Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Alphabet board

I've changed the phrase "communicating with an alphabetic board" to "communicating by means of an alphabet board". This is better English because a person communicates with another person and not with an inanimate object. I made some changes to this page quite some time ago now and I haven't revisited it for a while. I'll have a look at the grammar more closely over the next few days and probably make some further changes. I'm a bit of a pedant as regards grammar but I only want the article to read as well as possible and this is the reason for my editing. I'm a confirmed Baba Lover so don't get nervous, all changes will only be for the better I assure you.BBesar 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)BBesar.

Good change. It sounds pretty silly to think of him talking to his board. (-: Cott12 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FA?

I think this entry could deserve FA status. What is your opinion about it? Kkrystian 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is really hard to reach FA and from what I understand the process can actually result in an article losing GA. It was really hard just to get GA. Cott12 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, I'd be for trying for the intermediate of A status, which is a bit easier. Cott12 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I second the class A step. It's a smoother way up and involves a reviewer who may show us some possible improvements in the right direction. Hoverfish Talk 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but I have read the archives, and I was wondering, what is going on with the article now? Has the article been submitted for FA review yet? How come nothing has happened since September?

Also, someone said a while ago (I think it was Fullstop) that Meher Baba's childhood home had been demolished in Puna. I've been to Meher Baba's home as recently as 2005 and it's very much intact; there is a well inside a courtyard with Baba's Room still intact behind it (its separate from the main house) This house is actually the house Baba lived in after 1918, but his original home is across the street, which is called pumpkin house. Here is a strange, yet accurate website that describes the locale: http://www.mindspring.com/~userview/Welcome%20Home/pune.html --Djfiles (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the article is ready for FA. Also to submit it for a new review, some "significant changes" should have been made (see here ), which is not the case. Improvements that started being discussed at one point, didn't find any agreement. Also the person who suggested the FA has been inactive for quite a while. For anyone who wishes to ask for a further peer review, I suggest class A as the next step, before an attempt for FA. Hoverfish Talk 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put links to Christian ministries on this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for links and not a place for evengelism. The article is about the person Meher Baba. Please limit to links that add some information about the subject. Sharnak (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If by any chance Mehar baba has been a subject of criticism, why the appropriate link should not be added in the article ? is it that Mehar baba article does not endorse criticism ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the Legacy Section

This is what appears.

In spite of the fact that Meher Baba died without ever publically breaking his silence as he suggested he would.

Now the following will be hard to reference but is so important in the Baba World, it needs to be there. Im putting this out here so we can all nut this out sensibly, before anything is added. This is the issue.

Eruch heard Baba making Mmmmm sounds, breaking his silence, went to look and saw Baba making sounds. Eruch kept Mum about it except to a few close ones. A few years back now a relative made Eruch divulge it more publicly before he took it to the grave. OK. It does not matter to Baba's work that Eruch kept quiet about what he heard and then saw upon investigation. The silence was broken. This is Eruchs thing to keep quiet. Why he did not reveal it is that he believed he was protecting Baba because Baba could not form a word. Which I found very baffling on first hearing this story. But that aside, Eruch led a sort of sheltered life and may not have known that if one does not use the vocal chords for some years they atrophy and one cant say words. Sounds are possible though:Of course Baba having never uttered a word for decades was always going to make a sound not a word out of those vocal cords. And thats what came out. The Word as an Hmmmmm sound. Lots of them. So me and many others believe that Baba did break his silence. Some think Eruch did us all a great disservice and was shortsighted and made a decision that was lacking insight. There is precedence for this. If you look at Mohammeds life the Mandali then fought and argued within hours and days of his death leading amoung things to the great Islamic Schism, Shia vs Sunni. These people do make errors. They are very human. I have seen Eruch make bloopers in Mandali hall. What sort of error this was, I dont know. But its a huge thing in Babas documented life, this breaking of his silence. This happened and the search for references should begin. It should be in there but the tricky part will be writing it. I propose it be put in as an alternative view. Something like just describing what Eruch revealed, what he heard then saw, Baba making sounds with his mouth, the setting, time and date etc etc. I will look around for the more. I think its late 1968. Thoughts. --Liamjones4477 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I contacted about seven key Baba page editors of the last year about the above. No comments! OK. The work as it stands is POV. No definitive reference is provided that states 100% that Baba did not break his silence before he dropped the body. On that basis I am going to delete the POV statement now. --Liamjones4477 (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Legacy or biography details

Rachel Brown The lines about Rachel Brown's book have been deleted with the comment that they are not enclyclopedic data about the person Meher Baba (or words to that effect). That is why they are included under the section about Legacy. Her book is certainly as much a part of his legacy as is the music of Pete Townshend.--Rosabibi (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Obedience

Baba's instructions to followers and his insistence on obedience are very much a part of his legacy, since those instructions are adhered to, to the letter, by many of the followers concerned. Devoted followers of Baba have said that when he "dropped his body", among their feelings were disappointment that now he would never recind those instructions. I was about to reference to line about geographic confinement (with regard to Mansari), but it has now been removed. I am not about to engage in edit wars, but I would ask you to restore those lines, because the entry as it stands does not give a complete overview. Sorry I forgot to sign.--Rosabibi (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedia article

Quoting from Meher Baba's followers does not represent independent sources. This article needs quotes from national magazines, books, important newspapers, etc. And preferably from points of view from religions at variance with the views of Meher Baba. Wikipedia is not a place for self-advertising, and this hugely long article is mostly that.

The unsubstantiated, peacock terms number in the dozens. This is contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines.

The very long quote in section Silence is a violation of copyright. You may not quote so extensively, editor, just because you view yourself and the quote as in support of the subject. This is a serious charge. Either the editors must fix this (preferably by limiting the quote to a couple sentences), or I will mark this article in violation of copyright, which will cause it to be entirely deleted.

24.130.14.170 (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and I hope you will continue to raise issues here for active, named editors to review and incorporate. I acknowledge that your concerns are reasonable, and well stated. I am not sure that they are entirely valid. For example, your claim of copyright violation is rather doubtful. You could look it up.

