User talk:Classicfilmbuff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Garbo

I just generally keep an eye on all the old Hollywood legends...it's the main reason I'm here on WP, since films (especially, these days, classic films) are my main passion. I want to see all their pages be as good as possible. :) I don't dislike Garbo, I just haven't been very excited by her in the handful of her films I've seen. She was an interesting creature though, that's for sure.

I think the legacy section is far better off with that stuff removed. I commend you for doing that. As for what could be added....well, there are already lots of quotes that prove her importance (although I would suggest blending these into prose, rather than formatting them as a list) This comment: "In her silent films, Garbo introduced an unprecedented eroticism to the screen" > is interesting, and should be developed. That proves that she actually changed the film industry in some way. Also, whenever a celebrity (or even person) starts being being a hermit and hiding themselves from the public, it's offen referred to as "pulling a Garbo", or something along those lines...isn't it? She is very much identified with this behaviour. So I think that should be included.

I suggested looking at obituaries. Here, I found the New York Times one: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0918.html I don't have time to look through it now (gotta get to work, meh) but see if that has some helpful stuff. Be careful to avoid WP:Peacockary and keep a WP:Neutral point of view, however.

Have any institutions been named in her honor? Anything like that?

I'm not sure where you would've seen one of my comments on your watchlist, I'm afraid. I haven't updated the Garbo page since my comment about not being able to help (are you sure it's not referring to the same comment?) --Lobo512 (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

HI lobo, What's WP: Peacock? And...Would you have any idea how to cite something in a special features commentary in a DVD?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiya. Yeah, the way the talk pages here work isn't great - you do either need to keep everything on one person's page, meaning the other one doesn't get a notification, or go back and forth.

Did you look at the link for Peacock above? It basically means "tone down the praise"; don't use any loaded words (even if you can source it, it's not favoured). You need to show that Garbo is a legend, not explicitly say it. As for citing a DVD commentary - I thought about doing this once myself! Maybe I still should actually, I remember there was a really useful quote... Anyway, I noticed it done on the American Beauty page, here's how they've formatted it (you'll have to view this in "edit" mode to see the full formatting): Mendes, Sam; Ball, Alan (2000). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) American Beauty, The Awards Edition: Audio commentary [DVD; Disc 1/2]. (Los Angeles: DreamWorks).

I'm glad you're finding good stuff and feeling inspired to improve the page, good luck! --Lobo512 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work! I'll try and take a proper look tomorrow. All the best --Lobo512 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I said that about the Kate Hepburn page but couldn't stop working on it! It's addictive, isn't it? At first I just wanted to improve it, then I wanted to get it to GA status, now somehow I've ended up striving for FA (the top recognition you can get from WP). It's hard work and time consuming for sure, but there is something gratifying about it (and it allows us to indulge in our obsessions, right?!) Personally I would encourage you to improve the Stanwyck page if you feel so inclined, all the classic stars are - on the whole - really poorly represented on WP. Even the utterly legendary, purely genuis Charlie Chaplin has a very under-developed page (for what it should be. This is one of the articles I was mentioning that I want to overhaul, BTW). Any improvements would be fantastic. If you would like some "recognition" for your work on Garbo, by the way, have you considered trying to make it a Wikipedia:Good article? I'm familiar with the expectations there, having read many of the reviews (and been through one and conducted one myself), and I don't think GG is far off. It would need a bit of work, but you could put it through a WP:Peer Review first to get guidance on what is needed. This may sound like too much effort, but it is a nice step to take when you've put in all the hard work and you feel like there's not much left to do. I'd urge you to consider it. :)

As for images, you can only use ones that are already on the WP system. So you either need to look through the Commons (Garbo's images are here) or upload them yourself. For this, they need to be screenshots from trailers of publicity stills (because from her era, they are in the public domain), and make sure you copy the explanations from similar images (eg for a film still, like this one or from a trailer, like this one). WP's general guide to images is here: WP:IMAGES.

