Talk:Francis Brabazon/Archive 1

Untitled
IP user 61.69.130.56, removing images, "further reading", "see also", "external links" and categories from an article is, technically and actually called vandalism. The rest of the contributions I have restored back in the article. If Brabazon's picture does not satisfy you, you can upload a better one and swap it. Hoverfish 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam or not Islam
I removed the category Australian Muslims by User: 121.91.16.36 because Francis Brabazon was not Muslim but is described in all sources as a Sufi. There are Non-Islamic Sufi organizations. It may be the editor's opinion that there ought not be, which would not be an uncommon opinion, however this does not make Francis Brabazon a Muslim. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I think HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of Brabazon
Since the Brabazon image is a non-free image, and the grave image is a free image, perhaps the grave site ought to replace the image. I think it would look nice. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Yes do it. The non free image was / is always going to give grief, its only a matter of time. But its a damn good photo. I like it. Can you find another? HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I know of no free images unless someone is willing to give permission officially for public use of their own photo. I will try the change, but if anyone does not like it I will not fight very hard over it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Its good. I will search for a portrait photo sometime HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

New Heading added
Avatars Abode as heading. Plus new referenced info about whose idea AA was and how it came about re Francis's involvement HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Lord Meher Refs
Many will go or be replaced. See Meher Baba talk --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanded publication list
Someone sent me this expanded publication list, and I thought it was good enough to put into the article. However, if anyone is concerned with the MOS for references, they can certainly change it. It was too much work for me, at least right now. As I understand it the Manual of Style for references is e.g. Still Dancing with Love: more stories of life with Meher Baba. By Margaret Craske. Myrtle Beach, SC: Sheriar Press, 1990. ISBN 9780913078648. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair use photo
I think this article warrants a fair use photo for the info box at top, the grave is excellent for lower down. There are some photos here to choose from. The first or second are good candidates I think. Open to feedback. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added photo. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good choice. SaintAviator (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Change article
I have had a request to make the article more favourable to FB. On following up this I was told by someone who was there with MB pre 69 that FB had a 'rough time' in India from Baba, in part perhaps due to FB's personality and what he said. I dont know. Im wondering if others want to add something, some story. I dont feel inclined to make this a glossy WP article so to speak esp as FB said to one and all upon returning to Australia 'all the Mandalai should get jobs as its all over now'. IMHO FB didnt understand their role. So anyone feel free to upgrade if ref'ed well. SaintAviator (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did this request come from, SaintAviator? According to your editing history, you've only a newbie and have made no contributions other than POV opinions on article talk pages. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Iryna thanks for following me from the UKraine article. Re 'POV opinions on article talk pages' I refute your opinion. On the Ukraine talk page I was clearly saying keep it non POV and neutral. Re read it please. And stay on topic here thank you without personal attacks. As for the one on topic question you asked. It was a request by some one I know which I refused for the reasons given above. Thanks for your sincere interest in this article. I finally joined WP to get a little involved as this page and others are neglected these days. Please feel free to put in the hundreds of hours getting up to speed on this and associated topics like I have. This is a good start place . Lastly, Im a newbie so what? Its not rocket science for a self professed computer nerd. Its rather quaint and basic. Who are you BTW? The newbie police? I read all the rules and you are off topic and getting personal which is a no no. WP:No_personal_attacks Please explain?  SaintAviator   talk  00:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are confusing standard patrolling with persecution. Please don't start quoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines at me. Without going into detailed lengths, you are soliciting other users to pad out the hearsay you've posted. Since you've opened an account in order to contribute, why are you so disinclined to find WP:V WP:RS yourself? As regards the prospect of turning it into a 'glossy' article, you would certainly be pushing your luck to try that. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP and WP:COI. You've read all the rules? All of which 'rules'? I very much doubt it. Even if you have, that is not the equivalent of having actually understood them in a meaningful manner.


 * In fact, I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia before making assumptions about your rights and my rights. I don't bite newbies, but I certainly don't encourage bloggers to presume they are in a position to delegate assignments. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What patrol are you on? Or is it that you did not like the way I challenged a pro west rant on the Ukraine talk page and followed me here to try some WP muscle quotes on a newbie? As for being confused. You are confused when you say 'As regards the prospect of turning it into a 'glossy' article, you would certainly be pushing your luck to try that'. Did you even read what I wrote? I said this.


 * I dont feel inclined to make this a glossy WP article


 * See? My post was on how appropriate it is to the reject said 'glossy' article proposal. Please sort yourself out and get it straight not confused. Maybe patrol elsewhere for awhile. This is a talk page discussion now. Go to mine to continue or not (preferred).  SaintAviator   talk  03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets make this article fair to all viewpoints?
I really think this article could be written with a more positive spin.