If you have knowledge of relevant sources NOT being used, please bring these to our attention. I personally would love to see addtional sources from non-followers. Problem being that so often scholars who encounter the subject Meher Baba become followers, and thereby reduce their 'objective' credibility.

This article has been reviewed thoroughly as both GA and FA. Many of your concerns were directly addressed and fixed to reviewer's satisfaction. Your specific criticisms were not brought up by any of these reviewers.

It is not a perfect article, but it is not a 'magazine' article by any means.

Accordingly I have removed your "magazine" tag, which appears to be a stretch. You might have entered your concerns here first before including that banner, with its rather snarky tone.

If you are going to make a big fat statement of inadequate or biased editing (i.e, the 'magazine' tag) I suggest that you first discuss your concerns here, and ONLY if you are unable to reach resolution, then add your tag. Also, for a statement like that, it would be courtesy to edit with a username rather than an IP address only. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a litany of cliches that spritual fringe groups apply to themselves to appear attractive. Unsurprisingly, the cliches mostly lack foundation in independent, third-party sources. The fact that there has been a Wiki review of some sort is fine. However, it's unlikely that the reviewers have any deep knowledge of fringe spiritual groups in Ojai, or the methods they employ to appear legitimate.

Ok, I now understand that your concern is not with the 'encyclopedic' or 'magazinic' quality of the article, but rather that is an attempt of a 'fringe spiritual group' to 'appear legitimate'...something you apparently understand, and others, apparently, don't.

So rather than being cagy -- or devious -- about your concern, why not come right in edit out the 'cliches' and 'methods' employed to 'appear legitimate'.

Perhaps you meant to use a 'biased' tag. Or a 'disputed' tag. These tags would at least avoid an appearance of hypocriscy. The one you chose, and your comments, both the originals and the answers to mine, show an archness and a lack of openess.

PS, Baba went through Ojai once or twice; nothing much related to the man is located there other than a few followers, and I mean a very few.--Nemonoman (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment about copyright violation, however, is less a matter of opinion. There are two very long passages from copyrighted material. Even if the person who owned this material is responsible for putting it on the Wiki page, it still violates the law regarding copyright. (Unless those sources are in the public domain.) This is not a matter, as with so much of rest of this self-serving article, of trangressing "Wiki guidelines", it's a violation of international law.

If you are the owner of this work, then put it in the public domain, and quote freely. If you are not, then you are violating the owner's property rights.

24.130.14.170 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards copyright, your interpretation is at great variance from most interpretations of copyvio, and in particular to the use of quotes in Wikipedia (or in any scholarly work, for that matter).--Nemonoman (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong. Here is Wiki's policy, for example on quoting GFDL material:

"The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright

"The edit summary box can hold one line of 200 characters" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_summary

The quotations in question are 1501 characters and 772 characters.

Understand that this is a violation of international law, quite apart from Wikipedia standards.

24.130.18.0 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This applies to GFDL licensed material. Shamak (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that attempt to include relevant information from a non "devotional' angle were deleted immediately and no response given to my comment (see above). Rachel Brown's book gives valuable insights into Meher Baba's legacy - that is, unless one is determined to claim that this legacy is unquestionably entirely positive. It is not very plausible to say that anyone who studies Meher Baba from non-devotional viewpoint ends up becoming a believer when contributions from non-devotees are deleted entirely without appropriate discussion.--Rosabibi (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't immediately figure out what was deleted to get your ire up, but if you will be more specific I will look into it. There is a least one new editor (Jossi) who seems determined to improve the NPOV status of this article, so I'd jump in now if I were you. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I don't think you understand Wikipedia copyright poliicy. Quotes are acceptable when short in proportion to the original work. This article has two quotes. Gertrude Stein has eleven. Maybe you should get that one deleted. Shamak (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand copyright law very well. There are three options:

* Trim the long passages to a couple sentences each.

* I will remove the quotes entirely.

* I will mark the entire article as a copyright violation.

24.130.18.0 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear 24.130.18.0 , The long passage already is exactly two sentences. Perhaps you haven't read it carefully.

"This New Life is endless, and even after my physical death it will be kept alive by those who live the life of complete renunciation of falsehood, lies, hatred, anger, greed and lust; and who, to accomplish all this, do no lustful actions, do no harm to anyone, do no backbiting, do not seek material possessions or power, who accept no homage, neither covet honor nor shun disgrace, and fear no one and nothing; by those who rely wholly and solely on God, and who love God purely for the sake of loving; who believe in the lovers of God and in the reality of Manifestation, and yet do not expect any spiritual or material reward; who do not let go the hand of Truth, and who, without being upset by calamities, bravely and wholeheartedly face all hardships with one hundred percent cheerfulness, and give no importance to caste, creed and religious ceremonies. This New Life will live by itself eternally, even if there is no one to live it."

Also it is very strange to hear the "options" read off by an unregistered user. Shamak (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "unregistered". I prefer facts to personalities. What is under discussion is international copyright law, and Wiki policy.

Presuming you are not the only editor responsible, I will wait a reasonable period before changing the article.

I must ask, do you honestly imagine you are an exponent of a man who, as quoted, is opposed to "falsehood, lies, hated, anger"??????

24.130.18.0 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"Decolonization is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact owe their originality to the sort of substantification which results from and is nourished by the situation in the colonies. Their first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together — that is to say the exploitation of the native by the settler — was carried on by dint of a great array of bayonets and cannons… The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and blood-stained knives which emanate from it. For if the last shall be first, this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between the two protagonists. That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace (too quickly, some say) the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence.."

Here's one from the Wikipedia article on Gertrude Stein:

"She said she did not have any plans for the summer. No one was interested in this thing in whether she had any plans for the summer. That is not the complete history of this thing, some were interested in this thing in her not having any plans for the summer..... Some who were not interested in her not having made plans for the summer were interested in her not having made plans for the following winter. She had not made plans for the summer and she had not made plans for the following winter.... There was then coming to be the end of the summer and she was then not answering anything when any one asked her what were her plans for the winter."

