valuation of the Glow as a RS has changed, since the now-archived discussion? I'm genuinely curious what criteria has changed for you, in your valuation, since your earlier comment supporting it as a valid source in principle. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have been consistent in saying that I personally believe the material presented in The Glow, but that my opinion is not likely to override the WP:RS criteria without a lot of work on establishing its bona fides. Based on the criteria, there appears to be a prima facie case for rejecting it as a reliable source. There is no publication at all except for Bhau's fansite of his claim of hearing Baba speak, and that certainly would fail RS criteria.

Also since I read the actual Glow article, I am very concerned that the article is based not on Eruch's credibility, which seems to me to be unassailable, but on the credibility of the editor, Tony Paterniti. Since Eruch's words have been transcribed, edited, and interpreted by the editor, the question of credibility must be raised. I know the editor personally, and I don't mistrust him. I will vouch for his good faith, in fact. But I am not sure that his work would have survived a rigorous verification process.

As for Lord Meher's reliability, I'll point to a few elements -- numerous editors and proofreaders, lots of rewrites, lots of citations of reported events with contemporary, public sources. It was published and reviewed by readers who have not publicly doubted or disagreed its presentation of facts, and published when many of the figures it depicts were still around to dispute accounts if they disagreed with them. It's highly skewed to a favorable interpretation of MB's life and work, but its content is inclusive (in that it includes many items that might not be interpreted favorably). It is vast and comprehensive in its scope, and provides references that are not easily found elsewhere. Despite its clear bias, we managed to convince some tough editors that Lord Meher was a reliable source for the reasons above.

Disclosure: I am not one of those fawning toadies of Bhau. He's a great guy and all, but that's about as far as I am willing to go. Maybe I would feel differently if I could manage not fall asleep whenever he starts to speak. But let's call a spade a spade: by any measure, Lord Meher is an astounding life's work, and worthy of respect. It was not hard for me to defend it as a reliable source. I would not find it so easy to defend the Glow. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent move by Hoverfish is still insufficent to address the problems that have recently been brought up.

1. Bhau's memory of the event has been "awakened" during a dream/vision -- pointed out by Hoverfish.
2. It is also documented by eye witnesses that Baba made other oral sounds.
3. It gives no context at all.
4. It still fails to address any of the Wikipedia Violations raised above by Nemonoman, which I won't rename here.

The material, if it remains in Final Seclusion and Death, ought to either have a link to a Main Article where such issues can be brought up and elaborated, or it ought to be removed. It remains that the material is longer than the main facts given about his silence, violating UNDUEWEIGHT within the article. I copy both sections below for visual comparison.

From July 10, 1925 until his death in 1969, Meher Baba was silent. He communicated first by using an alphabet board, and later by unique hand gestures which were interpreted and spoken out by one of his mandali, usually by his disciple Eruch Jessawala. Meher Baba said that his silence was not undertaken as a spiritual exercise but solely in connection with his universal work. Baba's followers celebrate Silence Day to honour him.

Despite consistent contemporary reports that Meher Baba did not speak after July 1925, in 1992 his close disciple Eruch Jessawala was reported to have said that he had heard Meher Baba vocalize "the Original Word" three days before his passing: "'Mmmmmmm' like that. The Original Word. 'Mmmmmmmm' is the Original Word. Om." In 2001, another close disciple, Bhau Kalchuri said that Meher Baba had spoken the words "Yaad rahk" (remember this) in the hours before his death, accompanying these words with a gesture that signified, "I am not this body." This account, however, differed from Kalchuri's earlier accounts of the moment.

Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

D.: (1) If one reads Bhau's text carefully, it becomes clear that his memory was not "awakened" during a dream/vision, but just the nudge to publicly express what he had heard was "awakened." (2) I thought there was agreement earlier that moving these quotes to the historical narrative sections (where N. had moved them to after their original addition some months ago) was enough to address the weight concerns (do I need to quote your own earlier comments?). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said just above, my new comments are in light of "problems that have recently been brought up" by Nemonoman and John Carter. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that I have posted some of Bhau's own words from his chatroom here: User_talk:Hoverfish/Sandbox. Note that for me "what he had heard was awakened" doesn't sound very clear AT ALL. Hoverfish Talk 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have even added in the above, for comparison, part of Bhau's email given as citation in the article. I don't know what means "clear" to others, but to me it is as clear as it can ever be expressed in words that Bhau's Awakenings were given to him in dream/vision states. "Baba said to me" at a time after Baba's death is itself a VISION. Others around Bhau at the time didn't see Baba talking to Bhau. Hoverfish Talk 22:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

H.: Of course Bhau's "awakenings" transpired in dream/vision states. What I'm saying is that the point of the quoted "awakening" was not a "new" memory, according to Bhau, but to go public with his already-existing memory of what Bhau had witnessed and heard in 1969 (Bhau uses the word "reminded," for example). At this point, after following all this discussion, I actually feel people are making disingenuous arguments (whether consciously or not, I don't claim to know, & it's not up to me to judge it), and I'm removing myself from this discussion & the attempt to edit further on this point in the near future. I just don't have the energy (or interest, frankly, at this point) to in good-faith try to dialogue and compromise with folks, only to have people's "reasoning" arbitrarily & continually shift around (re: N. on his previous Glow assessment; D. on negotiating a temporary solution re: moving the quotes back to the historical section, prior to a new main article on the theme; H. on claiming Bhau's memory itself was new, or from his dream, not just the prod for him to share it, etc). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a single time where I said the Glow was a reliable source, please produce the quote. Otherwise, please retract this statement about how I am disingenuous and arbitrarily shifting positions. Those statements about me are inaccurate. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Hoverfish almost from the start of this discussion has noted disparities in Bhau's various accounts of the yad rakh incident. I have not noted much variance from him: he has consistently been cautious about those accounts.