I hope that you won't stop your efforts on WP, we need more people actively improving classic hollywood pages! And remember that what you do here is seen by and benefits thousands of other people. So it's a pretty worthwhile hobby. And you can always do it in your own time - there's never a deadline or any pressure. But it's up to you of course. Take care --Lobo512 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I personally would add back the info about Garbo Talks. I think her being the subject of an entire film (by an important director, as well) is notable. She's the subject of a biopic as well: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081514/. To me, characterisations like this are interesting and worth mentioning. Perhaps I'm being hypocritical? I do feel like you can decide what is trivial and what isn't on a case by case basis though, there isn't a blanket rule for these things. It just comes down to a judgment call (and I'll leave it to you(. I would say, though, that it's always better to present it in a paragraph than in a list. Lists instantly make things look more trivial, I think. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww thank you! The personal life section was arguably the hardest bit to write. It took many revisions to get it succinct, and to feel like I'd fully captured her personality. It would be nice to have bit on GG's general life and personality, but if there's not much stuff to say then that's understandable. I dunno, do we know anything about her religous and political beliefs? The article already communicates that she was a very private, shy, probably slightly odd person. So it does capture her pretty well.

That film I linked to is definitely an acted biopic. It's a 100 minute long tv movie. True that it's not a very notable one (barely anyone has voted on it at imdb).

You're a uni professor? Wow! You've sparked my interest now, what is your subject? I work in education too, but as a primary school TA...only a few notches down from prof, haha. ;) --Lobo512 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All that stuff you've said about Garbo is really interesting, whenever you next have time to work on the article it would be great to see a bit more of that added to it (although like I said, it does already give the gist of it). The fascinating thing about Katharine Hepburn is that she was definitely far more shy and insecure than most people realise. She couldn't even eat in restaurants because she hated it so much (when she did, she often ended up fainting). And just look at her relationship with Spencer Tracy. People think she was so strong but she completely submitted to him. She changed anything she could and did anything he wanted so that he wouldn't leave her—even though he was often quite cruel to her (humiliating her in front of people), cheated on her, was occasionally violent with her (it seems) and never said he loved her. Not to mention the fact that he stayed married to his wife, and she just never even questioned him about it, not wanting to anger or upset him. But of course that must have been difficult for her. The last chapter of her autobiography, when she talks about him, is so sad and expresses some real regret. It's just like the characters she often played: you think she's this steely, rather arrogant woman and then towards the end you realise that actually she was as human as any of us, with a real weakness. She hated weakness though, and despised people feeling sorry for themselves, so she constantly covered it up and just kept on going, trying to get the most out of life that she could....Yeah she's fascinating.

Oh dear you shouldn't have given me a window to talk about all that, haha. I can talk about her forever! :D As for that Garbo-Gilbert film, it doesn't look like it's been released on DVD so I don't know how you'd ever find it I'm afraid. Maybe get in touch with the studio who made it? --Lobo512 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant to ask you as well - I am interested in watching a Garbo silent, as I haven't seen any yet. Which would you recommend, if you had to pick one? --Lobo512 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh really, you thought I was probably a guy? I can't imagine many males get caught up in the details of Katharine Hepburn's private life. No, I'm a girl. I've been assuming you're female, but I suppose that could be wrong. I like State of the Union. It's not amazing, but it's one of the better Tracy-Hepburn films. I really like seeing Kate act soft and vulnerable, personally. And yeah, Garbo was her favourite actress. I knew that. I'll try and get round to Flesh and the Devil (along with hundreds of other films I intend to watch, heh). --Lobo512 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having two refs numbered the same is fine; it just means they have been merged together to stop unnecessary duplicates. If you look at ref 91, it has a little "a" and "b", which link to the two seperate times that page has been cited. As for the page ratings, I try not to take them seriously. Such a small percentage of page viewers actually vote, that there's no way it can be representative. And sometimes I see excellent ratings for really poor pages, and poor ratings for really good pages, which tells me they are useless. People could easily just give low ratings for someone they hate and high ratings for someone they love, regardless of the article's actual quality. The reason the number of voters has gone down will be because some of the ratings have expired (they only last for so long, or for a certain amount of times the page is edited).

