Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 11

suggested correction to original text
The closing lines of the fifth paragraph state: "Despite deteriorating health, he continued his "universal work," which included fasting, seclusion, and meditation..." This is accurate save for the reference to Baba meditating. Meher Baba did not meditate. Meditation is a practice to center the mind and to attain higher states of consciousness. As Baba continually "enjoyed" The Infinite state of Self-realization (being the Avatar, i.e., God [the Infinite] taking Human [finite] form) He had no need for meditation practices as we ordinary folk do! I feel it is important to make these distinctions and clarifications in order to do justice and homage to His Life and Work. Although the Avatar always assumes the limited human condition, there are certain aspects of being human that just don't seem to apply. Ordinary meditation is one of those, as I understand His Life and Work.

Thanks for a well written article on the most important personage of our current age! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stphnlngly (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture
Meher Baba played a small but pivotal role in the comic book Dr. Fate during a period when J.M. DeMatteis was at the helm. The sixth issue of DeMatteis' run (May 1989) was dedicated "with love...for avatar Meher Baba". In subsequent issues, Meher Baba appears in various roles as a silent, unnamed guide and observer during the story arc's most spiritual sequences. DeMatteis finished his tenure on the title depicting Meher Baba and the Phantom Stranger assuring readers that "our tale [is] never really concluded". Asat (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this would be nice to include. How would it be referenced? Is it sufficient to simply reference the comic book issue dates? Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You need a secondary source to justify inclusion, then you can cite the comic for a small summary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to cite the press release listed here which says that the writer is a follower of Baba and incorporated him into the story. That's the best I can find. John Carter (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This must be the press release Carter is referring to. I feel shy to insert the addition myself but I'll take a stab at it. I assume others will give it the tweaks it needs. There doesn't seem to be any strong objection to its inclusion. I think the best place is Legacy near the bottom. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about this to edit it, but I want to note that if we really are trying to apply the undue weight principles within all the thematic sub-sections, then mentioning a rather obscure comic book, but not a mass-release book like [ http://www.amazon.com/All-Fishes-Come-Home-Roost/dp/1594861390/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258675862&sr=1-3 All the Fishes Come Home to Roost] (which got press in magazines like Entertainment Weekly, Time, Newsweek, etc.) seems a little arbitrary to me. I know many Baba folks aren't so fond of that particular book (!), but the point is that one can't pick-and-choose which pop culture items are the "Baba-world authorized" ones, right? That book got much more attention than the comic book that's mentioned. Perhaps there should be an "in popular culture" sub-section within the Legacy section, eventually? Also, for whatever it's worth, Baba also was an influence within the [ http://www.amazon.com/Seekers-into-Mystery-Vol-1/dp/1934506206 Seekers into the Mystery] comic series, also by DeMatteis. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a good secondary source for Fishes. I removed an earlier reference to the book a year or 2 ago, because it was not well cited with secondary sources, and because the edits suggested that the book should be viewed as presenting factual information about the mandali. The editor believed the book should be presented an "alternate point of view" about MB and mandali. I disagreed - since the book is something of a Roman a clef, rather than nonfiction, at least as far as the mandali and events around them are concerned. The events and characters in the book are described by the author as a "synthesis", events are made up or altered for dramatic effect, book characters are named differently than actual mandali, etc., and while some of us have a decoder ring that can help make order of the fiction vs fact, that is not something generally available. I worked with the editor to make changes to the assertion that the book represented a factual representation of the mandali, and it was not pretty.


 * The book has certainly been written by someone known to have been raised in MB's ashram, however, and is notable for that fact alone, in my opinion, and if we're lowering the notability bar to include Dr Fate then Fishes would practically leap over the bar. But in the earlier case, I didn't want it suggested that the portrayals of the mandali are exactly and precisely factual, and the editor in question -- who may have had a conflict of interest -- was in no mood to compromise. And as I say, there were no secondary sources being cited.


 * Also I'm concerned about the question of undue weight for Doctor Fate, but a a lot of comic fans edit this Wikipedia, and their idea of weight may differ from mine.


 * While we're at it, what about Melanie!!?? Us balding middle-aged Woodstockers want to know!! --Nemonoman (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also The River Why is about to be released as movie. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the part from Fishes was a remark about western followers who would visit India. Maybe I missed a reference on the mandali? Even so, the issue here is Meher Baba directly, but like Nemo says, then we should have Melanie and other notables who might have sung or written about or painted Meher Baba. And I don't know how many notable people from India and generally the "non-west" might turn up (why just "popular culture"?). I'm neutral about the comics entry, but I don't think we should open the article to any mention possible. The thing I wish to stress is that if more such rather unimportant mentions are included, they should at least be directly about Baba, not his followers or mandali. Hoverfish Talk 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guys
In a lucid moment (thanks HK) I made this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIvwhoQ7vXY

I like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=misJyNDikiQ

Check out my others. In response to wikipedia world with its edit wars, endless editor position changes justified by all too malleable rules and beset by ownership issues comes Meher Baba to YouTube. Yes he was there already true but these videos focus on what is not said here. Thanks for the inspiration. Hoverfish, imagine some people will first see Baba in these videos. Probably have done so already!

I recommend this form of expression. References are strictly optional and avoided by default. No RS issues. Total POV freedom. No one to step in and edit your work. No edit wars. No John Carter. No real rules at all. What the hell!!! should have gone there first. More videos to come, Planets, sanskaras, Baba spoke words before he dropped the body, UFO's ...endless freedom really and no topic arguments either  :)

On a more serious note. You are doing people who read about Baba here a disservice by not including what is going to come. Baba has given more than enough warnings and information and hints these are the end times. They are the end times. Do you think this is all some sort of joke? What do you think he came for? A paint job on the worlds problems? No. This is IT. Judgment Day is close. You wont put this topic in I know because you are all very rigid and scared of public opinon turning on you. Too bad. My material will focus on this. Arrivederci. --Jones.liam (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

== Jonas.liam, whoever you are, I wish you would stop making all Baba lovers look absolutely insane. -disgruntled Baba lover who believes wikipedia should be an impartial source of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.140.127 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Avatar
I removed the sentence: Baba equates the concept of Avatar with terms from numerous diverse traditions, including Rasool, Messiah, Christ, Maitreya, Savior, Redeemer, etc. First it didn't sound like Baba. I don't recall Meher Baba referring to the Maitreya as a word for the Avatar. Next, checking the reference turned up no such terms: Meher Baba: "Discourses", Sufism Reoriented, 6th ed., 1967. Vol III, p. 18ff (check here and here). I also am not sure the sentence added anything. 12.160.114.250 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi talk, just passing thru. Well I'm afraid your wrong about Maitreya. Very easy to verify too. Now u have jumped in and boldly edited. Well done. This time your wrong, keep trying to find facts that cant get you reverted.