Also Dazed has made changes and described why he made them. I think his reasoning has been consistent, although he has seen different implementaion options, and did one. This should not be a cause for calling his actions or his arguments 'disingenuous'.

So, I'd like an actual quote of mine, or a retraction: re that I said that the Glow was WP:RELIABLE. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also do not think that what I am saying is disingenuous, consciously or not. I have no doubt that Bhau is honest about describing his experience, but his experience is not the usual experience I call "eye witnessing", unless an "inner eye" counts too. In support of my argument, I will offer another part from Bhau's chat of the 21st Oct 2007, describing his state of mind during Baba's dropping his body:

Bhau Kalchuri - ... you are asking when Baba dropped His body, what my mind-- was telling me or thinking. I will tell you the truth-- at that time the mind did not work. And, I was there and -- I could not see anything.

All this is perfectly understandable. At times of great sorrow or shock the mind is not in its usual state. Memories could have been buried in the subconscious that can be awakened later. But when they are awakened, they cannot be taken as eye witnessing, honest though they may be. It may all be as it really happened, or not. This is what I am saying. Further readings here: Eyewitness testimony, Eyewitness memory, Confabulation. Hoverfish Talk 07:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverifsh I think HK may have found your facts to be opinions at times. I have too and here is a good example. You say re momories, (d) But when they are awakened, they cannot be taken as eye witnessing, honest though they may be. This is totally false in law. And the law is the final arbiter in society. ( and yes i have studied some law. H I dont want another massive argument on my discussion page like the PhD one. - feel free to read it anyone. I Have studied some law.)

This sort of incorrect statment you made to HK can be intrepreted as being careless or worse, it is also frustrating. Look I like confidence but incorrect statements can make people think something is disingenuous.

Another point is inconsistency. Hk may have found you inconsistent H. Above also I wrote how you have stated you were against personal agendas but were making one yourself re his silence. These sorts of issues do detract from improvements. And that is the goal right?

Its never black and white and Hk has made some very good points. I think you and everyone should look at what a true outsider John C has suggested. Expanding the Silence section. (Somewhere) Everyone needs to ask themselves, are they secretly implacably opposed to this. --Jones.liam (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

N Im trying to tread a middle ground here: If you had doubts about The Glow as a reliable source you could have expressed them earlier in this section below I am quoting. perhaps if you had done so HK may have a different view of how things have gone. Omission implies agreement in some cases. By not saying you had doubts over The Glow's reliability below and instead focusing on the points you did, it implies acceptance of The Glow as reliable. At the least its an ommison that confused Hk and I will add i assumed The Glow was Ok based on no one mentioning till fairly recently (hence I asked above what gives)

I quote you N: So the actual content of the article would be helpful in clarifying that info for me. If Eruch specifically said: MB hummed, that hum was the Breaking of His Silence -- well that would put the matter in a different light for me.

To any and all editors: I regret that I am bringing up my own opinions and personal conversations in this matter, and I do so only because I don't have the specific references here, and because (as I think is evident) those individual details are affecting my edits, for better or worse, and I think that full disclosure of my mindset may be useful to others in determining whether my weighting of information is reasonable or simply being driven by my own prejudices. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hk posted something after the quote (above) from you N. Hk wrote something that should have been responded to then if ANYONE had Glow reliability isses. Hk wrote;

D.: Just to be especially clear: the Glow magazine, for example, has its own OCLC publication number -- one could very legitimately argue that it's actually less "self-published" than Lord Meher (it has a wider variety of contributors, and probably has had more editorial oversight than the original edition of Lord Meher, etc.). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lastly also b 4 things get heated lets not be hypocritical or disingenuous: another Glow ref is in use for this .Ref 82. This is precedent, a key legal principle and needs to be taken into account.

Summing up; The Glow was already in use. No one challenged The Glow earlier despite detailed postings on the subject. OK so I can see where Hk is coming from. Can you?

Consider what I have said above and tie this in with what Hk said earlier: he has a right to be perplexed.

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Glow issue has been addressed. Please be more thorough in reading what has been said. Hoverfish Talk 08:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re read what I wrote. You missed the point entirely. Its not about if the Glow issue has been sorted, ITS about what Hk said and the responses to it and my responses to that in support of HK. Stay on topic please.

When you were responding on my discusson page part of the problem was that you moved topic so much and it makes things difficult. Its hard to improve an article if baggage is left all over the place. Sort out something properly and move on. The point about dealing with Hks concerns is that he will go if they are not addressed. I think the loss of one in only five editors is a loss for the article.