Shamak (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'"* I will mark the entire article as a copyright violation."'

May I recommend this course of action? You appear to both unaware of the facts and unable to accept our viewpoint that you're wrong. Mark it and see what others say...Clearly the present editors are simply attempting to 'appear legitimate', perhaps others who don't wish to appear legitimate will agree with you. Personally I am comfortable that the article is within guidelines.

As to your other proposed changes, I would probably revert them.

I sincerely thank you for discussing your changes first. This is right action and right attitude.--Nemonoman (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Nemonoman. You're quite right, this is a discussion, and that's what we're here for.

We can agree that people have strong opinions about Meher Baba. To do justice for the good things someone says, it's important to uphold them in a way that is socially acceptable. If I had one central criticism, it is that the tone of this article is not impartial. This is not due to the opinions Meher Baba, but to writers who do not present a balanced view of his accomplishments. As it stands, it very much does read like a magazine article with a partial point of view.

I identified the copyright violations, because they illustrate in a quantifiable way how the article oversteps itself in its enthusiasm. I'm chosing this to alert the writers in a specific way that the tone of the article is not entirely a credit to Meher Baba's teachings. Phrases such as "personally approved", "close circle and followers" and "literally thousands" are marketing language. Those selections can be debated at any length. However, copyright violations can be more easily quantified, and so in some sense are more useful.

The argument that Shamak presents about quotation length is specious. The fact that another article violates copyright law does not mean that this article can do so. Editors are not required to change similar problems in every Wiki article simultaneously. Shamak, I agree that some of the quotes in the Gertrude Stein article are a little too long. However, note that the longest Gertrude Stein quotation is 50% of the size of the long quote in this article. I.e., this article grossly exceeds allowable quotation length.

Instead of being combative in support of a man who's beliefs concerned truth, love and honesty, it would be more constructive to present him in an understated way, rather than one that seeked to push the bounds of propriety.

24.130.15.94 (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoring quotes

Tommytocker removed the 2 quotes. I'm restoring. Let's discuss before pulling, please.

Is the question copyvio? If so, there's no reason to remove the quotes (Pace, 24.130.15.94).

Is the question whether the quotes add value? If so, let's the hell get rid of quote number 1! Meher Baba could be oblique, to say the least, as quote 1 shows.

The New Life quote seems significant to the article in many ways, and trying to paraphrase or parse it would only be harmful to understanding.

Quote 2 (New Life) is good juju, and only 2 sentences -- hard to see copyvio there, and very hard to subsititute to get equal value. As to its length, it's well within bounds based on my understanding of fair use. I have been a technical editor for some years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the concept. I have until 2 days ago ever heard of a 100 word limit in anybody's rulebook. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way:

I'm not at all sure that the New Life quote of Meher Baba's is copyrighted. I certainly have never heard so. Books authored by Baba have been copyrighted, as have books about him. Not that quote, however, which so far as I can find has not been registered as copyrighted.

Referencing a copyrighted book that contains the quote does not matter. A scholar quoting Hamlet in a copyrighted paper does not thereby suddenly acquire ownership and royalty rights.

Until someone can prove that has registered copyrights to quotes, ANY copyvio point is moot. He may claim to be 'eternal' but I think you'll agree, 24.130.15.94, that Meher Baba is not at this point capable of releasing anything into the public domain in a formal way, is he? So that demand seems spurious.

24.130.15.94, what makes you think those quotes are under copyright? --Nemonoman (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I still think quote 1 can be dropped.

Can we agree then to at least remove quote 1, regardless of copyright issue which can be discussed separately. I think it is really long, confusing, and I am not sure what it adds to the article. Would make more sense perhaps in its original full-length context. I'm for removing it and discussing the rest separately. I personally agree the copyright issue is a non-issue. Quoting is part of proper technical and informational writing. But whatever people want is fine. Tommytocker (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not revert an edit removing quote 1.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An argument from a Sock Puppet

Some "one" has left the following on my talk page:

Copyright terms as left by Meher Baba in his last will and testament

Meher Baba specifically left copyright of "sayings" and "messages" in Trust except where otherwise specified http://www.ambppct.org/trust/docs/Will%20and%20Testament.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherbabalastwilltestament (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That information is of interest, but not entirely germaine to the case of a charge of copy violation. There is no clear evidence that a copyright to the New Life quote is perfected by this document. Will someone produce the specific title or registration of this quote. It PURPORTS to be one of Meher Baba's, and I believe it is. But what I believe, as 24.130.15.94 rightly points out, is a matter of BIAS, not OBJECTIVE proof. So I'll stand by assertion while I wait for someone to produce clear evidence that the quote in question is registered and protected by some legally binding copyright that prevents it from being used here.

Which is worse, an IP address, or a one time made up identity? Whose agenda is at work here? Since 24.130.15.94 seems to think that the article is full of "unsubstantiated, peacock terms" and other puffery (my word to summarize), it seems odd that what is being recommended is not the editing out of THAT, but rather editing out the basic substance of the piece. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use

All the above is tangential however. Wikipedia Fair Use Guidlines state:

Text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

I think it's pretty clear that 2 sentences are a brief quotation in practically anyone's book -- except maybe 24.130.15.94's.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Melanie Safka

I've removed the section about Melanie Safka because, as it was written, it's really problematic. While it's true Melanie was a follower of Meher Baba for a short time and did wear a Baba pin at one time, there never was a Baba pin that had the expression "Don't Worry, Be Happy" written on it. The pin she had simply was a photo of Meher Baba. Also, currently there is no clear way to verify the mention of her in the October 1969 issue of Hit Parader Magazine, which was a paraphrase and not a quote. If you can find the actual date and actual quote it would help. Sorry. Tommytocker (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes

The excerpt below on Wikipedia policy is from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. Tommytocker (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Block quotations

A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes). Block quotes can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags, or {{quotation}} or {{quote}} can be used. Note: The current version of Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not render multiple paragraphs inside a <blockquote> simply by spacing the paragraphs apart with blank lines. A workaround is to enclose each of the block-quoted paragraphs in its own <p>...</p> element.