Now about reverts. If these current editors are not to be hypocrites they will reverse your edits and tell you off for not discussing it first here. Revert why. Cause its verifiable he did talk about Maitreya.

If they dont revert well it proves all that their talk about rules justifying reverts and saying read RS and POV etc ad infinitum were indeed only done to reinforce whats their position and demonstrates whats been said about some of them re Ownership and ego issues has basis in fact.

Now if (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) is one of these editors, Then he is being a hypocrite after making life difficult for those who wanted to add new material. Nothing would surprise me here.

--Jones.liam (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, the IP editor is correct that the reference in discourses doesn't mention Maitreya or Rasool, but they have references in Lord Meher which I'll add when I get around to it. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice touch. When I get around to it. Are you softening! Hold on, maybe it was your work or one of your gang that was'nt referenced properly. Woundnt be the first time. I wonder if The Glow still has the same duplicitous role. Good for your gang bad for new editors percieved as taking your turf. Also you have softened with people editing and commenting without signing in. That used to be a big telling off, but in that nasty disguised as nice pseudo wikipedia way .... " and also would you mind signing in please".

Hold on again, your being nice to ...build a support base, new gang members.

Good luck talk, try putting in some really new material. Ha.

Karma. Ahh sweet Karma. There is no escaping it, nothing is more certain. Do the wrong thing and it bites you, maybe for quite some time. BTW. Control F in the article and put in Karma. Nothing. Your article (yours not Wikipedias) your gangs article does not mention Karma. How so hilarious. The whole world is ruled by it, but the Nemonoman Gang is seemingly immune. Why am I not surprised. --Jones.liam (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maitreya seems to have been a mistake. Meher Baba referred to the term "the Buddha" rather than the Maitreya. Maitreya is a name for a particular awaited Buddha, and is not a general term for an office.


 * "that He is the Saviour, the Prophet, the Messiah, the Son-of-God, the Avatar, the Rasool, the Buddha and so forth." (God Speaks p. 187 online PDF version) "the advent of the Avatar (Rasool, Christ, Buddha) on earth..." (ibid p. 249)


 * I can't find the word Maitreya in discourses or GS. In Lord Meher, the name Maitreya is used only as the name of the particular anticipated incarnation, and not as a synonym for "Avatar." For all three uses in Lord Meher go here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lord of Mercy. Thats a title, a Buddhist title for a job. Vishnu is the preserver of the universe. Sound familiar. Mercy get it. The Avatar is Vishnu. Nine descents are said to have already occurred, the tenth is yet to come. (come and gone now) Rama and Krishna were the seventh and eighth. So Maitrya is Mercy, not the destroyer. In that special Eastern way words have layered meanings. Maitreya is a name and a title in one. This is Way way too subtle for Wikipedia. I knoiw keep reading but ignoring. Such a modern condition. But there you have it. --Jones.liam (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In Buddhism Maitreya refers to a particular awaited person in Buddhist mythology. See Maitreya. This is how Baba also uses the term "Maitreya." Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said way too subtle --Jones.liam (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Too subtle for me too. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope when you say 'too' you mean other members of The Gang of Three. Im sure you dont. I was the messenger: the message you missed on purpose. 'Layered meanings'. If you need a recent cultural adage to make it acceptable, so you belong to the crowd, think Shrek's onion layers. This could blow your mind but Maitreya = Lord of Mercy. Vishnu = preserver and protector. Avatar = Vishnu. Preserver and protector = mercy. Maitreya = Avatar. Nah like I said way to subtle for the Gang of three's own piece of wikipedia.--Jones.liam (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note the tag at the top of this page. This is not a forum for general discussion of Meher Baba. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC

This IS not general discussion but rather specific. Its just that you dont like being challenged, thats the issue. As they say, get over it.--Jones.liam (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New site launched on silence-breaking/"manifestation" issues
Just thought this recent blog might be of interest, given all the silence & silence-breaking discussion:

Avatar Meher Baba Manifesting: The Breaking of Meher Baba's Silence

Was going to add it to the external links list, but doesn't seem to fit into the current categories. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think this is a very interesting site trying to include as many views as possible. This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to include links to sites on interpretations and views by followers. Is this article the place for this? Is Wikipedia the place for it? If so, where is the limit of inclusion? Hoverfish Talk 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's true. I think that's a nice site, but I guess starting a new category for secondary sites could open the door to including any out-there conspiracy site that happens to mention MB? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On adding 1 qualifying phrase...
I'm proposing adding "by most accounts" or "by the majority of accounts" to the sentence ending the 3rd-to-last Silence section paragraph:

"Since by most accounts he remained silent until his death,..."

Regardless of anyone's own views, and that Eruch's account was deleted by D., this minor qualification seems warranted to me since in the very next paragraph mention is made of Bhau's witness that MB was purposefully not silent before he died, etc.