I think though when you say The Glow issue has been addressed. Please be more thorough in reading what has been said. well thats not true is it. Its in fact under discussion. Im going to be frank here hoverfish, IMO you are being too quick to bury a discussion because it suits you--Jones.liam (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more precise then. "Hk posted something after the quote (above) from you N. Hk wrote something that should have been responded to then if ANYONE had Glow reliability isses." Nemonoman has explained himself on why the RS Glow issue was not addressed THEN but was addressed a bit later. Is it clear enough now? Will you keep reprimanding us for everything we say and for everything we don't say? Hoverfish Talk 10:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No not everyone. I find N , D and Hk are reasonable. I do find however that you are less robust than them. Call me biased but thats how I see it. And Im talking about the discussions about the article. Like I have always said, things are not black an white and I am presenting a view that suppports Hk but does not damn H or D. If you feel repremanded thats , well something i dont intend and a bit odd. Too personal really. I dont want to know that. I do think however you are prone to move around and away from areas where you have been wrong and take being found wanting personal. This can be counter productive --Jones.liam (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jones.liam, please see archive 9 where I first addressed the glow as a reliable source -- including the OCLC number:

• Re: The Glow as reliable source. I think it's reliable, but my opinion doesn't count for much. I've been in the middle of lots of Reliable Source disputes, and not just about this article. To get a sense of how seriously some editors take Reliable Sources, visit WP:RSN. In the past week, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and US News and World Report have been challenged as WP:RS Reliable Sources. The notion that the Glow...has its own OCLC publication number is not going provide much weight in the case of a challenge. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for evidence that I have changed my position disingenuouly, or a retraction of the statement. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nemonoman. Yes you did comment earlier. And thanks for staying reasonable. I also like it your not a Bhau fanclub member. Thats funny and healthy. I know what you mean, Nor am I. I will add Im not an Eruch fanclub member either. But like (d) both people. Its not personal but just the way it is. And yes dear old Bhau is an amazing sedative.

I want to add with time differenes and work I cant always get to add a piece till much later, so its unreasonable to just shut down debate like Hoverfish did. So I appreciate your maturity in replying. Hk has made some good points and mor editors = better article.

However I am signing off for good. For me Real life calls and this debate has been squeezed out of my life by other things pressing for time. But also there is a problem here getting ahead with the article: And in terms of Baba and his silence it matters not a dot what we write here, so Im happy to say the friction detracts from Baba and that is also why I leaving. Since I am going I will just add H its how one plays that counts. And H this is for you:

There are lots of tricks in face to face conversations to further ones argument that work: like distraction / emoting / untrue statments / changing topic / personal comments / avoiding closure on a point by jumping around. (see my discussion page). However they are not as effective when a record of the conversation can be seen like here on Wikipedia and someone can go back and say 'hang on here...'. What these conversation tricks do do though when employed on wikipedia is make progress like walking thru mud. Its slow. Heavy going. I think a more straightforward approach will lead to improvements happening in a smoother manner. I think also this is what HK had issues with. Anyway thats my 20 Ruppees worth

Good luck to you all in the coming years, they promise to be interesting. Jai Baba:) --Jones.liam (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll addresses my request for an example or retraction of his comments about me.

This comment addressed to me appeared on Hdtnkrwll's talk page. He says he's now taking a Wikibreak.

N.: To me, there's a difference between one's opinion as to whether the Glow fully qualifies as a RS in the strictest sense possible, and to what extent folks implicitly make use of that uncertainty as a sort of unspoken "intimidation tactic" to imply the cited content could be justifiably removed at any moment. As JL mentioned later (in a moment of lucidity), why not this level of concern with the other citation from the Glow? If you do personally think it's reliable (you wrote, "I think it's reliable"), then why not all of us work collectively for its status, as I take it was done with LM in the past? For whatever it's worth, it's not the OCLC # I was stressing (I was simply trying to point out it's in a different category from the MB regional, book-groupy group newsletters, etc.), but it was the editorial oversight issue. I greatly value LM personally, but it's actually one colossal, self-published book, really, if one's seriously addressing its publication process. At the very least, it seems clear to me that the Glow is as reliable, or as defendable as LM, that's all. The overall acknowledging tone of your earlier comments suggested you were aware of that. I realize these are personal issues (at times motivations were imputed to me by Hoverfish, for example, which simply didn't correspond to my actual concerns, which were to simply and accurately portray both the "man silence" and "God silence" as distinct but interpenetrating issues), but I just don't have the energy to engage in this sort of never-ending back-and-forth maneuvering. However, I'm not blaming anyone else for my own impatience, but just for what I rightly or wrongly perceived as occasional disingenuousness. That said, I do respect all the work you've done on the article, and I trust these silence-theme issues will work themselves out over time anyway, as a "breaking of the silence" main article gets added at some future point.

Or as I take this staement, he has no example of me changing my opinion as he claimed I had done. I have my own opinion of editors who act in this manner, but because of Wiki Ettiquette, I will not voice it. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

N.: With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. Your stated personal opinion was that it is a reliable source. What appeared to me as being disingenuous (rightly or wrongly) was the way the supposed RS issue was never addressed since the Eruch quote was first posted by others in July (as discovered by Hoverfish). Why haven't both Glow citations been removed from the article, if this really is such a concern? (BTW, I'm addressing this again here only because you saw fit to quote me from my talk page back into this discussion, after soliciting a response from me on my talk page....) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, H, I am about the only editor on this article, who has edited numerous non-MB articles or has been involved with moving articles to GA status, or has been involved with RS disputes, or has been involved with non-MB-related POV disputes.

I regularly get accused of ownership issues (see WP:OWNER). And it is not my job to be the thought police of this page. But if I felt like acting in keeping with my pucker-ass-editor persona, I would remove without hesitation the Glow references, and the Bhau website reference, and any facts associated with them.

This article has already been through one tiring and time-consuming GAR, and a new can be requested at any time. If there is a GA reassessment, those refs will have to go if the article is to remain at GA level.

Since I have not made a big honking deal about using the Glow reference for the Hoffman article (it was added to provide a counterview of the drug messages, and was used to support NPOV), I don't feel I have the right to start cutting the Glow refs now.