Three day weekend? No such luck for me, I'm not American (British). We barely get any national holidays here! Have you seen The Artist (film) by the way? I just got back from seeing it, it's wonderful! A must see for classic film fans. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, The Artist is a brand new silent film set in the silent era, with the main character a Douglas Fairbanks type whose career fails with the advent of talkies. It's absolutely fantastic, I can't recommend it enough. And crazily, for a silent film, it is getting heavy Oscar buzz. In the days of Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean, that's pretty amazing.

I've done a lot of boring images work today, I'm afraid, so don't really want to do anything else related to that right now. Tomorrow should be fine. I reckon you can get started by yourself though. Here is the easiest upload form to use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic. Have a try uploading some stuff (has to be a screenshot from a trailer or a publicity still, remember), copy & pasting the info from the pics I linked above (but changing specific information of course) and I'll check over them tomorrow.

I'm English, but for some reason I don't feel very comfortable saying that. I far prefer "British". --Lobo512 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha okay. I don't mind uploading a couple for you tomorrow. Most of these we can claim as public domain, so how about you select some you think would be good? Leave me the links on my talk page and I'll try and get round to it. You can try more specific searches as well, eg "Garbo Camille publicity still", if you know you want an image from that film. Ones that have a little stock code in the corner are ideal, as you can tell they aren't copyrighted. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No the candids won't be public domain (or at the least, it would be very difficult to prove it) and WP only allows public domain images. That's why I wanted you to make them all be film stills just to make sure, are the other 6 film stills? Just copy and paste the links on my talk page. I'm exhausted right now (mondays are always the worst) so don't fancy doing it tonight I'm afraid, but I'll get to it soon...6 is rather a lot as well, so I'll probably do it over a few days. I'm still in the process of perfecting the images for the KH page, which has included re-uploading them all, because they're really strict on this when reviewing for FA status. Too much images work is a bit much! I know how important they are to a page though so I'm happy to help you out. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah just copy and paste the link from the address bar. If it's huge, that may be because you're viewing it via google? In that case, click on the link that says "full size image" on the right. If that's confusing, I'm sure the long link will still work anyway...that may be better in fact, since it allows me to see which web page it comes from. Yeah, if you're viewing it via google, send me the whole massive link. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My internet was down for a few hours when I got home, and then I spent a while getting some of my own stuff done. So I haven't had much time for the Garbo pics. The first one is already on the commons (here), the second one > I need to check, is that from Flesh & the Devil yeah? Can you check that all the images make clear which film it's from please. The third one I've done, here. Do you maybe want to select a couple as priorities? I can sense myself getting through this quite slowly, so that might be a good idea. To put the images on the page, just copy the format from other images there and change the file name and caption. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry that was a rather vague statement! I just thought you must've seen the coding for images while editing the Garbo page (a code is put straight there, among the text). See how under "Silent film", for instance, the first line says this:

[[Image:Garbo-Torrent-26.jpg|thumb|Garbo with [[Ricardo Cortez]] in ''Torrent'' (1926)]]

That is what makes the image appear. So to put in any other images, you just need to copy this exact format, but put in the correct file name and change the caption (the last bit of writing, between | and ]]. Wherever you put the code on the page, that's where the image will appear. So basically put it just above the paragraph that talks about that particular film. You can align it on the left by adding "left|" after "thumb|". Try it out, and just preview the page before saving it to check you've done it right. It's really not difficult, I promise. :)

I've not uploaded any more yet I'm afraid, will hopefully get round to a couple tomorrow. I'm very focussed on my on wikitasks right now though, so when I do have time for WP I'm working on them. I hope you understand. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh well done! Sorry for note getting round to it myself, I promise you I was going to but I've been a bit ill and moody the last few days. :) You didn't fill in the information properly, so I've just completed all that now to make sure they aren't deleted. I've uploaded a different Camille image because the other one looked like a screenshot (I think this one is better anyway). And you definitely can't use that newspaper one I'm afraid - it will be copyrighted by the newspaper. The last one, under legacy, I couldn't find a link for it on the web. Are you able to find it again? Because we need a source link or else it will be deleted. Otherwise, everything looks great! --Lobo512 (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you not like the image of Camille that I added? I think it's good, it really captures the romance of the film. I'm afraid that you won't really be able to add many more pics to the page...I mean you could, but it will end up so crowded. I think it has enough right now, and is good and representative of the different stages of her life. The only place you could put a new one would be in "Relationships". Sometimes you can't have an image end up exact where you want it to, due to other ones getting in the way (which proves that there are probably too many pictures). I know it's tempting to add all the pics you love, but you do end up needing to be selective (at least until there's more text). I've made a few changes, see what you think. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just made a fairly big change to the page, by moving the stuff about her reclusivess from the "Queen of MGM" section, to a new section I've made under "Personal life". I think it fits better here, what do you think? I've also removed the Mata Hari pic, because I think it's more important to have a picture from Camille (one of her most famous films) and there isn't room for both. You can barely see her in the Mata Hari pic anyway, so I don't think it's too big a loss. We can revert either of these changes if you don't like them.