I'm putting this up here for discussion only to avoid a swift delete, and to try to reach some sort of consensus. I just don't think the facts already cited in the article itself warrant the clause as it stands now, since that sort of claim is really no more unambiguously factual than stating "since he did not remain silent..." Hdtnkrwll (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Subtle touch and true. How will the gang react? --Jones.liam (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"According to all contemporary accounts" is fine with me -- I just think that claim should be qualified with regard to the sources. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think that claim should be qualified with regard to the sources. I can't parse what you mean?? Can you rephrase, please? Like I'm a 5-year-old? --Nemonoman (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I should have said "thought" -- given all the issues involved I just thought that the earlier "remained silent until his death" statement should be qualified in relation to the sources being used to substantiate the claim (vs. just stated as a common fact), but "according to all contemporary accounts" is true & fine with me. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, now I've gone ahead and changed it again...New comments? --Nemonoman (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me (I'm personally less concerned with how it's all parsed than with just having Bhau's account acknowledged & available to those who'd want to look into it further; I think anyone bothering to do that would run into Eruch's account sooner or later anyway, & need to decide for themselves what it all means). Thanks, Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO Hdtnkrwll is correct to say "I'm personally less concerned with how it's all parsed than with just having Bhau's account acknowledged & available Jones.liam (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DeMatteis section
Considering the complaints that Townshend has been given undue weight, what are we to think about the big paragraph about DeMatteis? I'm not editing very often, but whenever I look in, this paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb. And it's only getting longer, although not much actual information is being included as it lengthens. I'm for removing it, and one of these days I'll do so, unless somebody can explain why it's so all-fired important -- or unless someone removes it before I do. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Given Meher Baba's claim to be the Avatar of the age, and given the orientation of his life's work, the depiction of him as a cartoon character over a decade after his death doesn't seem to be a significant part of his legacy. I would describe it as trivial, and perhaps a reflection of the preoccupations of some Wikipedia editors rather than a notable fact. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but it doesn't amount to an argument for its inclusion. Simon Kidd (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the mention of DeMatteis should not collect cruft because of undue weight and trivia considerations. But is the solution for this to erase any mention of DeMatteis here? Some of the above given arguments are not correct. Marvel and DeMatteis are notable by wikipedian standards and concerning preoccupations, I do not think that as Baba followers we are entirely unpreoccupied about what information should be included here or not, though so far we have done a very good work, mostly thanks to Nemonoman and Dazedbythebell, in keeping up with wikipedia's standards of inclusion. So, please, before ticking off even a simple mention of DeMatteis, make sure we are not disinfecting the article from otherwise acceptable and maybe even useful information. As far as I am concerned, I wish more people involved in main trend media would try to bring up Meher Baba in whatever way they feel inspired and I consider DeMatteis effort in Marvel as quite a feat, though I am not a Marvel fan. And by the way, the DeMatteis article was purged of any mention of Meher Baba (apart from the Baba follower category) by user Tenebrae . Hoverfish Talk 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't denying that DeMatteis and Marvel are notable in the Wikipedia sense. I was suggesting that their creation of cartoon characters based on Meher Baba is not a notable aspect of his legacy. I certainly don't think that Meher Baba, who seems to have avoided publicity where possible, would have sought that sort of exposure. The 'work' to which he enigmatically referred appears to have been of an inner nature, carried on in silence and often in solitude (e.g. with the Masts). The more public side of his activities involved things like education, health and charity. How can cartoon characters that he never knew, and didn't ask for, be a significant part of his legacy, just because some cartoonists who were followers decided to create them after his death? Simon Kidd (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of a "Legacy" section, and here is one including "depictions in popular culture" . They are broadly used and are conventional in many notable biographies. The contents of a "legacy" section are generally not depented on the person's preferences but on some notable occations of mention of or reaction to this person well after his death. If our naming the section just "legacy" doesn not justify mention of Bobby MacFerrin, for example, we could extend the title to include "popular culture" maybe. Hoverfish Talk 21:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The DeMatteis section is Legacy. Buts lets categorise. Running working centres like Avatars Abode are a Legacy. Myrtle Beach is a Legacy. The followers who gather in his name at these places create legacy. These things are significant. The DeMatteis section is Trivia. It should not be in the article. --Jones.liam (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy section is problematic in parts
Take this line "There is no central organization surrounding Meher Baba and no coordinated interaction between groups or even any requirement to be part of groups". Define 'central organisation' because it seems to me like there is one. Define 'no coordinated interaction between groups'. At times there is. And 'or even any requirement to be part of groups' well many BL's beg to differ and Bhau has recently said Baba said to join groups. Jones.liam (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PS about no co ordination or contact between groups. Baloney. "The Trust provides two free newsletters that keep Baba’s followers around the world in touch with life at Meherabad and Meherazad. Click on the links below to learn more about the events at Meher Baba’s home and how to subscribe to the Trust’s newsletters". Jones.liam (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitions for legacy: bequest made in will: money or property that is left to somebody in a will something from past: something that is handed down or remains from a previous generation or time outdated or discontinued: associated with something that is outdated or discontinued.

The title Legacy is wrong and attracts wrong things like flies to decay Jones.liam (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This quote from Legacy is wrong / incorrect 'Indeed "the group is so small that it has escaped the notice of religious studies experts."[116] In a few minutes using Bing I found several religious experts who have studied MB. I take it from the quote that two experts would suffice to make this line from Legacy redundant. Here are three. This ones a journal (high rating) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118629145/abstract. This ones a PhD from an Australian University http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:105959 and here from highly rated Virginia Universities Religious Studies Campus is a third http://web.archive.org/web/20060902232910/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/profiles/listalpha.htm#m.

Clearly the quote is wrong and based on the above irrefutable evidence I am removing it. Jones.liam (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whats left does not make much sense re the 'new sufi centre' line. Not that it made a lot of sense beforehand anyway as it was disjointed. Someone else can fix that up as I dont want to give anyone any ammo to rant on and revert the irrefutable delete. Unless you can prove otherwise. All I have done is remove a clearly proven falseness. Jones.liam (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dhuni section in Legacy: This was put in "intending the offering to represent the relinquishing of some attachment or psychological limitation that they wish to be consumed by the fire. The ritual thus symbolizes surrendering and giving up desires and limitations to God".

It replaced a clumsy and too brief line of this important gift of Baba's. The line was "as physical representations of fears and desires they wish to relinquish". See the problem? First its not a good explanation of a complex process and importantly the word fear is way too specific and is just one thing a person may throw in, its not a descriptor of the process that occurs but an example of jut one of many psychological limitations that someone may wish to be consumed by the fire.

The line I put in is from the Baba Dhuni wiki page and is well written and reasonable and clear and encompassing. I do find it hard to believe some of you guys stared at this sort of thing for so long during your occupation of this site and did nothing. Jones.liam (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My feeling about the recent addition to the section that includes the dhuni is that clicking on the word brings you to an article that already says this. Jones.liam, please do not continue to add an insulting debasing remark with each edit. It is annoying. I think the change should be reverted, but I'm afraid to appear to be "mindless." Darwin394 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your entitled to your opinion, but you may not know that this article suffered from a lack of objectivity and ownership issues in the past. People used to do just what I said, revert even when discussion had happened. Im only stating what did in fact happen and it needs to be said to possibly stop another edit war. Look up in the archives the Townsend problem for example.

We met someone the other day and they were going to Goggle MB. What will they find? This site? Maybe. Many people will only read it once, and this article is only being updated by me for the better. The Dhuni section now says a lot clearly and briefly. Lets get it right and keep the ego issues low. Jones.liam (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a Central Organisation
This is but one of many SCHEDULE I-CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES of the AVATAR MEHER BABA PERPETUAL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. For encouraging talks, speeches, lectures, broadcasts, radio talks and television programmes among the public or sections thereof at such places and times and occasions in such languages as may be feasible, spreading and disseminating for the benefit of the public the universal messages and discourses of AVATAR MEHER BABA and His Mission and Avatarhood by those who lead a life of sacrifice, love and brotherhood, for the upliftment of Humanity as afore-stated in all spheres of life;

Here is another.

(i) For training of persons according to the life, particularly what was called "The New Life", lived by AVATAR MEHER BABA and His Companions, exemplifying and practising at all times renunciation, and detachment in the midst of the ordinary worldly activities, that is, "To be in the world and yet be not of it"; (ii) For depicting and unfolding the life and words of AVATAR MEHER BABA through establishment of or helping in the establishment of museums, memorials, study-halls, libraries, fairs or exhibitions, or "melas" at such places as may be feasible from time to time, open to the public;

If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck ..its a duck

The lines in the badly named Legacy section saying no central organisation are wrong. Go thru the pdf trust deed and prove this is not a central organisation set up personally by MB. This is a pre change discussion. Get involved join a debate, know your facts, prove them, be happy about it or stand aside Jones.liam (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a go had editing the Legacy section. I think Liam is right in identifying it as a hodge-podge.