I accept that what currently makes up the article is based on facts. However I think it must be acknowledged that it is pushing a certain agenda. Am I safe to assume that if new fact based content of a reasonable quality is added which reflects more positively on Francis it will be left online and not removed or hacked.

Also I notice with previous comments things got personal. Lets keep this professional if we can please. My interest is in a great article that we can all be happy with.

Digitalabode (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to make changes according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'll post links to information you should read before embarking on making changes to articles, particularly biographies. As to whether the content stands or is changed over time is not dependent on anything other than contributors/editors so, per WP:OWN, nothing is guaranteed. Also note that articles are not written with a preconceived 'spin', but must adhere to one of the pillars of Wikipedia: being a neutral point of view. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Digitalabode I always assume good faith. There is no agenda. But there have been several attempts to rewrite the article using no or very very unreliable references and brochure like devotional phrases. There was even vandalism and the outing of my real ID when these were reverted by a non involved roaming editor. Unfortunately for a few people this is personal because this WP article shows some things FB said and did which they dont want known. Many people think highly of FB, which is fine but WP is not a devotional site. Truth is not a criteria here, reliable refs are. And they are reliable.


 * I know of one person, Mrs X lets call her, (generic descriptor no likeness to real name) who makes money from the FB songs and she dislikes the WP article and wants it changed because it affects sales presumably. Is that an agenda? I encourage a devotional page on the web for such things and one is in the making apparently according to a recent notice in the 'Meher Baba Australia' newsletter. I find it interesting that just after this notice appeared there is interest here. Agenda? I dont care because as Iryna Harpy points out WP must be a neutral point of view. Which it is IMHO. I distrust 'spin' as you phrased it.


 * BTW Re your comment 'will be left online and not removed or hacked'. A hack definition is 'to gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer'. Its use to describe WP editing is facetious. But it is the exact phrase Mrs X used on Face Book (where she promotes her songs) to describe this articles editing which she stated is unfavorable, FBs WP page was hacked she said. I repeat WP is not a devotional site. WP does not work like this. Please dont come in with talk of editors here pushing an agenda and accusations of hacking. Do not make personal attacks. [] WP is what it is with its rules and protocols. Please check out this following link. [].   SaintAviator   talk  06:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