Now that I have personally read the Glow article in question, however, I am changing my assessment of the Glow as RS. I wrongly assumed that the article was the product of Eruch -- based on Eruch's previous association with Naosherwan, the editor. I was very wrong. A 'slightly edited' transcript of an offhand talk has been promoted to holy writ as though it were written and approved by Eruch. This is not the case. This sells magazines, maybe, but it doesn't suggest the fact-checking and validity-checking that is required of a reliable source.

If the article were correctly titled and bylined by a truly reliable source, it would be something like: Eruch Heard Meher Baba Make a Noise: an article by Tony Paterniti. The article's title and byline are problematic for me. They elide the substance of the text, which contains lots of gray areas.

So, no, I will NOT be defending the Glow as Reliable Source, should it come to that. In a reliable source review, you can defend the general reliablity of the source - but I find now that the Glow is less reliable generally than I believed. You can also defend the reliabilty of a particular item in a less-than-reliable source. In the case of this article, I don't see any reasonable argument for the article's reliablity.

One of the guidelines for editors is to leave in doubtful material that has been added by inexperienced editors, and to work to improve it if possible rather than to delete it out of hand. So I'm hoping somebody can come up with better citations before these facts end up being removed. So far I can't, and the citations provided look less and less able to support the facts being asserted.

The suggestion that I should be hard at work promoting the Glow as a reliable source or else I am hypocritical is disturbing. I don't see that this is my job. If you want the task take it on. The suggestion that if I don't accept the Glow as reliable, I should remove its references is just as disturbing. You criticized me for doing ANYTHING AT ALL to your edits, and now you criticize me for not being even fiercer. I find it particularly unfriendly that all your suggestions are that I should be doing more and working harder on this article than I already have done and continue to do. Don't you have hands?

And I have not missed the point, thnak you very much. Without cause or example, you have accused me of being disingenous, and I ask again that you retract those comments about me.

Please learn the WP rules and learn to edit, as I have, or give me a break. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly "in record" that Nemonoman had asked to see a copy of the original in order to make up his mind. It is very bad politics to take his statement before he read the article and accuse him of changing it after he read it. The source here is THIS particular article of Glow (Glow is a magazine after all), which I also do not find appropriate for use here. However both Nemonoman and me, we have stated that we are not going to be the ones to remove this. Now, this seems to bring displeasure to Hdtnkrwll, although his only stated purpose is that the paragraph should remain. So there has to be an unstated purpose ("for the record"), which seems to be proving to the world that "we" (three editors) are BIASED against some view that has an equal right to be documented here. However we have followed a different way and very carefully pointed out all the reasons why this section is inappropriate for the article. But Hdtnkrwll brushes off all our efforts and insists it is us that miss HIS point. Does this prove to everyone that we are BIASED?. NO, it does NOT. I am also not calling for a GAR (which will mean the final removal of this paragraph) because I have seen how much work it has been for Nemonoman to go through the previous one and I think this would be an unfair blow on him. Hoverfish Talk 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhau's account in 2005 edition of Lord Meher

I'm not going to attempt to edit this into the article at this point (although I think it would be completely legitimate to do so, I tend to agree with the earlier consensus that a "breaking of the silence" sub-article makes the most sense, to simply report all the various existing testimonies and interpretations), but I wanted to point out that the smaller-print, newly-edited 2005 edition of Lord Meher (Hyderabad, India: Meher Mownavani Publications) prints Bhau's current account of the speaking incident:

...Aloba took over night duty at 10:00 p.m., and Baba told Bhau to go and rest; but Bhau was called again about an hour later. This time, Baba actually spoke two words to Bhau: "Yad rakh [remember this]!" and then gestured, "I am not this body!" Baba had repeated the same thing many times over the years, but this time it had a tremendous impact on Bhau. For the first time, Bhau actually realized and felt these words to be true.

"Although Baba's voice was feeble," Bhau recalled, "the sound was audible and clear, and its intensity and impact very, very forceful. It conveyed so great an impression, that my mind itself neither registered nor questioned the fact that Baba was speaking."⁹⁶³...

-- Volume 8 (of 8), p. 4,765. (Footnote 963 on p. 4,881 clarifies that, according to Bhau, the physical utterance wasn't the "breaking of Baba's silence," and quotes directly from the "awakening" text in that regard.)

Eventually (I have no idea when), these accounts from Bhau & Eruch will have to be explicitly addressed, re: the simple fact of vocal utterances alongside the various interpretations different people have given to them. Bhau's account is in print within LM now, and someone somewhere must also have of a recording of Eruch recounting his witness (similar to the account the Glow article transcribes). I have to assume at this point that everyone's edits have been sincere, yet the sometimes-shifting nature of the rationales given within the flow of this discussion (from NPOV to undue weight, to interpretive claims like "if Baba went 'mmm' or 'Remember this' to one person each, then he broke his promise," then back to RS) is what (rightly or wrongly) made me start to loosen that assumption of good-faith. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a shifting of rationales. It's ALL of these factors that work against inclusion. Hoverfish Talk 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What you point out above is precisely the point of UNDUE. Out of 20 volumes of biography, two small paragraphs of small print (probably in a footnote) are UNDUEWEIGHT in a summary biography article. In a separate article of a more general topic (which will not be eligible for GA until a time when existing bibliography can fully support all of its statements) they might stand, depending on the way they are presented. Hoverfish Talk 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: I understand the undue weight concerns, but, in all seriousness, I would like some clarification at some point as to how the "two small paragraph limit"-ratio policy you mention (ratio of cited content in relation to entire text its taken from) is currently being applied to other quotes from LM, already used in the article? The quoted text is from p. 4,765 of the new edition; the footnote (not quoted above) starts on p. 4,881. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, many biographies include "dying last words" -- the fact that a figure didn't spend their entire life saying them doesn't mean they're not appropriate for a biographical article in principle. The fact that Meher Baba was purposefully silent only makes his "dying last words" more notable, in fact. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not need to try to explain WP:UNDUE again, which you claim to understand. I have already asked you to address your concern to the community, because no matter what I or Nemo or Dazed might say, you go right past it like we have said absolutely nothing and you keep insisting that we have not explained how it applies here. If you think that UNDUE applies to other parts of this article, please bring them up for discussion or tag them. If not, please don't bring this argument up again, as it isn't helpful.