--Nemonoman (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You did a good job too. Its always best if a few people do this editing as 'good writing is rewriting' so they say. It was hodge podge with incorrect info. It reads better now for new people wanting some basics.

I'm still in two minds about some of that stuff at the bottom of legacy because its selectively cultural and very very minor, fringe in fact. Its also not terribly inclusive. Is there Indian cultural Baba stuff too like that? Australian? European? My thought is its a bit sort of petty and cheapens the site. Who may look at this site? Is it a good representation of Baba?

Mostly the site is good to very good and just got better. But do we want specific cultural things from some nations only?

Lastly there is a paragraph in Legacy that is woeful. It starts with 'Although' (never a good start) and 50 words later comes the 'he' to make it grammatically make sense. Thats way to long. Its clumsy and messy. Grammatically poor.

Now heres the thing. It was at a point like this a year or so back that some one took offence and conflict started. Maybe they wrote a line and felt picked on. Why not just deal with facts. The paragraph I mention could be much better written. I believe IMHO that's a given. Heres the other thing. If what I just said is true and the author does not have the energy to do so then it would not be in the spirit that Baba encourages to block it being re written. But perhaps the original author(s) may want to take it on after all. Jones.liam (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Brunton
I've just removed an addition consisting of an unreferenced quote from Paul Brunton and an editor's personal opinion. The latter is obviously entirely inappropriate, but even the introduction of Brunton requires more context. Brunton's views on Meher Baba are far from neutral, and Brunton himself has been the subject of strong criticism from Jeffrey Masson, whose parents were followers of Brunton's. Masson was very close to Brunton, because the latter lived with him and his parents. Brunton encouraged the young Jeffrey to learn Sanskrit, which he did to a high level, subsequently realizing that Brunton didn't really know Sanskrit at all (see My Father's Guru). It is also clear that Brunton was disappointed by Meher Baba, because he had sought miracles and wonders from him, and Meher Baba didn't oblige. Brunton went instead to Ramana Maharshi's ashram, where he felt more welcome. See Shepherd, Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal and Investigating the Sai Baba Movement. See also the following Web entries on Meher Baba, which include references to Brunton: and

Simon Kidd (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. That was some silly stuff. Just shows you how these sites could become laden with subjective. I qualify what was there as vandalism or the work of an idiot Jones.liam (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have no problem if "spiritual training" is left out, as it is not clear to the encyclopedia's average reader what "spiritual training" is (to me neither) and I never read that this is what the Perfect Masters did with Merwan. But the section of the infobox on Influences does not imply any of these dogmatic details the IP from Hyderabad is claiming. The sources I have read claim that the 4 Masters after Babajan helped Merwan come to back to world consciousness. I quote the article, "Upasni helped him, he later said, to integrate his mystical experiences with normal consciousness". As far as I can tell, this is called influence. Please, don't change it without discussing and avoid edit waring.Hoverfish Talk 11:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted spiritual training, as this process was described by Meher Baba in LM, and without it, there is no indication of why the seven year period is significant. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the term "influenced" in the infobox, it is not really a matter of choice. The term "influences" simply comes with this particular infobox template. It cannot be changed to "perfect masters" at this level of the code. But secondly the article ought to be clear to a reader who has not read about Meher Baba's life or about perfect masters. The word "perfect masters" in the infobox would not be clear at all. Within the article it has a link for someone to go an clarify, but infoboxes are designed to work very generically for speedy communication, and ought not be philosophical in themselves. The stated belief that Meher Baba cannot be influenced is obviously sincere, but it is not encyclopedic. It is metaphysical conjecture. Very loving metaphysical conjecture I might add, but not the place for it.Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The main point is that it is an encyclopedia article, not a devotee text. The infobox is a standard part of the encyclopedia and is intended to help general readers, many of whom will not be Meher Baba devotees. I think it's fair enough to refer to the five Perfect Masters as 'influences'. Their relationship to Meher Baba has to be expressed from a neutral POV, not a devotee POV. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meher Baba names somewhere exactly what he has received from each of the Perfect Masters. However, the issue in Wikipedia should not be whether one State of God can be influenced by another State of God and how this applies here. This would be unacceptable as Original Research. Here we are describing the biography of a human being as such and only such. We can write what he did in the visible world or stated or claimed or beleived, provided there are acceptable sources backing our text, but we may neither state that Meher Baba IS God, nor write argumenets on this basis. This is not acceptable in Wikipedia or any other general encyclopedia. What we write here should make sense to any person, including all those who do not accept Meher Baba's spiritual status. That the article has achievd Good Article status, means that we are relatively succesful in this, and Wikipedia is protective of such or higher status. Hoverfish Talk 15:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its Wikipedia not the 'Avatars Abode Flash' for devotees. And what do we really know about how the Avatar of the age remembers who he is, except what he himself revealed. Besides minor Avatars have masters e.g. Shivaji and Ram Das so influence or training or a ]] in the wrong place.......seriously lets chill. But H fish is right, this article is for general readership and is doing 'Good' at it Jones.liam (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It would only be OR if there were no explicit sourcing to that effect. However, I have to agree that if there are reliable sources which state that Baba was "influenced" by other individuals, it would make sense to indicate that in the article, so long as WP:DUE is adhered to. If those named "others" are counted among the most significant "influences" on Baba, then it certainly would make sense to add them to the infobox. For most individuals, who they were as children is of direct relevance to the type of person they were as an adult. If that sort of perspective makes it easier for adherents of Baba to realize the possible importance of inclusion of information regarding the influence of possible prior incarantions, that's fine. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Incident Report Filed
Please see this Incident Report. I have requested that an administrator review recent changes and determine what additional action is required. Please feel free to comment there. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * uw-3rr issued and IP editor advised to discuss here. Rodhull  andemu  18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit request from No2vndlsm, 4 September 2010 - Please change influenced by in this page to 5 perfect masters: here is the citation ^ Infinite Intelligence, Meher Baba, Sheriar Press, 2005, p. 117