Lead

The lead seems a bit too long. Perhaps re-looking at the guidance provided at WP:LEAD may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Unless there are specific objections, I will merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) into this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I specifically object -- please see the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) talk page for details.--Nemonoman (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing my opinion. I now provisionally object. In its present form, I agree 100% that Perfect Master (Meher Baba) should be merged into this article, or simply deleted. I invite -- no I beg -- some of the smarter editors to have a go at Perfect Master (Meher Baba), to better distinguish MB's concept of the perfect masters -- particularly the Five Perfect Masters (which might, by the way be a better title and better article) and to use more NPOV sources. For the Five Perfect Masters, there are non BL articles -- not many, but some. Help me out guys: I'm a Lover, not a Writer. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you like. It was merely in response to the December 2006 peer review Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Meher Baba that Hoverfish and I wrote the article. We were trying to address the reviewer's concern, "What exactly is a 'Perfect Master'? The link takes me to an article with a variety of explanations." After some discussion on how to resolve it we made that article. Incidentally it's not hard to find third party sources for that article. Charles Haynes has his Ph.D. from Harvard University. And C.B. Purdom was a well respected British literary critic.

On the subject of other articles using this English term, I think one would be hard pressed to find it used in its modern context (to denote a sadguru) earlier than Meher Baba did in 1926 (Infinite Intelligence Notebooks) and first published in the U.S. 1938 (Meher Baba Journal, New York). It's likely other uses of this term are derived from his unless someone can find an earlier source than 1926. Shamak (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My only concern is not to overload this main article. Anything that would help the article move towards FA is ok with me. If we make it too complicated it might even lose GA. So I hope for the best. Hoverfish Talk 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The term Perfect master is used in a variety of contexts, such as Vedanta, Sufism, Advait Mat, Sant Mat, etc. The material in that article can be easily summarized, and incorporated here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< All sourced material has been merged here. Also added references to material that was not referenced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dating C. B. Purdom's Book

The actual first printing date of The God-Man by C. B. Purdom is 1964. A couple places on line misquote it as 1962. It was printed in 1964 and 1971. Tommytocker (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just fix the Perfect Master page

There is a silly suggestion here to merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) with this page. That makes no sense as there is a Perfect Master page to link to. Is it the idea simply to accept that this page cannot link to the Perfect Master page because the Perfect Master page MUST NOT be exhaustive enough to be worth linking to? What is going on? This is the craziest thing I ever saw. Either build up the Perfect Master page so it is worth linking to or keep the Baba one and make it clear that it exists at the other page. I don't understand the concept of merging a word to this page about a man that used it. What???? DeanaG (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Incarnation and Rainbow flag for examples of more complete articles that are multi-culturally inclusive and link to sub-articles. This isn't rocket science. :') I've never seen a page so puny and timid as Perfect Master. What is the concern here of having more content there. Anyway that is for a discussion there and not here. ;-: DeanaG (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're not understanding at all the problem. The word "perfect master" comes up twice in the article quite early on. So there is a need at that point for the reader to 'know' what this means so he can understand then what he is reading. That is how Wikipedia works. Words that are of interest link to other articles. As you are doing it, you miss the whole issue and think that this is some part of his life. Baba had dozens of words. There is a Meher Baba Glossary of terms. http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/glossary.html So this was not the issue that the review raised ( and linked to above) -- that the reviewer did NOT want a section on this, but a link. Now there is a page you have helped on called "perfect master" and so it could make sense to link to this so the reader will understand. But also, if you check there is also a common practice here to have a term with uses in different cultures not only have some expansion on each cultural use but also to link to sub-pages. See Rainbow flag and Incarnation as some examples of this process. You will see there is a page for Rainbow flag and then a sub-page for Rainbow flag (LGBT movement). You are not seeming yet to get what the issue is. We don't need the Baba article to explain all the words in the Baba glossary that are over 100, just a way to respond to the suggestion that this use be clarified when it arises early in the article. Do you see now? You are working way too hard. DeanaG (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an important term used by Baba, so I do not understand why it should be relegated to a separate article. Also, note that the article that was merged here, did not have any third party sources. Deleting the tags at that article, as you did, does not help either. If the term is so important to warrant a separate article, you will need to come up with multiple notable third-party sources that discuss the term. We have an article Perfect Master already, so those readers looking for information on the term can serch and find it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not only reverted the merger, but you have also reverted sources I have added, as well as request for sources. I think that you need to pay attention to what you are reverting, and provide a rationale for these deletions in talk. An edit summary will not do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So do you want to just link to the Perfect Master page and merge Baba's with that? I was following your lead with the 'main article' templates you put on the Perfect Master article assuming you had decided to go with the style of Rainbow flag. Putting tags all over this article is also not helpful. Let us assume good faith as you requested of me and resolve this. No. Perfect master is not a main concept of Baba. He has a whole index of terms. This was just to please a reviewer apparently since Perfect Master as it was seemed to cofuse the reviewer. That is the issue to resolve. Marking up this article because you are angry does not help your position. Let us work to resolve this. What do you say? DeanaG (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Angry? Why would I be angry? Your argument only strengthens the need for merging. You say: Perfect master is not a main concept of Baba, if that is the case, why would we need a separate article for that concept? Please revert your edit, which not only undid the merge, but also deleted sources I added and other needed tags. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not doing research, just adding tags. I know you think this is how to help. But let's stick to the original issue. Okay, so do you like the idea of merging the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) page with Perfect Master? At least that still gives a place to link to for the word, which seems to be what is at issue. So that is okay. Do you want to remove the main article templates from Perfect Master or should I? Then we can link the references to that term to that page and expand that page as time goes on. That works just as well and was my first suggestion. In fact I had already added the links that way and then saw you had added the templates from Perfect Master pointing to the other page so I reverted that thinking we were in sinc. DeanaG (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags are useful devices to alert editors that material is unreferenced. See WP:V. You have also removed a reference that I added, so please do not tell me that I am not doing research... As for your question, you are not answering mine: Why would the material in that article not fit here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Tags are there for a purpose. Covering a stable page with citation needed tags while having a conflict over another issue gives a different appearance than being helpful though. I could go about putting them on every sentence in Wikipedia that didn't have a citation, but I doubt administrators would long find me being 'helpful.' More help is actually seeking these out or doing improvements. Tags in mass give an appearance of emotion over the article as a whole, one that few have shared about this article besides you and then only recently after this other quarel. So your motives at least do not appear pure, but you seem to have a vendeta as I said earlier. It is kind of hard to miss when you are going about tagging everything in association with this person you can find. DeanaG (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I find the subject quite fascinating, and I am quite well read on Sufism. I am trying to improve this article, and you only have to speak of imaginary vendettas? Why? It seems that you are unable to accept input from other editors, if that is your approach. The article as it stands is quite poor, missing perspectives of religious scholars that have written on the subject, which I intend to add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I cannot find the GA review for this article, and given the lack of sources for many of the content it seems to me lacking for GA status. Can anyone provide the GA review link? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