My opinion on the rest of what you say: the sound that Eruch describes is NOTHING like "dying last words", and the "Yadh rakh" words (accompnied with the gestures) that he might indeed have said privately to Bhau, for his personal benefit, still don't sound like what I take as a person's "dying last words". But I understand this is of big enough importance to you (and possibly others too) that you seem to have endless time and energy to fight for its inclusion here.

Also I feel it is like turning the back to Nemonoman by discussing in a new section while bypassing his request that you retract your accusations about him. Hoverfish Talk 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reasonably comfortable with a citation from Lord Meher being included in the article. Since we've been down this route before, I'd very much appreciate a scan of the page(s) in question, or a verbatim transcription of the whole relevant passages and footnotes, rather than a synopsis at this point (seems to quote directly... is not sufficient, IMO). Bhau's words in Bhau's book which we have managed to confirm as an RS cannot reasonably be ignored. If you will provide the quote, Hdtnkrwll, I am sure we can reach consensus on how best to include the information and not give it Undue Weight. It deserves some weight, I think.

In fact I have been looking for examples of MB promising to break his silence at a specific time. In seemed to me that there were a bunch of these, but I can only find references to 2; the Hollywood Bowl, and a minor incident in Hayne's The Awakener.

I am also looking for a Reliable Source citation to the effect that Baba promised to speak his "Word" physically before his death. It seems to me that there are dozens of these sorts of promises too, but I'm suddenly not finding them. In my opinion these broken promises are an important part of the Baba story. So many times I've heard the OTBLs (Old Time Baba Lovers) recalling their breathless anticipation of the moment they expected Baba to speak and their subsequent disappointment and frustration.

If we can find some decent citations, I think that a fact along the lines of "Baba repeatedly promised to break his silence but didn't" needs to be added to the Silence section. Once that fact is in there with citations, then it seems reasonable to me that we could include mention of Bhau's incident. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

N.: I'll scan in the title page, copyright page, relevant text and footnote pages. I appreciate your honesty, because for better or worse I was half-expecting to have to sift-through some sort of reasoning (from someone or other, not necessarily from you) as to why the 2005 edition of LM was less of a RS than the 1980s-1990s edition....

Hoverfish: I respectfully disagree with you over your assessment of MB's words to Bhau -- who are we to determine that they were intended only for Bhau's personal benefit (by "for Bhau" above I meant "according to Bhau," only meaning: he's the one claiming it wasn't the "breaking of the silence" in the fullest sense, not that the phrase spoken to him was necessarily meant only for him). Last words are often given to just one person present; I don't think there's a requirement that there be a "full house" in order for them to be meaningful or to be taken seriously as fact.

I take N.'s comments just above to be proving his good-faith, at this point. Just above that I had also written, "I have to assume at this point that everyone's edits have been sincere" (even my earlier concern was qualified with the statement "...whether consciously or not, I don't claim to know, & it's not up to me to judge it," and in fact it was not limited to just N. at the time -- if anything, I think the history of D.'s own comments [for example: being concerned that Baba "broke his promise," according to her own personal interpretation of that promise] demonstrates that others have in fact, at least sometimes, had their own personal assumptions at work, beyond Wikipedia policy per se, throughout this entire discussion). That said, however, and despite what you may choose to believe, I am not trying to enforce an interpretation of the metaphysical sense of the "silence breaking" here -- I am simply trying to avoid willful denial about testimony we do happen to have from close mandali members about basic facts, regardless of how they're interpreted in parallel (or not) with other symbolic/metaphysical claims.