SaintAviator is correct in implying that Digitalabode has begun this discussion by not assuming good faith. As this is Digitalabode's very first edit on Wikipedia as a registered user, the burden of proof is on them that they can learn and ingest the Wikipedia rules and tone, before rushing into anything large. See Assume good faith. The way it works is first read up all you can on Wikipedia policy or get a mentor, or simply dive in and learn from trial and error. Nearly anything you write that is on topic, balanced, neutral, and well referenced with a reliable source, will almost certainly survive scrutiny. Most people who stick with Wikipedia come to admire its policies, and trust the process. I feel if you can come in with an open mind, and be willing to learn, you too will come to admire it. Otherwise, the internet is filled with other forums if it is not the right one for a particular person. I too will assume good faith. So I suggest getting started, and not worrying. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the heads up about wiki processes and procedures. I apologise if I have offended anybody with any of my loose language usage. That certainly was not my intention. I know nothing about Mrs X, or anybody making money of Francis. Lets face it I am sure it cannot be a whole lot given the obscurity of his work and I don't think a positive or negative wiki page will likely change that. I am keen to work with you guys with the hope of expanding this page. For example I would be happy to generate some content with respect to how Francis came to Baba - I think this is important. This after all was an important turning point in his life. Also there are plenty of positive quotes by Baba regarding Francis. Could they be added along side the existing material. Baba called Francis to be with him, that is an honour not given to many people. Additionally, do you guys think it would be appropriate to get some examples of his work on this page. After all he was a poet. Maybe a short ghazal. What do you think? Digitalabode (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Digitalabode, I would really appreciate it if you would drop the "you guys." As far as your question about poetry samples, generally you will run into trouble on Wikipedia simply adding quotations that don't follow in the narrative. For instance a quote needs to have a reason to be there, to understand something said. As far as poetry excerpts by themselves there is a sister project of Wikipedia, called Wikiquote. See for example Maya Angelou. You will notice few or no poems. But then go to Maya Angelo at Wikiquote and you will see many. If you like you could start a Wikiquote article for Francis Brabazon. Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Again let me apologise for offending anybody via the use of you guys. With regards to the addition of at least one sample of poetry I was imagining it could appear in the context of the idea that Francis created a new form of poetry with the assistance and close direction of Baba. Additionally poetry with a focus on praising god (in whatever form) is more of an eastern rather than western tradition. That is one of the interesting things about his work. With both those in mind it would seem relevant to show an example to help illustrate the point. This would just be a small illustrative example. With regards to the use of poetry in Wikipedia - from what I can see it is not entirely without precedent for a poets wiki page to have a sample of their work on it. As such, I am assuming this must be within any relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Right? Obviously the use of any work would require the permission of the relevant copyright holders where appropriate. Does that all sound reasonable? Digitalabode (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology Digitalabode. However I agree with Dazedbythebell that Wikiquote is best for any FB poetry. FB is not 'Babas Poet' (singular emphasis) as quoted by some Australian BL. Its a local phrase they use and put on his grave. I dont recall reading Meher Baba ever asserting Francis Brabrazon was 'Babas Poet'. Many people with Baba wrote poetry. I mention this to position FB. Hes not notable enough to warrant much expansion here. See here. Also reliable references for his early life are problematic. I checked. SaintAviator  talk  03:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that Baba asked Francis to write poetry? Are you saying that is not the case? The term 'Babas Poet' may be a loaded interpretation but the facts seem to support that he was a poet - invited to India by Baba - to be with Baba - and to write poetry - with Babas guidance and encouragement. I think that could be a potentially valid part of this page. This was a very important part of FBs life. The page should reflect important aspects or in this case turning points of his life. Do you agree? Furthermore the Notability guidelines state: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.. To me it appears the works of Francis may arguably fall under that definition. And a poem would reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalabode (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brabazon was one person who wrote ghazals. Ghani and Bhau ( LM 5300 online) were two others MB asked to write ghazals. FB was thus a poet, yes, but not 'The Avatars poet' afaik. If you can find a quote saying he was, great. That would be notable. As for the ghazal. The Ghazal is a very old form of poetry that quite a few people have had a go at in English. I read the part of hard copy of LM the other night where FB comes to India. Baba scolded him and he cried. LM 5563 hard copy. It cant have been easy, but they all seem to have coped it and many were invited to India over the years. Most have no WP page. Even Eruch has a tiny one. I just dont think FBs notable enough to have poetry on such a small article. Even Milton doesn't. And hes huge. Dazedbythebell is right, Wikiquote is best for any FB poetry. SaintAviator  talk  06:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * At first site, I felt that Digitalabode had a good idea, using a small excerpt of an English ghazal to illustrate a point of a notable innovation of western poetry. The guidelines I was going on can be found at Quotations. And the specific line I was thinking of was, "The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed." However, SaintAviator has made some good points. There are very few disciples represented here, generally only the most important unless they are famous for something else as well. But even with these, as Aviator pointed out, such as Eruch or Mehera, these are short. Francis does not warrant any special attention for being a poet. Bhau Kalchuri was also asked to stay with Meher Baba around this same time, and Baba had him write poetry also, including an 839 page tome of complex verse in Hindi, Meher Dashan (1985, Meher Pukar Press, India). The verses are actually sung today in Hamirpur like the Ramayana. Compare the magnitude of that book with, say, Stay With God (1984) with less than 150 pages of free verse. Baba did not give him special meters and specifics as he did Bhau. Yet in the Kalchuri article there is almost no mention of his poetry, nor an excerpt. Aviator raises a point, then, I hadn't thought of, which is that there does not seem to be any reason to call Brabazon "Baba's poet" other than conventions that evolved after Meher Baba died, among devotees. Now even that would be fine to make note of. However, there is one glaring problem in light of all this. Wikipedia does not allow "original research." WP:NOR. So while the idea of explaining how Brabazon created a new innovation in western poetry is a very interesting idea, one would have to cite it in a reliable source in order to say it here. It is possible you could do that. But I would not know where. Most sources on Brabazon are short on literary critique. But see what you can do. The worst thing that will happen is it will be removed by someone as OR. As I said, most Wikipedians have to jump in at some point and learn from their mistakes.


 * One last point. There is no way to arrive at a consensus on a talk page about how to approach a general overhaul of an article. Digital's original use of the phrase "I really think this article could be written with a more positive spin" sends a message to other Wikipedians that there is a goal or agenda in spin. This is not the place to spin anything. At least don't admit it. Wikipedia articles generally evolve, slowly, through contributions of many editors, not with a blueprint or a tone in mind agreed upon ahead of time. When a formal critique of an article is done (a peer review), an outsider is brought to give points for improvement, and they bullet point what they see could be improved. The entire ethos of Wikipedia is to avoid spin. That is what websites are for. Wikipedia, fundamentally, attempts to be an encyclopedia of facts. Spin is discouraged, positive or negative. The catchprhase on Wikipedia, regarding tone, is "balanced." So, for instance if an article had only positive to say on a person or movement, there will often be added a "criticism" section. This also has to do with the policy of OWN (no one owns an article). Anyway, good luck Digitalabode. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate it when an editor takes the time to 'nut' it all out fairly. Thank you Dazedbythebell. Digitalabode that was a good appraisal and one key point was WP:NOR. There is a very fair experienced editor on this page Iryna Harpy who is right on with WP:NOR on quite a few pages were people try it on, inadvertently mostly. It woundnt be personal if poor references were deleted. Its just the way it is here. Original research would ruin WP quickly. As Dazedbythebell asserted if you can reliably explain how Brabazon created a new innovation in western poetry it would be a very interesting idea: But it would need to come from a neutral and reliable source. Good luck with that.