I've put the Hepburn page up as a Featured Article candidate, which is exciting and we'll see how that goes. I want to continue improving the Spencer Tracy page (I've inevitably ended up fascinated with him, too, via Hepburn. And damn he was a good actor), and then after that is Chaplin, like I said...but that's going to be a fairly monstrous task! There's so much that's been written about him. Another page I'd really like to work on is Carole Lombard's...I just love her. And her life was short so she'll be nice and easy...okay it's wrong to say that. I'm a bad person. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't have to be under "Personal life". That was just a casual decision I made. It could be in it's own section called "Reclusiveness", or how about "On-screen persona"? Or it would even fit under "Legacy", just about. I just don't think it belongs in the MGM part. It interupts the flow of her career chronology. I know the quotes come from her MGM films, but it's still very specifically talking about this reclusive persona she had.

I personally like the Camille pic, I find it to be an accurate representation of the film and her performance. It captures it really well (and I think that's what these career pics should ideally do). Anyway I'll leave all this up to you, there's my opinion but I'm not particularly invested in the page, you can just move stuff around again and get it how you like it. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No don't worry it's fine. You're the one who's put so much effort into the page, I think it's fair that you decide how to present the material. And like I said, I'm not heavily invested in the article anyway. I won't get in your way. ;) --Lobo512 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey here we are together! I appreciate your final thoughts but must add the following since I just wrote it:

Ok my friends. I’ve figured it all out. I’ve been speaking extemporaneously, blabbing on, when I should have worked out my argument in advance, and then stated it succinctly, which I will now do. There are two problems with Lobo’s plan, I think.

1. Everything I’ve written about her reclusiveness at the end of the "MGM Queen" section is related to her development as a movie star. No publicity, autographs, public appearances etc. All the references to "I want to be alone" were in her pictures. These were studio decisions. However, they contributed to the construction of the Garbo persona and myth which indeed bled into her personal life.

2. You can’t have a section called Personal Life in which the only subject is "reclusiveness" as it was developed in her professional life. And for all the reasons I’ve discussed, I decided not to include a separate section on her personal life.

So there’s my argument in a nutshell. I hope you're Happy! Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well now I feel like I need to say again, I'm not at all maintaining that it should stay in a section called "Personal life". You've convinced me that isn't quite right. I rather like the idea of a heading called "On-screen persona" with that info in it. But yeah, really I'm not that bothered, if you just want to keep it how it is that's up to you. Take care --Lobo512 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh Cfb, I already made that suggestion twice! On here and on Fat&Happy's talk page. lol. Okay cool, well I'm glad you like it. Never mind what Lobo refers to, it's just a silly thing. And yeah I'd say I'm pretty addicted to WP. I've only been properly editing on it since the summer, but it's got me hooked. --Lobo512 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know, there are tons of pictures on this site that I came across: Garbo Forever. But yes, make sure you keep it to publicity stills. Interesting to see the ones of her as an old woman (although disturbingly stalkerish). --Lobo (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lobo, many thanks for your thoughts!

I personally find film stills far more interesting than glamour shots. I know Garbo was largely about the glamour, but if it was up to me I'd still communicate this via stills of her acting (and you have glamour shots in the lead pic and legacy).

Well, the reason for more glamour shots is that they convey her unique beauty, an important tool of her effectivness with audiences. Plus, the glamour shots of Garbo (mostly by Clarence Bull) are probably the most brilliant of any star since her face and hands are so animated in them--eyes mostly--and they show the eextraordinary scope of her expressiveness. It is this, in fact, that consitutes her magnetism and mystique. And I want to show this--just not too many.