see this--Nemonoman (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a GA nomination. I have requested clarification on this. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Dubious_GA_nomination ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated this for GA review; see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Meher Baba/1. giggy _(:O) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting the issue planely

Jossi, here I'll try to say plainly what you appear to want to do.

1. There is an article called Perfect Master and another called Perfect Master (Meher Baba) and you don't want the Meher Baba article to link to either one even though this was the suggestion of an impartial peer review and the result of consensus for it to link outside. You don't want to discuss this, just edit war.
2. You've tagged other Meher Baba articles as being lacking notability or NPOV.
3. You want to sprinkle 'citation needed' tags all over the page, without doing any hard leg work, giving the appearance of simply wanting to stain the appearance of the article in the guise of being helpful.
4. You ask for assumption of good faith, but when it is shown you return to edit waring, putting a warning on my page.
5. Now within hours of my getting involved you want to do a GA investagation to have the GA status revoked for the article.

What does this look like when you add it all up? It looks like you are obsessed with this page and are thinking of thinks to upset it. A cursory search in the history shows a really stable article for years until you arrived. Just wanted to say how this looks. DeanaG (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My responses:

1. I have never suggested not to link to these articles
2. I have tagged some articles with {{primarysources}}, because the articles where not referenced to third-party sources as indicated by our content policies
3. I added tags to alert editors to find sources as per WP:V
4. I am not edit warring. I merged the article as per arguments presented, to which you only responded with ad hominem instead of presenting counter arguments
5. This article seems to never have been gone through a [WP:GAN|GA nomination]]
6. An article could be stable, that does not mean that it is compliant with Wikipedia content policies. Also note that Wikipedia:Consensus can change.
7. You should be aware of the perils of WP:OWN, and assuming good faith is not just a nice thing to have. Also note that beauty (and its opposite) is in the eye of the beholder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to show you a list of some of Meher Baba's terms I swiped from a deleted article list. "Perfect master" is one of many, but one that comes up early in the article. So the reviwer as you see said to find a way to explain that term since it came up. But this can as easily be resolved by your newly improved Perfect Master article. I'm sorry for any ad hominem think I said. Can we resolve this? Do you prefer to merge the Perfect Master pages and then link to Perfect Master? That sounds fine if you want to do that. We can work together on that. Below is that list for interest's sake. I bolded "perfect master" at the bottom. DeanaG (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminology in God Speaks
Vedantic	Mystic	Sufi
Paratpar Parabrahma	God's Beyond-Beyond State	Ghaib-ul-Ghaib / Wara-ul-Wara
Paramatma	God in Beyond State	Allah
Anant	Infinite	La Mahdood
Nirguna	Attributeless	La Sifat
Nirakar	Formless	La Surat
Sat-Chit-Anand	Power, Knowledge, Bliss	Qudratm, Narefat, Mussarat
Vidnyan Bhumika	Realm of Mastery	Alam-e-Hahut / Arsh-e-Ala
Atmapratisthapana Sahaj Samadhi	Established in the Life of God	Baqa-Billah
Vidnyan	Highest Divine Consciousness	Ahadiyat / Akan-e-Lahut
Saguna	Qualitied	Ba Sifat
Sakar	Manifest in Form	Ba Surat
Brahma	Emanator	Afridgar
Vishnu	Sustainer	Parvardigar
Mahesh	Dissolver	Fanakar
Mano Bhuvan	Mental Sphere	Alam-e-Jabrut
Pran Bhuvan	Subtle Sphere	Alam-e-Malakut
Anna Bhuvan	Gross Sphere	Alam-e-Nasut
Utkranti	Evolution	Irteqa
Punar Jamma	Reincarnation	Rij'at, or Awagawan
Bhumika	Plane	Asman
Atma	Soul	Jan, or Ruh
Jiv-Atma	Embodied Soul	Jan-e-Jismi
Manava	Human	Insan
Yogi (Sadhak)	Aspirant	Rahrav
Sadu	Advanced Soul	Mutawassit
Mahatma	Great Soul	Akhyar
Mahapurush (Sant)	Saint	Abrar, Wali
Satpurush	Advanced Pilgrim (Saint)	Afrad, Pir
Manonash (Nirvana)	Annihilation of Mind (self)	The final Fana
Nirvikalpa	Oneness with God	Fana-Fillah
Brahmi Bhoot	The Divinely Absorbed	Majzoob-e-Kamil
Turiya Avastha	Divine Junction	Fana-ma-al-Baqa at / Muqam-e-Furutat
Paramhansa	Divine Super-Man	Majzoob-Salik or / Salik-Majzoob
Jivanmukta	Liberated Incarnate	Azad-e-Mutlaq
Sadguru	Perfect Master	Qutub
Avatar	God-Man	Saheb-e-Zaman