 * Re 'The Spin comment'. That was unfortunate. As I said I distrust spin. However just last month I mentioned to someone WP pages are almost always works in progress. FB is too. And I found something Brabazon did with Babas approval that was interesting and you may like. In 1959 FB offered to maintain the New life Caravan and Blue Bus, to preserve them for historical posterity. (LM 5631 and a few pages on, hard copy). MB liked the idea and allowed FB to paint them and gave 1000 ruppees for supplies. I think this might be good in the article. Not for 'spin' but to round out his life, including but not exclusive to 'showing the often menial aspect of such a life with MB'. SaintAviator   talk  00:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced
I am not sure what the normal procedure is but I felt I should start a new heading. In the last section many points have been raised (and well taken by me I can honestly say). I would like to focus on one issue at this point that it seems to me is looming over the whole discussion - I would like to clarify my 'agenda'. Initially I was pretty loose with language and terminology. I had assumed the 'Talk' section was slightly informal and free wheeling. I hope to prove more specific from here on. Also I would appreciate continued guidance on policy and wiki civility where required. I can assure everybody I am not intending to offend or do stupid things.

My initial comment regarding the article being unfair was a very broad brush. I want to state for the record that I feel the bulk of the existing material does present a neutral position.

However, I would like to raise the question of whether the material under the 'India' sub heading meets with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Let me be clear, I am not saying that any of the content is factually incorrect. What I am proposing is that it may present Francis in a negative light which may not be consistent with the overall picture of his life. Each of the three paragraphs in this section (although true) are arguably from a negative perspective. Three from three is not very balanced unless of course the general consensus is that there would only be negative things to say about this period of his life? This does not seem to be supported by the literature.

Anybody even roughly familiar with Baba and people in his influence recognises that Baba would often say things to grind down a persons ego. I feel that to use quotes and anecdotes like that in an introductory bio of a person does them (and the reader) a disservice.

If after discussion it was generally agreed that this section is not in the spirit of the NPOV principles of Wikipedia I would propose it could be remedied by either balancing the section with some of the many positive quotes and anecdotes (referenced of course). Or by replacing what is there with something more neutral that we could all agree on.

Can I request that responses are focused on the points raised in this section alone, i.e. the NPOV of the India section. I personally am struggling to have a discussion that is covering so many topics. Digitalabode (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If what exists is NPOV as you say, which I agree with, then replacing it with selective material to make FB look 'positive' could be seen as an agenda based on your previous comments. I hope you understand, thats on permanent record and editors will want to distance them selves from it. Additional added material would be the way to go. Moving on.


 * Yes Baba did grind 'them' down and they did have to do many menial tasks i.e no electricity at M'Zad. I think FB painting the New life Caravan and Blue Bus, to preserve them for historical posterity (FB's idea) might be considered 'positive'. He stopped rust I imagine, and probably rot too. Thats a positive surely. I went into those vehicles and enjoyed the experience, but would have enjoyed it less if they were deteriorated, so Im grateful he painted them. But as you may know Digitalabode Baba considered it a blessing when he put people thru tough times like making FB cry, or putting him down in front of others re Jim Reeves or just making them obey him totally. I add this because some BL readers who know this will read what you called FB in a negative light and go 'ahhh, Babas Nazaar was on FB, he is blessed'.