I still honestly don't understand how the ratio of cited text to the entirety of the specific text its coming from bears on its sourcing status. (Re: your "Out of 20 volumes of biography, two small paragraphs of small print..." concern -- since when is this sort of quantitative ratio per se the issue to a fact's integrity? I understand the ratio importance within the article, but am honestly not understanding the merit of a ratio claim being made internal to the source itself.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the ratio of the mention within the source(s) has nothing to do with the ratio of mention within the article (as per UNDUE), then I will retract my comment about the footnote's inclusion, but a peer of mine would have to point this out to me, as to the best my understanding it is very relevant. However, the ratio of promises made to break the silence happens to be considerable (see list in Nemonoman's talk page), so I will not argue about some mention of this issue, as a consequence of the mention of which, Bhau's statement may find a place of due proportion. And for sure we have all expressed our personal views within else. As for the assessment on Bhau's statement, I was based on various of Bhau's own statements on the issue in his chat at times. Hoverfish Talk 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely RUN do not walk to my talk page and see the list of silence breaking promises. I'll be looking for suitable words to encapsulate this information, and to include the recent reference Hdtnkrwll has graciously offered to scan. I have no problem expressing my personal doubts about what Bhau heard and what he now remembers having heard. But see the short essay I've put on my user page: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The new LM quotes appear to be verifiable, and relevant, so (assuming we can include them without overweighting them), in they go. I trust that we will find consensus on the actual verbiage to be included. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope the new section will also include pointing out for the reader that Bhau's recollection returned to him only decades later, prompted by a vision of Baba in which he audibly heard Baba remind him of his words and that he told him not to be afraid to tell. If this is left out then it is not a true and complete represenation of the facts. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dazedbythebell here. Unfortunate as it may sound, false memory syndrome could not unreasonably under these circumstances be considered a factor here. Although, I think the weight issue is more about the fact that this seems to be mentioned in only a very few sources, primary or secondary, relating to the subject, and not discussed at any great length even then. If other RSs which discuss this recalled statement could be produced, that would very much help establish the appropriateness of the inclusion of the quote. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't get around to this before next week, and assuming no one else is quicker on the draw than I am, it can probably wait until then. I'll post a draft before adding new material. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As per John Carter, I replace my "ratio of mention within the source(s)" with his argument as the correct terms of inclusion. Re:Dazedbythebell, in order to mention how Bhau got his awakenings from we will have to wait for his suggested book "Awakenings" if it ever becomes a book (unless it IS also mentioned in some footnote of the new edition of LM). Else we have to cite these emails, which, as we have discussed, are not RS. Hoverfish Talk 06:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can of course mention that the account between the 2005 and earlier edition of LM varies on the point of speech being made, but for D. to argue to include Bhau's emails only now, after D. just deleted their previous inclusion as a source, over RS issues, is the type of thing that led me to question folks' "good faith" -- it gives the appearance, at least, of selectively enforcing some of the policy issues, even if that is not the conscious intention. (Beyond RS issues, though, I myself had no problem with the emails in principle, since to me Bhau is clearly distinguishing between his experience of, and memory from, 1969 and the more recent prompt simply to share it.) Anyhow, this is in LM now anyway -- if it's a RS one's not obliged to include a "making of..." documentary for every RS. I'll post a link to the PDF of page scans later today. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

D. commented earlier, now in Archive 9: "Even if the prevailing documented view (that his silence was lifelong) is false, veering from the published sources to minor websources in the lead is essentially original or new research" -- so, now, all of the sudden giving the "true and complete represenation of the facts" (D.'s comment just above) is the goal, or what's of most importance?? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where D says we should use these emails as source. I also don't understand how you come to question folks' "good faith" when these folks here are all openly stating their views. I reassure you we don't have any aces hiding in our sleeves. And I agree 100% that not stating how Bhau got his awakenings is a very partial story, but until "Awakenings" are published, we can't. That's all. Hoverfish Talk 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

H.: If not from the webpage of emails (which D. saw fit to delete on 10/29), where else would one source Bhau's explanations from? The chats are much more fragmentary and partial accounts (and the wiki article never tried to cite them previously anyway, which is why it's always been a bit unclear to me why you were analyzing the chats rather than the source that was cited, BTW).

It's not everyone's personal views per se that I've questioned in the past (I respect that we all naturally just interpret things differently), but it's how folks (at times, at least to me) seem to attempt to link their default views to policies that would favor a lower level of detail within the article, then abandon that argument when convenient, that's all. If you recall, prior to John Carter's suggestion to expand the silence explanations, even going into more detail by simply reporting the variety of existing interpretations within reliable sources was argued against, which is how we came to the consensus of putting the "breaking the silence" theme into a separate article, right? It took much discussion to even get folks to acknowledge that the article's narrative voice was itself reporting the same "fact" inconsistently, between sub-sections, at the time. The very attempt to give more context was being dismissed as not relevant to a biographical article (despite the significance of MB's silence, however interpreted), or as "advanced material," etc. I was simply struck that now, all of the sudden, all the minutiae of context is being insisted upon (which I have always favored, just to distinguish between the simple factual witnesses and the various interpretations on the symbolic/metaphysical level). But I'll let it go, I've said my piece. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said that mentioning implications about "breaking the silence" is "advanced material" for the uninitiated reader, Nemo said that this is because the article does not treat the issue in any meaningful way. I am currently helping him do so, and I am confident the end result will not be gibberish for the uninitiated, like while reading that Meher Baba held silence for all his life one suddenly hits a paragraph where he reads reports about a "mmmmm sound" and a "yad rakh". Hoverfish Talk 17:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of no easy way to distribute attachments via Wikipedia internally, so at least for now I've just put the relevant pages up at scribd.com. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hdtnkrwll. In the on-line version of LM, the original page is 6710. Hoverfish Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Silence Draft

• References aren't shown on Talk pages. I did a test to see references here. Some cleanup is included in the draft below following that test.

From July 10, 1925 until his death in 1969, Meher Baba was silent. He communicated first by using an alphabet board, and later by unique hand gestures which were interpreted and spoken out by one of his mandali, usually by his disciple Eruch Jessawala. Meher Baba said that his silence was not undertaken as a spiritual exercise but solely in connection with his universal work.

Man’s inability to live God’s words makes the Avatar’s teaching a mockery. Instead of practicing the compassion he taught, man has waged wars in his name. Instead of living the humility, purity, and truth of his words, man has given way to hatred, greed, and violence. Because man has been deaf to the principles and precepts laid down by God in the past, in this present Avataric form, I observe silence.

Meher Baba often spoke of the moment "that he would 'break' his silence by speaking the 'Word' in every heart, thereby giving a spiritual push forward to all living things."

When I break My Silence, the impact of My Love will be universal and all life in creation will know, feel and receive of it. It will help every individual to break himself free from his own bondage in his own way. I am the Divine Beloved who loves you more than you can ever love yourself. The breaking of My Silence will help you to help yourself in knowing your real Self.