OK. I will redirect that article to Perfect Master, as well as adding a summary to this article as per WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your editing behavior. You first ask to redirect the article to Perfect Master which I did. Then I added some useful material here, and added a tag to alert editors that the article needs referencing as per WP:V. You keep reverting each one of my edits. This is not what collaboration means. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put that back. It now directs as we discussed. I only saw the template and the change from "said" to "claims" which is actually a move away from NPOV but is a common mistake. "Said" is a fact. "Claimed" shows bias. So I'm sorry if I also changed the link. It is now fixed as you had it. DeanaG (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are simply not accepting other editors' input into this article, choosing to revert any attempt from my side to make the article better. The article as it stands now needs further referencing, lacks third-party sources, and has little or no information from scholars that have written on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I have requested a peer review and a reviewer has already responded. See here. He says he will be able to get to it tomorrow. I suggest holding off on any major changes until after the review has been done. I think this step is overdue and will give the article's progress more focus. I see that Hoverfish suggested this step twice in the past. DeanaG (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:Peer reviews are different from GA nominations, and neither precludes editors from contributing to articles in the interim. Also note that this article does not seem to have gone through a process of GA nomination as yet, despite the tag in this talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I personally am going to resist the temptation to make further changes until after the review. So any after this post are by you Jossi, and the reviewer can take that into consideration. I am nearing my point of lost interest. I was hoping to have some objective observations, and I will hang in here until after the review so that I can tie any loose ends that are required in that process I started. After that it will be all yours to do with as you please. Keep faith. All will work out. DeanaG (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you resist the temptation to revert all my edits. Play nice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources

Here is a partial list of sources that can be used to expand this article with viewpoints from third-party authors and scholars

Books

• Lewis, James, Perspectives on the New Age
• Melton. Gordon J. Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices
• Miller, Timothy America's Alternative Religions Book by Timothy Miller
• Eliade, Mercea(ed.). (1987). The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. 9. New York: McMillian.
• Drury, Nevill. Dictionary of Mysticism and the Esoteric Traditions.
• New Religious Movements in the United States and Canada: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography, Book by Diane Choquette; Greenwood Press, 1985
• New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Book by Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
• Children of the New Age: A History of Alternative Spirituality, Book by Steven J. Sutcliffe; Routledge, 2002
• The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, Book by Malcolm Hamilton; Routledge, 2001
• Transplanting Religious Traditions: Asian Indians in America, Book by John Y. Fenton; Praeger Publishers, 1988
• Mystics, Masters, Saints, and Sages: Stories of Enlightenment Book by Robert Ulman
• Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal., Book by Kevin Sheperd
• The New Religions, book by Jacob Needleman
• Dattātreya: The Immortal Guru, Yogin, and Avatāra. book bt Antonie Rigopoulos

Articles

• Religious Organizational Change: an Analysis Based on the Tm Movement, Journal article by Eric Woodrum; Review of Religious Research, Vol. 24, 1982

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi for this list. The specific mentions of Meher Baba in the new age reviews (Like Choquette, Arweck, etc.) are pefunctory, and do not go into great biographical detail. It's nice that they validate aspects of this article, but they are based on the same source materials referenced in the article. No scholar so far as I know has gone to the source and validated any of the biographical details.

Eliade and Riopoulos are nice Comparative Religion texts, and might provide some background for certain term definitions. Meher Baba was however Free and Easy in his use of many theological terms, using them with considerable idiosyncracies, and casually mixing Hindi, Farsi, Sanskrit and Arabic terms, sometimes in the same discourse. The editors of this article, for better or worse, use Baba's cut on these terms -- like sanskara -- an article that has taken steps away from traditional Hindu view and been edited to include Meher Baba's special usage almost exclusively. The same specialized usage applies to current heartburn we've shared over the Perfect Master article. Baba's use of the term is so specific and specialized, it is practically a different word.

I have been unable to put hands on Sheperd, but to call MB "Iranian" puts me off right from the start. Born in India of one native Indian and one transplanted India, lived in India his whole life except for a few brief tours, and died in India. If that counts as Iranian, what the hell does one have to do to be Indian? (please excuse this rant -- many editors have tried to change Baba to Persian, Iranian, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemonoman (talk • contribs)

I am not ENTIRELY certain that I have read all the Meher Baba content of all the listed books, but it is LIKELY that I have read most of them at least. Practically any book mentioning Baba is purchased and shelved at the Meher Center Library (in Myrtle Beach SC) which I frequently visit. I am one of those iconoclast bookworms that enjoys this sort of thing.

You have not mentioned, by the way A Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton (originally published in 1935 -- the 1945 version, which I own, is a reprint). Brunton devotes most of 2 chapters to his visit with MB, and his disappointment that MB was not up to Brunton's standards. Brunton includes un-referenced biographical and theological details that are so completely at odds with other sources that one assumes he was just a poor scholar, not a reliable NPOV investigator. However, when someone wants to find 'unbiased' info about MB, they often cite Brunton. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that there is just very little bio info, but what we can find would be a good addition. I am not familiar with the status of the writings of Baba, but if there are any free texts, these would be better served at Wikisource. For example, this is the work I did a couple of years ago for Sri Aurobindo: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Sri_Aurobindo ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Difference is that Aurobindo is famous, still has a larger following than MB to this day, and has a catalog of works of General Interest above and beyond his theological/spiritual texts -- he was a hell of a poet and a Nobel nominee.

You will find many Baba Lovers who compare the relative absence of NPOV Baba literature to the paucity of NPOV writings associated with Jesus -- and further, some use that paucity as a Proof that MB was who he said he was.--Nemonoman (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an immense body of work on Jesus, see Historicity of Jesus as one example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, immense body based on 4 gospels, some apocrypha, and Josephus. Everything else is an extrapolation and deduction.--Nemonoman (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure ... but 2000 years is much more than 78 years... See below, it seems that NYT, the LA Times and other newspapers have archive material available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The main concern is the need to make the tone of the article more encyclopedic, as well as look for and represent material written by third parties. Otherwise the article can never achieve NPOV, let alone GA status. Do you know of any authors that discuss Baba, that are not close to the subject (besides Brunton, that is). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, I know of NO repeat NO reputable scholarly sources who could not be characterized as devotees. Maybe Shepherd, but I have never seen that volume. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, we may have a problem... DO not think that such a long article can be based on sources that are close to the subject. We could ask the assistance of editors from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion in this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is GA listing valid?