 * But yes, I agree, some ordinary so called positive experiences of his in India may round the article out. As stated its a work in progress. By happenstance Im reading LM hard copy at when FBs in India and at this point in '59 FB is not allowed to leave Meherazad for three months, no one is, and hes doing some typing and pamphlet copying, plus they all have chores like cleaning the toilet, and the many tasks done by hand in an isolated place with no power. Ill keep in touch here when I find some more material that reflects him not being ground to dust or being given a hard time, and possibly doing something that might make him be seen in a more positive light. Do add your findings here too.  SaintAviator   talk  06:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess when I say 'positive' I don't mean in a glowing sense. Just more in a non negative or ideally neutral and representative sense. The need for positive content is only required if it is to balance potentially valid but 'negative' (or non neutral) content, i.e. to make the content neutral overall. Also, I did mean to comment in the thread above about the bus story and say this is a good story and a good example of what I am getting at. Out of all the material available I am confident that between us we could find quotes/anecdotes that would meet the NPOV standard and leave everybody feeling happy. Digitalabode (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK Good. It occurred to me why the mandali have no or very small WP pages. Its because he did grind them down. Fame is not part of the formulae and creating a positive image probably is meaningless. Wordly people would find total obedience and humiliation to and by MB hard to grasp, let alone FB took Baba to be God and FB knew he was MB's slave. Im convinced that if you want to reflect his real life, it will be studded with things the worldly person would see as distinctly not positive. But surprise me. Keep in mind however a drive to make a glossy sort of POV will not be true to FB and will anyway lack references, so will be deleted. What you will find is that very little reliable references exist that show his private life. WP for people like FB offer only a tiny glimpse, a very slim outline of a life at the best. SaintAviator   talk  06:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Francis has a more public facing life than most mandali at least in terms of generating poetry (and other works) and begin pivotal in founding and fostering the Abode. These are inherently public activities. So it shouldn't be surprising that more can be said that would be relevant to a WP bio. Digitalabode (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your next hurdle is a tricky one. Its been the downfall of many edits.  SaintAviator   talk  08:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't existing sources be an agreeable and uncontroversial place to start? Digitalabode (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the link I posted is essential reading for WP editors.  SaintAviator   talk  08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it can be established the existing content is problematic wouldn't what to replace it with be a separate issue and discussion. The policy doesn't put the onus on replacement text. It focuses on current content being balanced. Is that right? Digitalabode (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have come to a point where you probably need to read WP help widely. Its time consuming and I dont have the time to point you to here or there. Im watching a you tube movie. I can say the existing content is NPOV and reliably verifiable. We covered this earlier. Its problematic if you have an agenda. Thing is without a few independent published books about FB you dont have reliable source (RS) refs to find out what this 'balance' you mention is. He lacks RS refs. Please re read all points made on this page and check out the WP help page.  SaintAviator   talk  10:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please clarify what your position on the NPOV status is on the India section. Do you think the India section meets the NPOV guidelines? Digitalabode (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what Aviator is saying is he is getting tired. It grows tiring going round and round on these things. Note more has been said here explaining Wikipedia than all the discussion in the eight years this article has existed. You have to go do your own research. Things need not be this philosophical here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * a very simple question - are you challenging the reliability of the sources in use? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Iryna I just popped in here to add something and saw your question. I dont want to butt in because in a very direct way, its exactly the 'right' question and I urge Digitalabode to answer you first.