Meher Baba said that the breaking of his silence would be a defining event in the spiritual evolution of the world.

When I speak that Word, I shall lay the foundation for that which is to take place during the next seven hundred years.

On many occasions Meher Baba promised to break his silence with an audible word before he died, often stating a specific time and place when this would occur. His failure to fulfill these promises disappointed some of his followers, while others regarded these broken promises as a test of their faith. Since he remained silent until his death, some followers speculate that "the Word" will yet be spoken, or that he broke his silence in a spiritual rather than a physical way.

More than thirty years later, one close disciple recalled that Meher Baba had spoken to him a few hours before he died, although this recollection contradicted his own earlier accounts.

Each July 10, Baba's followers celebrate Silence Day to honour him.

---

Thank you for this draft expansion of the section. Per the discussion above, though, what is the source being used for the "after he had a vision in 2004" qualifier? (According to Bhau, by the way, this prompt to share the fact that these were spoken words was in 2001.) For better or worse, D. had deleted the email quote and citation on 10/29, and there is no mention of a "vision" in the 2005 ed. of LM. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. I'll look to JohnCarter's advice here, since he's relatively disinterested. Either the "After he had a vision" bit needs to be deleted, or it needs to be referenced with Bhau's website, an unreliable source. Perhaps acceptable in connection with LM 2005 edition. I don't know. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since earlier comments just above imply that D. is now less concerned with the "minor websources" vs. "published sources" distinction, and is now apparently primarily concerned with a "true and complete represenation of the facts," I guess I shouldn't be that surprised to start seeing arguments in favor of including Bhau's website here, now that there's a clear reference to speech within LM, even after the site reference was just deleted on 10/29 (as the result of opposite arguments and concerns being made by D. earlier). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I learn, "AWAKENINGS OF BHAU FROM BELOVED AVATAR MEHER BABA" is going to be published as a book soon. In Bhau's chat today Shiva said that it is in the proof-reading stage. We can refer to it when it's in print. Hoverfish Talk 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would question the use of the phrase "was silent", as in the eyes of many that is ambiguous about whether involuntary sounds were made. Maybe changing the phrasing or adding clarification that he did not speak words would be useful. Regarding the website source, I'd suggest filing a request at WP:RSN on that, because I don't think my own opinion is necessarily sufficient in this instance. However, of course, once it is published, a citation from the publication would be more than acceptable. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman: I don't find it stated that he promised to break his silence "with an audible word", unless this is derived from another source than LM. Also "His failure to fulfill these promises" may not be "failure" at all in view of the quote "It is the work of Sadgurus, it is the profession of Sadgurus, and it is the wish of Sadgurus to keep those of past connection near them by giving them false promises to make them hold to them." (Lord Meher 3: 1068) Hoverfish Talk 17:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hoverfish here -- to my knowledge, MB's quotes in this regard at the very least vary quite a bit, and are thus ambiguous as to "an audible word" vs. "the Word" in a more symbolic/figurative/metaphysical sense. I also agree that attributing "failure" only makes sense if one is necessarily committed to the former sense, of "an audible word" (even though I do personally believe Eruch's and Bhau's accounts of hearing purposeful words, I think it's an open question, ultimately unknowable, whether those particular audible words should be equated with "the Word" or not -- BTW, this is also why D.'s earlier assumption that MB would have "broken his promise" by speaking to both Eruch & Bhau separately seems unfounded, to me). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

• I don't think it's particularly misleading in anyway to say Baba was silent (i.e., no spoken words). In my experience to say in common speech "so and so was silent" in no way suggests that so and so managed a complete absence of sounds like coughing farting burping snoring etc. There aren't that many anecdotes about MB, just enough to clarify that he did have the occasional body noises. I'm not sure I've ever seen the distinction described in a reliable source. On further reflection there are many mentions in Lord Meher of Baba snoring loudly. I really don't think that this is necessary, but I'm ready to be advised.
• I'm for leaving "after a vision" bit out until it appears in a book.
• I know there are references in interviews to Baba breaking his silence with an audible word. I'll look them up.