Edit protected/preload —Preceding unsigned comment added by No2vndlsm (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such field in this template. Meanwhile, please see WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK. Rodhull  andemu  19:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent move of avatar
I wish some would give some feedback to the recent move of the word "avatar." I was so disappointed I did not catch it before its move so I could have discussed it. My comments are at Talk:Avatar. It seems a shame to move a several thousand year old Sanskrit Hindu word to a disambiguation page and relegate "Avatar (Hinduism)" as one of its many meanings along with pop culture terms, films and TV shows loosely based on the Hindu word and its concept. I don't think it is encyclopedic. I think my comparison to moving Christ to Christ (Christianity) on a page with pop bands and product lines named Christ is reasonable. To any scholar Christ is its Christian term principally, and Avatar has as its principal meaning its ancient philosophical Hindu sense. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied there at Avatar Talk page and advise others to as well to keep the discussion centralized The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm thats a pity, this is one of the problems in Wiki Sunrise Hunter (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits and revert
A large amount of text was added by an IP user, who also removed the "influences" from the infobox again. I have reverted the edits. Please, discuss here on possible additions. Hoverfish Talk 23:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote the Universal Message?
Hi, I'm new to the editing aspect of Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if this the right section of this talk page in which to post this, but I feel very strongly that Baba's entire Universal Message should be posted in the entry. Perhaps a new section under "1950s" could be created entitled "The Universal Message." It isn't that long and so wouldn't take up that much space. As I know you've put a lot of work into the entry on Baba, and there is probably some sort of protocol for editing, I didn't want to just create a new section myself out of the blue. The reason I feel strongly about including the entire Universal Message is that Baba said that it should be spread far and wide, irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not, and that it is universal and for all. As the Wikipedia entry on Baba is now the number one result in a Google search for Meher Baba, including the Universal Message would ensure that it is spread far and wide. Further, Baba said that He attached the words in His book God Speaks with a spiritual energy akin to an atomic spiritual bomb, a part of which is absorbed by the reader and which later proves very important to the reader's spiritual progress. Although He didn't say this also applies to the Universal Message, I believe the same holds true for it. Baba said to bring His name to people's ears and He will bring it to their hearts. I feel the Universal Message can help to do this perhaps more than any other of Baba's messages. Please let me know what you think. p.s. If the entire Universal Message were included, the section entitled "Silence" could be edited to include all or part of the following quote (rather than the excerpt from the Universal Message included there now):

"I have come to sow the seed of love in your hearts so that, in spite of all superficial diversity which your life in illusion must experience and endure, the feeling of oneness, through love, is brought about amongst all the nations, creeds, sects and castes of the world.

"In order to bring this about, I am preparing to break my Silence. When I break my Silence, it will not be to fill your ears with spiritual lectures. I shall only speak One Word, and this Word will penetrate the hearts of all men and make even the sinner feel that he is meant to be a saint, while the saint will know that God is in the sinner as much as He is in himself." This quote can be found at http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp?pageBase=page.jsp&nextPage=4547.

Other quotes that could be used are at http://www.meherbabamanifesting.com/meaning-of-babas-silence/why-meher-baba-observed-silence/. Though some of these quotes are not sourced, the source(s) could be located if the inclusion of one or more of the quotes is found to be appropriate.

Ambkj123 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ambkj! Welcome to the monkey house.


 * Long quotes, such as the Universal Message, are not appropriate to Wiki articles, and if you were to include them, other editors would likely revert your changes. Short quotes that illustrate specific facts are very appropriate. These would likely be argued over, but not simply removed.


 * You might have a look here: WP:NOT. Also WP:NPS.


 * Including references and clickable links to the items mentioned in the article, such as the Universal Message, might be helpful. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, a clickable link to the Universal Message would be great. After skimming the article and using a Google site search (i.e., '"Universal Message" site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba'), I didn't see the Universal Message mentioned in the article itself. I think a great place to include a clickable link to it would be in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the first section, which now reads "On February 10, 1954, Meher Baba declared that he was the Avatar (an incarnation of God).[11]." It could be edited to read "On February 10, 1954, Meher Baba declared that he was the Avatar (an incarnation of God)[11], and on July 10, 1958, he released his Universal Message [with 'Universal Message' being a clickable link]." I think the flow of the article is kept both stylistically and topically by including the clickable link here because of the parallel structure (i.e., "On...Meher Baba declared...on...he released....") and because it ties in Baba's declaration of His Avatarhood with the Universal Message, in which He more publicly declared His Avatarhood. Placing a clickable link to the Universal Message in the first section of the article would also serve two purposes: 1) the first section is a summary of the most important aspects of Baba's life, so including the clickable link there would ensure that His most important message receives due prominence, and 2) including the clickable link near the start of the article would help fulfill Baba's wish that more people read the Universal Message, as some people probably do not read the entire article. Please let me know if you think that it likely that this change would not be reverted by other editors, as I'll set to work on it right away if that's the case. --Ambkj123 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Be bold. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much Nemonoman for your welcome to the "monkey house," as you called it, and your support. I spent hours creating a new Wikipedia page for the Universal Message, only to find out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright that "If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse...," which I don't think that Baba's Trust in India would want done for the Universal Message. The clickable link I made to the Universal Message takes one to it on a Trust webpage, though unfortunately there is no source listed there for the message. An alternative webpage could be http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/univmsg.html, on which a source is given, but I felt bringing Wikipedia readers to the Trust website would benefit them more by giving them more exposure to Baba's words, as there are links to sixteen of Baba's messages and two of Baba's prayers on the Trust webpage, as well as a link to the Trust's online library. It is possible to email the Trust webmaster to ask him to put a source for the Universal Message on the Trust website if linking to unsourced material is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please let me know if I should do that. By the way, I had this great feeling when I realized the power of Wikipedia--how it's goal to create universal access to information is creating universal access to information about Baba in so many different languages. Ambkj123 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You did everything correctly and made no newbie mistakes. Or to put it another way, you saved up your newbie mistakes for a later edit.


 * When you link to an external site, the need for further attribution or permission no longer applies: it's that site's problem, not yours/wikipedia's problem.


 * Thank you for being bold and being careful. Excellent traits for wikiediting. I hope that you'll stick around and improve other articles as well, not just this one. Leave a message on my talk page if you have other questions. Note that I am no longer a regularly contributing editor, but I do stop in from time to time. You can also put this code on your talkpage and somebody wil quickly assist you. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Arti Section
I reverted the recently added section about the Gujarati arti. Of course this matter is open to discussion...--Nemonoman (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whole poems/songs are not to be quoted in articles
 * The facts, while generally known in the Baba community need references and documentation
 * I personally question whether the writing of this song is an event as notable as the others listed in the article.

Copyedit of lead section
I appreciate the latest copyedit by Parkwells. However the lead section was reduced to one sentence, which is not what Lead section suggests, neither what the peer reviewer had to say about it (Peer review/Meher_Baba/archive1). I have kept the changes but have put back the summary-type lead at the top. I also avoided a one-sentence paragraph that may be justified context-wise, but, quoting the same peer review "Article has many one and two sentence paragraphs, which break up the flow. These should be combined with others or possibly expanded." Hoverfish Talk 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of Lord Meher for references
Lord Meher (LM) is an online resource. This article is online. LM is very handy to use therefore. I'm a little concerned about this as I believe that LM overuse is adversly the quality of the article.