I also feel like there should be a picture from Camille, since I'd definitely say it's one of her top 3 best known films/performances (Ninotchka, Camille and Grand Hotel - don't you think?)

Would add Anna Karenina and perhaps scrap Grand Hotel since it was a multi-star picture. Queen Christina would also be on the list. For classic film buffs :) Mata Hari and Flesh and the Devil. Why I chose them.

Another thing I'd say is that the picture next to "Screen persona" right now really doesn't illustrate what is being said in the text...you need a pic of her looking a bit lonely and miserable, really.

Again I don't see it that way (are you feeling mistreated?!) The main element in Garbo's persona was her magnetic, enigmatic, mystique, as I say, (which Bull captures in the glamour photos like no other star). Her unhappiness was really not part of her persona. Melancholy, yes; mysery, no. (You need to see some of her pictures, girl!!!)

Maybe the Grand Hotel one should go there. Actually I think that's a really good idea, then the caption can mention "I want to be alone" as coming from that film. As for candid photos, they are far more likely to be copyrighted since they were probably published in a newspaper/magazine and that periodical would own the copyright. Unless they never renewed the copyright...but you'd have to find out exactly where it was first published, and then search copyright renewal records...sound fun?! That's why I said just stay away from them. ;)

Thank you for that bleak news!

This one is pretty great, that's such a "Garbo face"! Or this. However, I definitely agree that the stills are very important and that there are too many glamour shots.

These are EXCELLENT photos from Camille (where did you find them? so my fello photo montager Fat&Happy and I will get it up! Thank you SO much for your feedback. Check out the p. in a couple of days. Hope we can stay in touch somehow.

Yeah it's all looking fine to me. I don't have any serious objections, haha. I'm glad you're happy with it, that's the main thing! --Lobo (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Garbo Edit

Very well, I accept this. Now, wasn't that easy? Your explanation was polite, and informative. It *WAS NOT* aggressive, threatening, or rude, not once did you threaten me with being blocked or banned right off the bat. Effective, it does not incite anger, it is constructive. NO ONE should have to be "verbally" assaulted with angry accusations of "vandalism" when an editor feels an edit was improper. Being polite with constructive criticism is much more effective than Nasty-Grams. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Garbo Laughs!" With Melvyn Douglas in Ernst Lubitsch's comedy Ninotchka (1939)

With her last film, George Cukor's Two-Faced Woman (1941), MGM attempted to capitalize on Garbo's success as a comedienne by casting her in a romantic comedy which sought to portray her as an ordinary girl. She played a double role that featured her dancing the rumba, swimming, and skiing. The film was a critical, although not entirely a commercial, failure. Garbo referred to the film as "my grave". She retired in 1941 at the age of thirty-six after only twenty-seven films made in sixteen years. She was offered many roles in the coming years and showed interest in several, but in each case, she either turned down the part or the project did not come to fruition.

In 1948, Garbo signed a contract for $200,000 with producer Walter Wanger, who had produced Queen Christina in 1933, to shoot a picture based on Balzac's La Duchesse de Langeais. Max Ophüls was slated to adapt and direct. Garbo made several screen tests, learned the script, and arrived in Rome in the summer of 1949 to shoot the picture. However, the financing failed to materialize and the project was abandoned. The screen tests—the last time Garbo stepped in front of a movie camera—were thought to have been lost for forty years before resurfacing in someone's garage. Parts of the screen tests were included in the 2005 TCM documentary Garbo.

Removal of Kalchuri reference

Replying to your message on my Talk page: I posted an explanation on the article Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice you posted a message on Hoverfish's Talk page. The assumption seems to be that he is a higher authority who has the deciding say in the matter. This is not the case. Hoverfish and I have been involved in a lengthy dispute that is going around in circles. Kalchuri's book on Meher Baba (Meher Prabhu) is a book by a devotee and published by an organisation (Manifestation) affiliated with Meher Baba. I posted a link to the relevant discussion on the Mercedes de Acosta Talk page. In response to Hoverfish, I have also posted a link to the relevant policy/guideline, which says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject.