Followup I've added the citation "Khauchuri (1989), p. 4586 -- 'When I utter that word, it will be an audible word to you'" --Nemonoman (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How bad is it if we leave it there with the "citation needed" tag? Hoverfish Talk 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the length & depth of the previous discussion here, and that D. was the one who deleted the very citation in question on 10/29 (after both N. and H. had agreed to let it stand until the new sub-article was started), to me personally that would really be stretching it (not to mention that it was 2001, not 2004, when Bhau was prompted to go public with the speech witness). Before this clear-cut quote in the 2005 ed. of LM, there was absolutely no leniency being given within the discussion as to sourcing issues; now that the quote content happens to be different, suddenly new rules will be applied? With all due respect, this sort of thing is what (at times) makes me really question the correspondence between editors' stated arguments vs. actions/intentions. At least N., for example, has the honesty to admit that the rule should be applied consistently. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While we are still working on reaching a consensus, I asked a question concerning the application of a rule. I have stated openly my intentions and I am surely arguing for them openly and of course I will check for any possible rules or exceptions that apply. Is this very different from the way you proceed? Hoverfish Talk 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: Perhaps I should have just written: by what criteria and policy, specifically, are you suggesting that un-sourced factual claims should be allowed to stand without a source, yet simultaneously acknowledge that it's not a good idea to source a fact to the "awakenings" website? Why, specifically, are these separate cases, when it comes to sourcing issues? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, by this logic, I hope no one will object if I were to reinsert the Eruch quote the Glow article transcribes, under the presumption that someday we will have access to the audio recording directly? I'll just leave a "citation needed" after the quote, OK? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that my suggestion was not based on any specific policy. Even so, I still do not think it should be acceptable to cite material from emails. What is clear is that four persons in this page agree that if mention that the memory was "prompted by a vision" is left out, then it is not a true and complete representation of the facts, though we may end up having to live with it for a while. I also still believe all this should have gone in another article, because I foresee someone suggesting we mention the man silence vs the God silence issue (or like User:Penguinluv simply adding it in the article), and so on. As for reinserting the Eruch bit, I think you should be aware by now, it would be against consensus. Should I also start recurring to sarcasm to make my points? I don't think so. Hoverfish Talk 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: My phrasing may have been sarcastic, but the point I was trying to make is not. Seriously: throughout this entire discussion, since when has a "true and complete representation of the facts" been the issue? Is everyone forgetting all the now-archived comments that were made earlier, constantly deferring to sourcing issues as the very reason these silence-issues supposedly shouldn't even be reported on? Now that we're finally in agreement that they should be reported on, I would at least expect that the sourcing issues would still be taken seriously, right? My intent is not one of sarcasm here; if anything, it's starting to border on incredulity at some of these recent comments, if only due to the history of this discussion, and the intensity with which these very points were made by others in the past. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, I seem to recall D. writing earlier, quite pointedly: "If the sources are wrong you still have to go with the sources. It's not the place to get it right, but get it rightly sourced. Getting it right is original research, and belongs on a different venu and is very important. I'm only saying this isn't the place to set the record straight. Wikipedia insists that articles follow the record." But now, since LM specifies that speech was made, the editing goal has switched to attain a "true and complete representation of the facts," apart from the current sources? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct thing to do here is to leave out the vision bit, unless and until a reliable source can be found. I have corrected the draft accordingly. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More responses: It's true that the tradition is that Meher Baba varied about whether his silence-breaking word would be audible. But since he DID in fact say at times that it would be audible, the article should reasonably say so. Somebody find a quote where he says that it would not be an audible word, and we should include that.

Also: I acknowledge that MB like other masters might indeed have a purpose in making a promise and then breaking it. But the promise is broken, whether the reason is good or bad. To say that Baba did not fulfill his promises to break his silence is true and reasonably NPOV. Going into elaborate details requires a lot more sourcing, or OR. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

N: Again, thank you for your honesty on the "vision vs. memory" matter. (It's not my intention to keep repeating things, or to sound like a sarcastic jerk in doing so, but I honestly can't believe, after this entire, lengthy discussion, that leaving in a "citation needed" tag was considered a possible option; if others had attempted that sort of thing earlier, we wouldn't have been given the time of day.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is just wrong to insert a new edit with a tag. The fact tag is a challenge to provide, and a predecessor rationale to removing an edit. WP principle is: verifiability not truth. I will make my edits as true as possible to the facts as I understand them, providing they can be verified. I will not be inserting edits with fact tags. nor inserting edits without what I believe to be reliable sources. (And by the way, I'm not sure that "Awakenings" when or if it is published, would qualify as an RS). --Nemonoman (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

One other suggestion: instead of "...some followers speculate that 'the Word' will yet be spoken...", I'd opt for language more like "...some followers speculate that 'the Word' will yet be released...", since MB, at least as a human embodiment, is clearly no longer around to "speak" anything, in the common sense of the word? This also helps differentiate between the literal vs. abstract meaning various people end up giving to the meaning of the "silence breaking" (regardless of whether or not they think it's already occurred). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Based on the religion section of the NPOV guidelines (WP:RNPOV) which reads

editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.

I have tried to edit out specialized BL-speech and to use common words with common meanings where possible. To me, the common gerund associated with a word is spoken, not released, and just as I have removed phrases like "dropped his body" in favor of "died", so I'm sticking with the "word" being spoken.--Nemonoman (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I was just imagining a new reader thinking it would be a logical impossibility to begin with (anything being "spoken" by a deceased person, etc.), and thus seem completely absurd to begin with? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's hardly a religious tradition that doesn't have an enigma or two. Sooner or later even casual students run into the enigmae. It's the "Huh??" that makes religious beliefs interesting, and what makes them "beliefs" instead of "facts". I suppose that if a reader has managed to swallow Baba's claim of being God in Human Form even provisionally, that same reader can probably also manage a willing suspension of disbelief about the Word being spoken after his death. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Findings on Silence Draft

I have addressed the comments and concerns on the Silence draft to the best of my ability, and I find that the draft is now in reasonably good shape, although I firmly expect that there will be additional edits to improve it. But I think it's in good enough shape to move to article in its current revised form. So I'm moving it in. Have at it, editors!--Nemonoman (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If this won't start another row can we add the words "many of" (or equivalent) in "Each July 10, many of Baba's followers celebrate Silence Day to honour him"? Also in the New Life quote the spelling is "honor". Generally, should we follow English or American spelling? Hoverfish Talk 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding "many of" there makes sense to me also... Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! is that good Nemonoman! Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. According to the MOS, an article sticks with spelling of the original edits, which in this case were American spellings. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read the section several times, giving me time to consider in between, and I think that after all we have discussed, this is the best "middle ground" approach I can think of. The section reads good, is more informative about an important issue of Meher Baba's life and doesn't involve any metaphysics or jargon that would make the reader feel as an outsider. Thank you, Nemonoman. Hoverfish Talk 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)