I have no prior knowledge of this article or even its subject, but come here because of the question raised about the article's GA listing. I, too, think the GA listing is "dubious". Sharnak nominated the article for GAR on Jan 2, 2007 and Da54 picked up the Review and passed the article on Jan 17, 2007. Apparently, no detailed Review was provided, simply the Talk page post: "I see no reason not to pass this article for GA status. It meets all requirements. Passed. Da54 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)." Not necessarily a problem except for the experience and edit history of the Reviewer, Da54, and the state of the article at the time of the GAR.

The Da54 identity was created on Jan 17, 2007, and existed for six days. Certainly, this doesn't preclude the possibility that the user behind the identity is an experienced WP editor, but a look at Da54's Talk page shows that the user's experience and knowledge were called into question immediately. During this week-long life Da54 completed eight GARs, passing all articles. In fact, GARs is the only activity Da54 did, not making a single article edit under that username. Again, it's possible Da54 may be a legitimate avatar of another user or could be a sockpuppet (it might be interesting to see if there's a common contributor to those eight articles). No matter. Three discussions were immediately initiated on Da54's Talk page in which no fewer than five editors raised serious questions and complaints about Da54's GARs. Da54's single response was to laugh off the concerns. In fact, these are the only posts on the page.

This certainly raises a question about the quality of those GARs. In fact, it appears some were apparently delisted. I looked quickly at the quality of a few of the other six articles (at the time of the GARs) and they appear to have obvious issues that would impede – if not prevent — listing (sourcing seems to be the most significant issue). This article was not specifically addressed by any of the five editors who criticized Da54's review, so it has remained GA. Given the questions and activity surrounding Da54, it is certainly appropriate to question this article's status. I also looked at this article's state at the time of the review and it, too, appears to suffer from similar, serious problems with sourcing; if I had performed the review I would not have listed this article. It's clear this article did not undergo a valid GAR.

Consequently, this article should be delisted and if an editor truly believes it currently meets GA criteria, then it should be renominated for a valid review. A quick look at the article as it stands now show sizable passages with no apparent sourcing; that alone shows more work needs to be done to bring the quality up to GA level.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have delisted for now, and I am sure that with the help of interested editors, this article can be improved and eventually submitted for WP:GAN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that to my knowledge, no editor every applied for GA status for this article. Santa just put GA status under the Wiki-tree one morning.

oops -- I was wrong -- Sharnak apparently requested a GA review--Nemonoman (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I recommend to all editors to leave the GA process alone. It's not helpful. Mostly it gives a lot of kiddies a chance to show off and flame. It does not improve quality; in fact I believe the GA process is the enemy of quality. I'm all for improving this article, but I HIGHLY RECOMMEND to AVOID THE GA PROCESS BY ANY AND ALL MEANS. I have been so beat up by the GAR process that I vowed never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever get involved with it again. The half-assed comments by many self-styled experts caused me such perturbance that I finally completely quit Wikipedia, and I am only making this reappearance --much against my better judgement -- because of I am (feeble) follower of MB -- the sort of lover tha MB used to call his "broken-down furniture". As soon as we get a few items settled down, I'll be out of here again. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been able to bring some articles to GA status, and have had a different experience. See Textual Criticism, and Laozi, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Since my experience is so considerably less positive, I will not be participating, and I will recommend to my fellow editors that that they avoid this. I have no problem at all doing what I can to improve the quality of this article as far as I can, and I very much appreciate that you have coupled your critique with clear and positive efforts to improve it. This is a GREAT ATTITUDE and is at heart what make WP a worthy effort. The bashing and stupidity associated with the Taj Mahal GAR was enough to push at least 2 fairly accomplished editors out of WP entirely. I won't undertake another wade through the mindless comments of the Boobacracy. GA status simply recognizes or doesn't the quality of the article. I'd rather work to improve the quality than to get the ranking. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually leave GA nominations when I am certain that it will pass. At this point there is a lot of work to be done to get there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's changes

Just wanted to go on record stating appreciation for the improvements Jossi is attempting. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

There are newspaper archives that carry stories on MB that could be a useful addition as sources to this article [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• * "God Man Still Silent - TIME". Retrieved 2008-06-23.
• There are about 240 press articles from the 1930's to early 1960's in the [Newspaper Archive

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Messiah quote

I'm concerned that the newly added "Messiah" quote is somewhat misleading. Meher Baba didn't call himself this in the 30s, and contemporary accounts, and the cables and letters of devotees of the period don't call him that either. He accepted the term "Perfect Master"...but this newspaper article resembles others of the period that said he claimed the term Messiah and worse (or better). Baba pushed back against being called these sorts of names until he finally claimed the title Avatar in the 50s. I don't doubt that the article is being quoted accurately -- just that it might contain dubious journalism. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what the newspaper accounts in the US of that time refer to, and I have checked several. It is not surprising, thought that Western media will have a certain bias in this regard. Reporting what the Western media said about MB is significant, even for the reason that they misquote, and mis-represent what disciples said. BTW, the Associated Press wire used in that article, is from the Bombay desk. Other reports of that tinm refer to MB as "Miracle Man", "God Man" and other such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the Messiah claim is not attributed to Baba, but to his "Indian disciples". If you have sources that describe MB's push back from being called these sort of names, we could add a sentence as a counterpoint, for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You add dubious nonsense from the sensationist press, and then offer to offset that nonsense with a countervailing quote? If you are simply going to post such '3rd party' nonsense without consideration or review simply because it appeared in a newspaper -- and to call well researched information into question because the researchers are 'close to the subject' -- then we are at an impasse.