When I visited India in the early 80's and beyond I found something wonderful. Many older Mandali were still alive. We talked of Baba and his life. The prose and flavor of Lord Meher does not represent what I found there IMHO. Bhau Kalchuri was there too but again IMHO he was a minor planet in that celestial place at that time. Older Mandali who had been with Meher Baba longer attracted large crowds.

The questions I'm asking are these. Has this article become unbalanced? Does this article need to quote more from other printed resources to get depth and breadth. Donkin, Stevens, Duce, Davy, Mani, Jessawalla and more. Has the article become Bhau centric? Yes LM is a tome and Bhau is very intellectual...but.... LM is only a part of the picture ....yet is it assuming too large a part. No-More-Religion (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the quality of the article would rise if we could include "according to A so-and-so, according to B else", if done properly and within reasonable limits. The point of the article is not to represent one aspect rather than as many as possible. I know there has been an effort to include no more than the most important points of Meher Baba's biography. I also know that there is still some way to get this article to FA status. Can you please discuss here about any points that you find one-sided or possibly missing from the picture? Hoverfish Talk 11:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I will do so. I used to own most of the books by and about MB and from this eclectic collection a rounded view could be had that sometimes resonated within. I think the key in any good article here is to make the major points, as you state so correctly, but it always reads well when the major points come from varied sources. I find that anyway. I believe in response to this issue the insertion of some other authors quotes replacing some LM bits is a good idea. I always thought Don Stevens had some good things to say, and Ivy O Duce too. I know its controversial but too much Bhau is even too much for Bhau. LM may have become a burden. The question remains (if Im right) who will do it? Perhaps we could start with one or two No-More-Religion (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you have the sources needed, it would be best you try some points and we will see what others have to say. If you need any help with citing books, try this link: WP:CITE. Hoverfish Talk 16:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article deals primarily with verifiable facts. To get the article to GA status was hard, as finding sources that experienced editors accepted as reliable wasn't easy. LM, God-Man and Meher Baba, the Awakener made the grade. Read archived discussion pages for the details. Purdom is cited nearly as often as LM. One demand of GA editors was to provide a balanced POV, and one nice thing about Kalchuri's books is they are very complete and thorough and contain notes of criticism and concern missing in other books about Meher Baba. In any case, the article isn't supposed to have a point of view, Kalchuri's or anybody's, and I'm darned if I can see any influence of Kalchuri's POV or his interpretation of events in this article, any more than I can find Purdom's or Hayne's or Time Magazine's for that matter. I'm no big fan of Kalchuri's books ar his public speaking, but I'm grateful that he assembled LM, thus providing a pretty complete compendium of th essential source materials about MB. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL re public speaking, but I hear what you are saying. Yes Im grateful to LM as well for its structural and detailed approach, but at times I wonder how much is Bhau i.e. flowery and devotional sections. Was Baba like that? AFAIK, no. Were some followers very devotional? yes, coconuts at his feet and the like. I have this peristent hunch that in time people will be wanting to peel back the LM stuff to find what really went on.

I do believe the threads of all the other mandali need to be kept alive as much as possible lest they be swamped by LM. Baba was a full and complex and intriguing person, if I may say so. Words fail me. He did far more than just devotion, he had it all. It is examples of these characteristics that may be found in other publications. IMHO, I have seen felt them, these may give a more wholesome and human touch to this big tale. Its just a personal view, but one I feel that at least needs to be aired and put out there, here. Having said that, you have all done a good job here I dont want to come across as critical. In part Im saying these things because I am disturbed by Bhaus net chats and his devotees and the guru like look of the thing. This has made me re appraise LM somewhat No-More-Religion (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the writers of this article are very careful about the points you make. However, there is a difference between the "out there" and the "here". "Out there" we may start a website and point out about trends of followers, differentiate Baba's life and points from the need of followers to form "inner rules" which may well become a religion some day. But "here" is an encyclopedia, with very precise rules about what may be included and what, if included, makes the quality of an article questionable, to say the least. Please do read the past archives of the discussion to get an idea of what the writes of this article have been up against to get it to the quality it is in today. In specific, I am refering to parts of archives #4 and #5 at a time when an experienced editor named "jossi" (now blocked indefinietly from editing wikipedia) did a very detailed criticism of the article during which mainly Nemonoman responded by doing the most careful work in order to base the article on verifiable facts. Also I do not see in what you say any concrete example of any stated fact that may need to be changed or amended in this article. Hoverfish Talk 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made no secret about my connection to Meher Baba, but I have made every effort to keep my personal feelings and interpretations in check in my work on this article. I've been involved with several long articles on controversial topics, and I have tried to apply the same editorial principles here as in my other Wikiediting. Many editors have worked on this piece, many of them with no apparent affection for or even knowledge of Meher Baba. Knowledge and affection however, thank god, are not required to be a good wikieditor. In fact the lack of knowledge and affection concerning a subject can be a real help in providing guidance. Those good editors have demanded an article that is comprehensive, documented and verifiable, encyclopedic (i.e., thorough but compact review of the noteworthy facts), and most especially an article that is written with a Neutral Point of View.


 * Regarding the use of Lord Meher -- or any source -- it's good to remember some Wiki-principles, that on their surface may appear paradoxical. If you intend to be a Really Good Wikieditor, you need to live by them, however.

Neutral Point of View:
 * Wikipedia articles must be neutral in their point of view.
 * The sources cited in Wikipedia articles are not required to be neutral.

Reliable Sources
 * Sources cited in Wikipedia articles must be reliable.
 * However, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

To summarize:


 * 1) Article content must be neutral, but not necessarily "true".
 * 2) Sources must be reliable and verifiable, but not necessarily "neutral".


 * There is absolutely no place in this article, or in Wikipedia, for interpretation, agendas, or Original Thinking of any kind. Since your comments, I've read and reread the article looking for "Bhauist" interpretations or "Bhau-only" facts. There may be a log in my eye, but I'll be damned if I see anything. On other controversial articles I've worked on, it has become necessary to provide two independent references for each fact in order to smooth the ruffled feathers of the main editors. I think it would be no problem to double-reference every fact in the article. No problem but a pain in the ass.


 * Anyway, there's a simple remedy for anyone who wishes a Wikipedia article would be written differently: click edit button and have at it! So many people have brought their ingredients, that this Stone Soup has become a really delightful meal. Since it is very likely the most read information about Meher Baba (many more than a million visits per year), I want the article to be the very best it can be. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I look forward to your thoughtful editing.