 * Digitalabode I wanted to affirm that Dazedbythebell was correct, I was tired of 'going round and round on these things'. And would like to direct you to LM 5635 hard copy, where Meher Baba says he is 'Very harsh, especially on Mandali'. I point this out to you Digitalabode to show that when FB spent 10 years in India he received at times harsh treatment, which is reflected in the article, which is written in a NPOV manner, I will add. Its neither negative or positive. It just is. However Iryna Harpy's question is THE question you must consider, you must also work out why she asked it.  SaintAviator   talk  00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Iryna - I am not questioning the sources or the facts at all. I have stated that a number of times above. What I questioning is that the way this section is written and the choice of anecdotes does not meet with the spirit of a neutral position. That is all. I am not disputing that the Mandali had a hard time. I am saying that to use a story like that out of context is not neutral - in that it doesn't fairly represent his time in India. Most people reading this will likely not have an understanding of a master working down the ego and how that works. I feel the 'right' question (which I am attempting to facilitate discussion on) is "Does the selection of the existing content represent his time in India in a representative and neutral way?" Obviously I am putting out the notion that it doesn't. Other may feel it does. That's fine. Am I doing anything wrong or against guidelines here? I apologise if I have taken peoples time up unnecessarily. Yes I am new. But I am doing my utmost to get up to speed and to follow procedure as best I can. I understand the onus is on me to get with the program and I appreciate any patience and direction offered. Digitalabode (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Digitalabode, I am glad I don't know who you are in real life. Because you are breaking my heart. I have never seen a person introduce themselves to Wikipedia so poorly in the eight and a half years I have been editing. It might be time to take a break, and come back at some later time with a new user name. I really do wish you the very best in the whole wide world. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry about your heart. I can assure you it has been less than joyous for me. I think if I turned up with a new username it will be pretty obvious who I am. In any case I am still keen to make progress if possible. What would you suggest is the best way forward from here. I have lots of ideas about content. Should I put forward some content for consideration? I know this is what Saint was saying but I feel there is not much point putting forward content if the general consensus is the existing content is fine. Digitalabode (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My advice of over a week ago is still good, i.e. "read up all you can on Wikipedia policy or get a mentor, or simply dive in and learn from trial and error. Nearly anything you write that is on topic, balanced, neutral, and well referenced with a reliable source, will almost certainly survive scrutiny." I'm not sure what is unclear. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If I am understanding this correctly, your issue is not with the sources but the tone of the presentation of the article. As has already been pointed out, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are at the heart of the matter. I can only reiterate what has been pointed out to you regarding familiarising yourself with these. For newcomers, I tend to recommend that they avoid articles they have strong emotional/political/religious ties to. The tried and true method seems to be going through the learning curve by working on the content of articles that have been neglected, need copyediting, or whatever skillset/s you can bring to the table (i.e., areas the newcomer doesn't have a vested interest in). For the purposes of seeking good advice, I've posted a Teahouse invitation on your talk page. Please feel free to ask experienced Wikipedians for assistance on their talk pages as, unless there is an indication on their user or talk pages that they prefer not to be consulted, Wikipedians are collaborative and enjoy being helpful. Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Yes that is what I am am saying. Recent edits are certainly responding to this point in a very constructive manner. Digitalabode (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article flow and syntax was a bit stilted and the arrangement led to a tone that was a bit hard. I went ahead and made the flow better with some linking material as thats what was being discussed. Plus added the painting story, again as discussed. I do urge you try the Teahouse invitation Digitalabode. I suggest next something that shows a sample of FB's literary input to MBs cause, say a mention of his work 'Stay with God'.  SaintAviator   talk  08:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think these edits have improved the page hugely. I am currently researching and thinking about potential material. Is there any particular reason why the biography by Ross Keating is not used as a reference? I am guessing that because generally it can be used to find primary references anyway and such is not required. Or simply it just isn't used because nobody has needed to. Just want to know if I need to avoid it for some reason. Digitalabode (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is beginning to lose focus by including anecdotes that are charming but it is not clear what point they are making. This is supposed to be a biographical encyclopdic entry. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Re 'beginning to lose focus by including anecdotes'. Yes thats the looming problem. I added some linking material to improve flow and softened the syntax a little. But really the notability question will limit content. Im thinking the rebuking stories show how living with MB could be hard. The paint story shows how it could be mundane. Stay with God will show a sample of his literary input. But the article is not his full bio, its a short WP entry befitting his notability. I think for devotional FB followers a web blog will be needed. I dont want to be keeping saying that. There are no independent authors who have written FB's bio.


 * We dont want the article blowing out with devotional type author refs only to get mauled in a review. The problem with Keatings book is its overt devotional POV nature and its generous pro FB interpretations which litter the book, for example this. 'Francis Brabazon was responsible for bringing Baba to Australia — twice, in 1956 and 1958, both times building a house for Him to stay in'. Ahhh No he was not. Its untrue and is an interpretation of events. Did FB pay for the trip? No. Was it his idea? No. Was he opposed to it? Yes. Did he build the houses alone? No. Was it his money that bought AA? No. Can Keatings statement be reliably referenced? No. Its original research. Im very wary of this book as any digging on Keating shows hes not NPOV re FB. Look at the title. 'A Modern Hafiz'. WP allows no WP:NOR. Baba often praised peoples efforts to encouarge them, like he did with Bhaus very average early writing. (Bhaus own words) Keating has found some of this and appears to have really run with it. Hes a Meher Baba follower who has lectured his FB paper overseas. Its original reserach.


 * Also we want to limit LM as a ref for similar reasons. Its good for facts or small use. See WP Meher Baba archives on this discussion. The online LM is probably not suitable as its got no Hard Copy. Id like Dazedbythebell interpretation on this. Digitalabode Please attend the tea party invitation, if have not already. SaintAviator   talk  22:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * FB non Referenceable myths or non RS myths