See the conversation on the BabaisLove Talk Page, which reveals that one of the editors of the Meher-Baba-related articles (BabaisLove) is in personal email contact with Bhau Kalchuri. Hoverfish even admits here that "material published from within an organization is considered 'Self-published' and there are some very strict limits when using it as a source ... Although this is not a policy but a 'guideline' it is based on very wide consensus in Wikipedia and is a very important consideration."

For a clarification of "third-party sources", see Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources:

An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.

Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.

Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.

Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.

Lord Meher and several other devotee-published works in the Meher Baba articles fail this test. As Fifelfoo said elsewhere, they "do not even approach [the] threshold" for partial reliability. What has happened over a number of years is that the Meher Baba followers have inserted references to his teachings in a number of articles, using Kalchuri as a source. But Kalchuri is not a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense of the term). References to a "consensus" on Kalchuri are not relevant, because he simply does not pass the threshold test, indeed does not even approach it. Simon Kidd (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you asked me and I came here and found the issue presented as something just between me and Simon Kidd, here are two more views from editors with more experience than myself on the issue: 1 and 2. Actually it is Mr. Kidd who is having an air of authority concerning his definition of "devotee". I still am puzzled as for how Mr. Kidd considers me a "devotee", especially since he seems completely devoted to the views and interests of Mr Kevin Shepherd. Hoverfish Talk 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there SK, Well, the truth is, your debate is just way over my head! I'll let you two work out your differences. Maybe the problem is that WP protocols are inconsistent? Because you both make persuasive cases to ignorant me. Anyway, I just rewrote the section, correcting mistakes and providing an accurate timeline, and all references in the previous version are therefore deleted! Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The re-written section looks fine to me (although you are missing a word: "For several [years?] she was captivated by his philosophy ..."). You have retained the reference to Meher Baba (who was obviously a significant factor in da Acosta's life), but you are now citing a reliable source (Southern Illinois University Press). Regarding Hoverfish's statement above, it is not the first time he has misinterpreted my words on Wikipedia. I did not say that the issue was solely between him and me, but rather that he and I "have been involved in a lengthy dispute". As it happens, this dispute has involved others, but that is not negated by what I said. The links that Hoverfish has provided are to comments made by other Meher Baba followers - they are not neutral. Here is what some non-involved editors (including an admin) have said about devotee-published books:

Fifelfoo - "devotional works do not even approach [the] threshold" of reliability.

Fladrif - "Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by 'in-house' imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS [i.e. self-published sources]".

Smartse - see his comments on individual publishers in the Extended content section.

Simon Kidd (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoverfish, I don't recall having referred to you as a "devotee" recently. I have used the more general term "follower" on this page. I'm not sure what the problem is. The Legacy section of the Meher Baba article says that "Baba's travels and teachings left a legacy of followers and devotees worldwide". Assuming this is accurate (although no source is given), it is not surprising to find some of the followers at work here on Wikipedia. For example, the in-fighting that is currently displayed on the Avatar's Abode Talk page is a good indicator. In the Avatars Abode article section, BabaisLove (a name that says it all) informs HumusTheCowboy (another editor who has been involved in the discussion of Kalchuri): "I have created a referenced article, at the request of several Baba lovers connected with Avatar's Abode. Bill is currently looking at this. It includes mention of Bill and Francis. He has been asked by other Baba lovers to write for Wikapedia on Avatar's Abode. In my understanding even the Trust [presumably Avatar's Abode Trust] is supporting this. I hope, given your familiarity with Wikapedia, you will be able to assist with these efforts." HTC makes some explicit comments in the Concerned section, as he attempts to rein in the behaviour of BiL that he evidently finds so embarrassing. HTC goes so far as to say that BiL's behaviour is "detracting from Baba and airing dirty laundry". Yes, indeed. But HTC is just as embarrassing to the cause of Meher Baba's followers on Wikipedia.

You have also said somewhere recently that I do not like Meher Baba. I do not know where you got this idea. I have great respect for Meher Baba, but I make a distinction between him and the legacy. It's like distinguishing Jesus from Christianity. Simon Kidd (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)