--Nemonoman (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed by you two and your answers. AFAICT this site is in good hands No-More-Religion (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on moving "Avatar" back to primary topic
I want to notify everyone concerned that there is a second discussion going on about moving the term "Avatar" (as primary topic) from the film to the classical Hinduist concept, also used by Meher Baba. You can participate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_%28Hinduism%29#Requested_move_2. Hoverfish Talk 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Result: triumph of the righteous!--Nemonoman (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect master
There are logical problems with stating in the lead section that "Meher Baba was a perfect master". People who are not familiar with the term "perfect master" (and this is the huge majority of people), would be confused as to what we are saying. Especially the first paragraph should explain something in a simple way. The terms "spiritual master" and "mystic" do explain something to most people. Now, we do have an article on Perfect Master which does explain the term according to Meher Baba's use of it. Still, we would have to say it in the form "Meher Baba claimed to be a perfect master". I think that "spiritual master and mystic" is much better in this case. Hoverfish Talk 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless and until there are verifiable sources that confirm that Meher Baba was a perfect master, we must prefer the less specific and less freighted term spiritual master: his spirituality is verifiable, and he it is verifiable that numerous persons regarded him as their spiritual master and guide. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Schools
Perhaps the editor who added "Christianity" to the schools element of the infobox was referring to Meher Baba's attendance at a Christian-run school in Poona. But schools in the infobox refers and redirects to schools of thought (not education). Christianity and Christian philosophy have not much affected Meher Baba's teaching, and his teaching has not been directed at Christian theology or much affected it. His basic thinking mirrors classic Vedantism more than any other philosophy. He enlarged on Sufi teachings and was big influence on the modern day Sufi movement. The entirety of his philosophy is permeated by mysticism -- that a person may achieve direct awareness of divinity. Christianity does not come into it. --Nemonoman (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * N.: I agree with your overall assessment here, and am not currently advocating listing Christianity within the schools infobox (since, if anything, MB's take on Christianity is unorthodox, compared to what goes by that name now), but just wanted to mention that the claim that "Christianity does not come into it" is not really accurate, either. MB made direct structural parallels between his definition of "Avatar" and "God-Man," "God-Man" being an explicitly Christian theological term. He also had various mandali recite Christian prayers, at times, and near his death reiterated, "I am the Christ." Your own definition of mysticism, above, is also not at all at odds with many branches or Christianity, particularly Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Only commenting on this since I don't think it's as clear-cut an issue as you portray it to be, although I agree with your judgment that Hindu and Islamic schools are more explicit parallels, at least as far as "schools of thought" go. But counting the number of times MB used the term "Christ," one starts to get a different picture, at least as far as avowals go. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree about Christianity not being as strong a trend as to place it in the infobox. As far as thought, God Speaks is a develpment of Advaita Vedanta, and (not to mention Infinite Intelligence) so is most of the Nothing and the Everything, except from the part where parallels with the Holy Trinity are drawn, which, however, I seriously doubt any Christian scholar would readily accept as characteristic of any "Christian school", Western or Eastern. But it is true that Baba often made parallels with Christian terminology. However, as the Avatar, he spoke often of Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Mohamed, about their teachings and about details of their lives. These points however cannot be considered as belonging to a "school" of one trend or another, since they all center on the identity of the Avatar. He also often spoke about the lives of christian Saints, like Saint Francis, but again these points have a biographical/ethical element rather than belonging to one "school" or another. As we know, for Meher Baba a Saint was well above any religion, facing directly the One and Only God. Hoverfish Talk 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hdtnkrwll. I'm conscious of the items you describe above. Only a fraction of Meher Baba's teachings concern Christianity, and it's not a big fraction. The parts that do have little relationship to existing Christian theology or thought, and have had virtually no impact on current Christian theology or thought. As Hoverfish says, Baba provided essentially vedantic glosses of some few Christian concepts that interested him. One might as well include Buddhism in the mix: Baba mentions a Buddha a few times too. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories
Since 'People considered avatars by their followers' is a subcategory of Category:Deified people perhaps the latter should be removed. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good you noticed. Yes, there is no reason to keep the parent category. Removed parent. Hoverfish Talk 01:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual hierarchy
If such a term is to be used here, it should be included as something someone said. There is no such self-explained thing as a "spiritual hierarchy" beyond what a system of belief or view may assert. The theosophical article on Spiritual Hierarchy does not express Meher Baba's views, therefore some minimum information should be said to place it in Baba's context. If Meher Baba used the term himself in some enlightening context, better to refer to it somehow. That is, if it does not raise an undue weight issue here, which it may. Hoverfish Talk 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true that Baba's sense of the term "spiritual hierarchy" is not the same as the Theosophical one, not even close. To digress into this topic I think is undue weight, as Hoverfish suggests, as there is no end to such sub-topics. I think the reference to the hierarchy, given that it is not as normally defined in popularized esoteric schools, and would require a great deal of further explanation, should be removed. Also, the concept of a perfect master as it is linked to can be understood without such a digression. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, Tom1New, discuss here before reinserting the term "spiritual hierarchy". To mention in the edit summary that what you are adding is the "correct information" is not a proper reply to the concerns raised here. Meher Baba did use the term and what you add is correct in the context he used it. This is not the problem. The problem is that wikipedia is not written for people who are familiar with such "constructs" (as you put it in the theosophy article) but it has to make sense to any reader. So if such a term is used, it needs to be explained. The problem with this is: how many constructs that need to be explained can we introduce into a biography article without deviating from its purpose? Hoverfish Talk 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Important
The page is being vandalized by users. The page is being edited with statements such as Cult Leader - which was never indicated or stated by Meher Baba himself.

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).
 * It does not require him to state it, for it to be stated in reliable sources, which were well cited in the article to very reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For such a minor thing to be in the lead of an article, it constitues undue weight, ConcernedVancouverite. Please, think about this. Hoverfish Talk 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've spent a good deal of time reading the reliable secondary sources on this topic now, and have realized that they have not been adequately represented in the dozens of articles related to Meher Baba. The additional citations I have added are to both academic articles written exclusively about the topic, as well as popular press in major newspapers.  One example of the sources includes, Robbins, Thomas. 1969. "Eastern Mysticism and the Resocialization of Drug Users: The Meher Baba Cult", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8,2:308-317.  The Journal_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Religion is a peer reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell.  Articles on Wikipedia need to represent a neutral point of view, and the current tone of the writings about Baba have all been ignoring the cult angle, which is well cited, and as such I believe needs to be included to balance out the coverage.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You know and I know that all this started from this new editor that got on everybody's nerves with his behaviour. This is biased editing. I do not name it vandalism, because I am not sure if this is what it's called, but I definitely support Nemonoman in removing it. Hoverfish Talk 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is certainly room for including a section highlighting the opinion that Meher Baba led a cult if reliable sources may be found. Sources may indeed be reliable even if they are not neutral, and if there are indeed reliable sources suggesting that Meher Baba led a cult, this would be reasonable and even important to include.