 * Just to be clear and to keep the article NPOV.
 * Myths.
 * FB invited MB to Australia
 * Stay with God is second only to God Speaks in importance. Ross Keatings claim.
 * FB was rich and bought Avatars Abode. The money came from a Sufi
 * FB is a modern Hafiz. Original research
 * FB single handedly built two houses for MB.
 * FB was responsible for getting MB to Australia. Original research.
 * FB invented a new form of poetry, the Ghazal
 * Im sure there are more, but these are in the current discussion. SaintAviator  talk  00:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought Keatings book might get messy. Thanks. Digitalabode (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything Aviator just said, and am relieved he sees these issues too. What you don't want is to get a tag at the top of the article, calling its tone, reliability, or neutrality into question. Just so Digitalabode understands, who is new, tags at the tops of pages, once put, cannot simply be removed at a whim. It brings in other heads into the discussion who are (rightfully so) complete outsiders of the topic. I think Aviator, though respecting Brabazon and knowing about him, is doing all he can to not set off an avalanche. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Dazedbythebell. I forgot the biggest un referencable myth of all which probably set off a lot of people down the myth track. Myth: Francis Brabazon was Meher Babas poet. This is used in the singular and was put on his gravestone by a friend of his. Its a made up statement.  SaintAviator   talk  02:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the recent changes - although not major - will make it much less likely to get the dreaded top tag. Digitalabode (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually probably not Digitalabode. Its sounding a bit like a camp fire talk.  SaintAviator   talk  05:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Article is in need of peer review
This article is in need of some editors not so close to the subject. There should be some consideration of requesting a peer review at this point, to get some objective perspective from the Wikipedia community. It has a strange tone currently, seeming to want to convey something through small stories without coming out and saying it, and has lost focus of the biography. Please take a look at the simplicity of other articles about Australian poets. And take a look at how this article once looked: older version of Francis Brabazon biography, which was more in keeping with those articles, giving pertinent facts and a book list. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That seems pretty reasonable to me. I am not sure whether the anecdotes fit with Wiki normal practice or not. If they don't then they may need to go. If they are okay then they should be a neutral and representative sample that actually point to something informative about Francis, his works, or his life. Digitalabode (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure why not. Re the earlier simplistic article. Its got one ref, but I see your point. Hes not notable for much more. Agree. Its also got the subtle myth bit 'he established'. He didnt. Lots of people had input. Myths like he was Babas Poet, he bought AA, he was responsible for this and that are devotional myth building based on original research, are POV non RS. In any new version they are not valid. SaintAviator   talk  22:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to clarify I am not endorsing any specific text on the old version mentioned. More the idea of the simplicity being better than lack of neutrality. Digitalabode (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm pointing out the simplicity only. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

darvish's view
The Wikipedia article on Francis is third rate. It has factual inaccuracies as well as poor content and editing. I have a link to it on my blog which I will have to break for these reasons if it is not substantially improved. Francis did not "become the head of one part of the split Sufi Movement in Australia." The Sufi Movement in Australia was never "split". Francis was the one and only head of the Sufi Movement after the Baron passed away. He willingly and happily abdicated this role upon meeting Meher Baba. The characterizations of Francis are selective and misleading, ie that Mani was upset with him about his dislike of the singer Jim Reeves. Indeed, Francis was opionated in his views on art, music and literature. But these views were largely endorsed by Baba as proved by his role in editing Francis' work "Stay with God". It was Baba who suggested that there be footnotes. Read The Water Carrier by Robert Rouse. But it is above all the lack of significant content, when there is so much to refer to, that makes this article so unfortunate.Darvish writes (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Re. 'It has factual inaccuracies as well as poor content and editing' Thats an opinion. Truth is not a criteria of WP. Are you questioning the references? Clearly you are an editor who has come here for the sole purpose of altering this article for personal reasons including so it can go on your blog. You also have the same name in your user name as Mrs Xs partner. Whose ID has not been revealed. See this WP:REALNAME. I sense sir a strong taint of editing to an 'agenda'. WP:NOTADVOCATE

Other senior editors can deal with that if required. So is this what you are saying? Because Baba edited (had it read to him is better) 'Stay with God' this proves Baba largely endorsed FBs opinionated views on art, music and literature. Kinda like a blank cheque right? Have you heard of original research? WP:NOR. Also Wikipedia is not WP:SOAP. Maybe you could write an opinion piece for your blog?

Re Robert Rouse. He was FBs friend and neighbor and was the person afaik who made up the non referenable phrase. Francis Brabazon 'Babas Poet'. Rouse wrote a POV FB devotional self published book. Not an RS ref at all. Translataion? It has no place here.

That aside a peer review has been requested to steer the article into NPOV waters. SaintAviator  talk  04:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Before requesting a peer review, I thought the consensus was leaning toward reverting to the simpler version first, so I have put it back, a bit cleaned up. I wonder if this could be fixed and corrected enough to be acceptable to all, if not perfect for any. If this fails we can get a peer review. That would be a lengthier process so I thought we could try this first. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is a reasonable outcome that allows for a new starting point for the article. I feel the first step would be to work out how long this article should actually be. Obviously Dazedbythebell you are encouraging a shorter format. That's fine. And if that is the final destiny for this article then there is not much point having a discussion about what is an acceptable reference source, anecdote, or aspect of FBs life or works. If short was decided best then we could all focus on the basics. Digitalabode (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My expressed opinions are based on fact as documented by the work cited by Robert Rouse who is the authority on the matter of Baba's role in the editing and publishing of Stay With God. My agenda is to get the facts right.