This failure to discriminate sources, and then to post information of questionable origin in a misguided effort at objectivity, is neither scholarship NOR journalism, nor objectivity, nor neutrality. I have gone through the rigors of the study of journalism and then the gauntlet of working in a newspaper, and learned this the Old Hard Way: In GOOD journalism what is needed is not just the qoute, but the validation that the source represents a reasonable point of view -- and after getting the reasonable quote, then other ethics come into play: is it fair -- does it advance the understanding of the reader? etc.

This failure to grasp the nature of scholarly neutrality is the very essence of why the GA process currently so often is counterproductive, and why I find it, frankly, offensive. Knowledge is not developed by majority votes.

If your idea is to populate Meher Baba, currently a well researched and reasonably neutral article, with a bunch of hokum from newspapers from the 30s, then know that I will return to my WP retirement...again for the same reason.

"Miracle Man"? How does that advance the cause of neutrality -- because you saw the words in an old newspaper? So what if one (or even a dozen) newspapers printed the "messiah" quote -- how about the hundreds and thousands that didn't? Doesn't that tell you something? Maybe THAT should be the NPOV qualifier -- "While some half-assed rags like the Jefferson City Post Tribune printed a lot of rubbish about Meher Baba, other newspapers with greater integrity didn't."

Jossi, I reviewed several other edits you did in other articles, and based on them I believed in you and your judgement. In this case I am very disappointed. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you are so. Please note that it is not my intention to pepper this article with poor journalism material, but I would argue that we ought to present the perceptions in USA in the 1930's about the subject. From what I have read, there is quite a big deal of yellow journalism, which I will certainly not propose to be used (some of it is quite demeaning). OTOH, some material from newspaper reports is needed to provide a view of the cultural context to which MB walked into when arriving to the US. I think that it is valuable information for our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will continue to assume good faith. I may feel the need to tweak some of these changes where the reference suggests not a cultural context but a specific falsehood.

The 'cultural context' argument is slender thread: In the current US political climate, is it 'context' to say "People are concerned about the many reports that Barack Obama is a Muslim." -- or does the sentence by its very existence substantiate a falsehood?

I have for example no problem if you want to include some of the nasty opinions raised by Brunton. He didn't think much of MB. (Of course, virtually any spiritual figure with pretensions to greatness will have a self-styled debunker ready to offer a contrary opinion.)

If you read Brunton's whole book, it's clear that he's a pompous ass -- but it was a popular volume, and his opinions are informed by actual contact with MB, hence more valid (IMO) than the copy-desked version of the ramblings of some AP stringer in far-off Bombay.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in Brunton's opinion, but to provide some context to MB's visits to the US and how he was received by the media. Don't you think that it is useful information? It was for me. As for the Obama analogy, that is a bit extreme as we have literally thousands of third-party sources on Obama that clearly debunk any such myths. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And sure, feel free to tweak these additions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are my heartburn areas with the Messiah quote: 1. The Messiah. During this period "Messiah" was not likely to be used. God Man, yes, Perfect Master, yes, Messiah, no. 2. Blackboard. Baba stopped writing many years before this. Used an alphabet board, not a blackboard. 3. Miracles. Baba consistently said he would not perform miracles, and denied the validity of miracles ascribed to him by his devotees. 4. Sin. This term just isn't in Baba's lexicon ANYWHERE. Saving America from Sin? Not bloody likely.

I can dig up numerous references for the contra-indicated elements above (but of course not from "reliable" sources like newspapers).

These elements of that one little paragraph creates misleading impressions -- 2 or 3 fairly nasty -- that can only be refuted by a bunch of cumbersome references.

Can't the content you've reported be edited to leave out the essentially dubious parts? What is gained by including them?--Nemonoman (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tightening the text based on the journalism references. Looks good. The only concern have is the removal of this material]. This is the only referenced I found about MB's death in the US press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AP Death notice

I have restored that text, this time attributing it to the AP and labeling it as a conflicting report. Would this work? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nuts. There are 3 people at least still living who were standing in his bedroom when he died. They'll be happy to sign affadavits. Newspaper reports are notorious for inaccuracies, and corrected reports, if they get made, are often ignored by publishers. I've seen this 1 paragraph report in print. I know it exists. But WTF??? It's NOT TRUE. It's not a viewpoint; it's not a cultural context; it's just an uncorrected error. I'm taking it out, and without good reason to leave it in, will continue to take it out until one of us tires. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I never tire.

:)

No need to edit-war, my brother... I will not restore it without a good reason. Now, can we find a reason for a report that he died in a cave 100 miles from Mumbai? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A reason other than AP's usual standards for foreign news, you mean?

Here is a recent account of the circumstances of Baba's death. Here is Baba's sister remembering the day. (Quoted by Ivy Duce of the 1956 meeting, by the way). From one of Baba's doctors, a few months after his death.

There are dozens of such accounts on the web and elsewhere.

I myself have talked directly about the circumstances of Baba's death with 5 persons who were there, who showed me the room and bed where his death occurred See a picture here. Their stories were remarkably similar and sometimes gasped out under emotional strain. I would be hard pressed to imagine they were conspiring to create a unified narrative.

On the other hand, we have a single 2-sentence, 2-graph story from the AP wire -- with no attribution, and at least one other doubtful statement (on a slate??).

Ahmednagar, where Baba died, IS about 100 road miles from Bombay.

I don't feel compelled to guess a reason for the AP's Nonsense. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Was MB's seclusion in a cave? If so, the AP story is not incorrect. This is the whole text: Bombay, India (AP), February 2, 1969 - An Indian born Iranian "prophet" who observed silence for the last 44 years of his life, was found dead in a cave 100 miles from Bombay. Meher Baba, who was 74, preached his message of universal brotherhood by writing on a slate. He retired to his cave 4 years ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He did work in caves for short times from time to time, but I don't think at any time after the 30s. And he gave up the slate in the 20s. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)