 * Yes I think that is the general consensus, that the facts are what matter. I think shortness, but accuracy, is the best avenue. I also noticed that the Friedrich von Frankenberg article is quite short and elegant too. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course truth isn't the whole thing. Some things are true but are not fitting to a brief biography.


 * A simplistic version without the innuendo or devotee syntax that he was something he was not, is fine. It should be in line say with other Australian poets of small notability. He is a little notable due to Meher Baba. As a stand alone poet, he is not very notable. I draw the two new editors to the Myth busting posts above. I also point out the other longer term, arguably more distinguished, based on time in India, Mandali like Dr William Donkin's, (brief) WP page. And the numerous artistic people associated with Meher Baba with no WP pages like Rano Gayley. Exactly.


 * I wish to draw a non involved editors like Irynas attention (in case of dispute) to the type of devotional text that exists on some blogs, which are superfluous POV and have no place influencing an encyclopaedic article. This from the web blog 'Darvish Khan Writes' writing about Francis Brabazon.


 * ''(He) was the “court poet”- in English, at the darbar of Avatar Meher Baba …….He was a brilliant uncut diamond and under the influence of his Friend and Beloved, Meher Baba, invented the English ghazal as an adaptation of the Persian ghazal perfected in the work of Hafez. This pleased his Beloved enormously, who likened him to the immortal Hafez. He is the greatest poet in English of our time.

''
 * He is the greatest poet in English of our time!! Please !!. Lets be clear. This is third rate devotee POV. Its a very biased loose interpretation of events. I dont understand this type of devotion I have to admit. I dont want to. I do know it and certain devotee published books are not suitable for WP. I also caution about an agenda to have the entire article wiped. This was mentioned on Face Book.


 * With that cleared up, IMHO a brief non anecdotal non myth non devotee non POV but instead NPOV article would be satisfactory. As to size. No longer than William Donkins.  SaintAviator   talk  23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Good length. William Donkin (physician). Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly does seem that if we take the other mandali or Australian poets as a guide the FB page as it was before the revert was pretty excessive in size. Even if we take into account any arguable bonus notability (generated via his involvement in the Australian Arti, Avatars Abode, Meher House, Poetry style, and other creative works) it is hard to justify huge amounts of extra text beyond the basics. These things may or may not be of interest to different Baba people but are certainly not well known in the mainstream. Digitalabode (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree.  SaintAviator   talk  08:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem with size? This is pedantic POV. The quality of any Wiki article depends on judicious treatment of the material! Are you a Lilliputian? Francis Brabazon was a giant. His entry deserves significant content even if you sport junior size. [User: darvish]


 * Be civil. WP:CIV. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Nor is WP:SOC. As regards your query, read all the discussion.  SaintAviator   talk  06:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But let's get to work Lilliputians and move some commas around. 24.7.113.192 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)darvish

Article size is fine
The consensus is agreed that the article size is currently fine due to FB's small notability. We dont want a return to anecdotes and myths, which belong to devotional type blogs. SaintAviator  talk  22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Lilliputian consensus is that the article size is fine? This is how you wish to tie up the literary giant Francis Brabazon? Go ahead. Tie him up. Satisfy your puny conceptions. Quite obviously you have nothing to say. You, and your collaborators, should not be editors if you have nothing to say. Your POV is that you have nothing to say about the greatest poet in the Advent of Avatar Meher Baba! My recommendation is that you recuse yourselves for such tiny squeaky voices.Billgannett (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)darvish

Apology and request for clarification...
Aviator sent me 3(!) emails informing me of Sock Puppetry. I apologize. I am bumbling my way into WP.

Also, was it appropriate for Aviator to adduce content from my blog as my presumed argument regarding what is appropriate to this article? I find this highly obnoxious and wonder what experienced editors think. Is this not a most flagrant example of contriving a POV to further an agenda? Additionally, Aviator's response to my points expressed in "Darvish's View" were most unsatisfactory (despite the fact that two of the points have since been deleted from the article) i.e. the inaccurate reference to the 'split" in the Sufi Movement.., and the weirdly selective reference to Mani's remark about FB's opinion of Jim Reeves. My point is: Aviator is a hack editor.Billgannett (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)darvish


 * The emails are auto sent by WP when your sock puppet investigation was updated. I also point out for the second time WP:CIV.


 * Regarding your complaints. By consensus all anecdotes and unreferenced material was removed. As regards the quote I copied from 'Darvish Khan Writes' I said it was to show the type of devotional text that exists on some blogs, which are superfluous POV and have no place influencing an encyclopaedic article . Was that you? Well you just proved you are a sock puppet I would suspect.  SaintAviator   talk  07:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)