 * To suggest, however, that your 6 sources -- which I will review -- are of such merit and such weight as to demand that the lead of the article say "He has been classified as a cult leader." -=- that's a bit of a stretch.


 * Specifically, the lead of an article, per the WP manual of style, is supposed to reflect the later content of the article. Since there IS not later content of "Cult leader classifications", the inclusion of the phrase in the lead is inappropriate. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * MORE: Just looked into you JSTOR article which says among other things: "Baba followers tend to shift their emphasis from passive-contemplative to active-service-oriented..." and I trust that you will include such ameliorating statements. Cult has both a precise technical definition, and a highly freighted connotative aspect. You're waving the bloody shirt, but the first article you cite is actually somewhat positive in tone.--Nemonoman (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Later: I have placed a request for admin review of ConcernedVancouverites numerous recent edits here.

Cult, a pejorative term
Since the word was aired, I took a look to see what I can learn from within Wikipedia about "cult" and "cult-leader". Here is what I find: About leaders (note that there is no definition of cult-leader):
 * 1) The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.
 * 2) While most scholars no longer refer to any new religious movements as cults, some sociologists still favor retaining the word as it was used in church-sect typologies.
 * 3) Because of the increasingly pejorative use of the words "cult" and "cult leader" since the cult debate of the 1970s, some scholars, in addition to groups referred to as cults, argue that these are words to be avoided.
 * 1) "Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders."
 * About this last quote: Even under the grimmest imagination on what may be going on in Meherabad (which is a very open area for anyone to visit and judge for oneself), Sufism Reoriented or any other western centres, I see this description as completely irrelevant to their practices.
 * Another point to make here is that anyone anywhere can be a "Baba follower" and there is absolutely no enrollment, intitiation, fee, rituals one must observe, faith one must profess or anything that is required.
 * Now: If I read a book from Philip K. Dick and I love it and then read more and more of his books and think "Hey this guy has got it all sorted out, I believe he is enlightened" (ok, not really, but just suppose), then I am technically his follower. Now, if some people got together, say in Paris, and decide that they are a "Philip K. Dick cult", A. does this make the (now desceased) writer a cult leader? (and maybe then should we write on every one of his books that he was a cult leader?) and B. does this make me a cult member? Hoverfish Talk 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a very interesting interpretation of what I believe ConcernedVancouverite was trying to express through his research. The expression or term cult leader and the dictionary meaning of the term is what has everyone so upset. I would not presume to speak for a fellow editor nor do I personally know CV's motivations. Assuming good faith I would presume that the term "cult leader" was applied by the media and there for applied here in good faith. Whether applied because Meher Baba indoctrinated young children at the peak of adolescents or simply because of the vast following is not really the issue. The issue is should the properly sourced term be included in this and or other articles. If so how should the term be presented. If not, why? Stop me anytime.... - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to discuss about good faith concerning the latest events with you, at any length you like, but in my talk page if possible. Here I would only like to give you my answer to your "how", which I have been trying to get across to others lately, and which is: "with due weight and in the proper section". Any further explanations I would like to leave to the most laborious editor of this article, who has managed to get it through peer review and to GA, because I think he understands much better than me all the rules of "good article building". One thing I have understood well enough is that the lead section should summarize the contents of the whole article and that therefore anything said there should be in correct proportion (in size and emphasis) to the actual contents of the whole article. Therefore, even if well cited, if one states in the lead that X was a cult leader, this has to reflect an essential part expounded in the article. Hoverfish Talk 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand exactly what you are saying. I appreciate your directness now. I am the first to admit that I only know what I have read on this subject. Very little at this point. But I am supportive of the initial editors approach due to his having neutrally researched the topic. However I can see where strategic wording and placement is paramount. I am going to drop a note at ConcernedVancouverite and ask him to join the conversation. As well as a couple of other concerned editors.
 * Please understand that I am only concerning myself with this particular matter because what was several obviously biased editors making some pretty wild claims of vandalism out of what amounted to a well sourced addition and then the edit-warring when that didn't work. I could really care less how the article is worded, as long as it is fairly balanced and neutral. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't fairly well balanced and neutral it would have never made it to GA, and I assure you it took a hell of a lot of work to get there. Check the edit history at the period around the peer review time if you want to get an idea of all the work to get there. Hoverfish Talk 23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I do not seem to be speaking clearly, my apologies. I was referring to the possible addition of the subject matter at hand. Not the over all condition of the article space. While the article is well written, I am a strong believer that well sourced information should be included properly. As of this moment the conversation appears to be stale however. I'll be watching here for the time being. - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the conversation stale? I am responding. I am not sure what exactly you expect to see happening for it to be fruitful. I do not see any concrete proposal me or anyone could comment on. I agree about properly sourced information. What else can I say? Hoverfish Talk 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You and I can and do agree but there are others who need to participate in this conversation. The stale statement was not meant as a stab at you. There are a few other things I am working on as well and while I do enjoy a good conversation, I am not really here for that. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well as you may know, the one got blocked for a week for 3R, so we will have to wait for him. Still, one thing I would like to say is that I have problems finding most of the references given for the "cult leader" argument, so there is no way for me to guess their content and form any opinion at all. The first one, which is the only one I can find online, does not actually use this word/phrase. So there is even less for me or anyone to say. Can you or CV in fact validate that the articles in question refer to Meher Baba as a cult leader? Hoverfish Talk 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Influences in Info Box
I can't find an MOS for the Meher Baba info box. I've looked at a bunch of other Guru pages on WP and can't find any with a "Main Interests" section except this. I'm removing the "citation needed" callouts: reasoning is that the citations for these assertions are available in the article. The infobox seems in all Guru pages to be an encapsulation of both fact and consensus editorial opinion. Who decides the specific "Famous Quote" found on many Guru infoboxes? So my reasoning is that the "Main Interests" represents -- or SHOULD represent -- an editorial consensus that these assertions are backed up the article content.

Since I haven't seen the item in any other Guru infobox, however, I think we might be well-advised to drop it altogether, or to push for its inclusion in other infoboxes. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am for dropping it altogether. I don't say that Meher Baba had no main interests, and surely Art was one of them, althought I think the Aesthetics was meant in a philosophical way here, but since these points can be described in the text, we don't need to have them concisely stated in the infobox, where they can be easily misinterpreted. Also I find the "School" entry/ies as easy to misinterpret. Baba was a School of his own, and although he did a lot of syncretizing with Sufi and Wester mysticism terms, I think the only relevant "school" that can be safely stated in the infobox is Advaita Vedanta. Hoverfish Talk 17:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm personally neutral on what others decide to do. I like it as it is, but I don't feel strongly either way. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A look at infoboxes of some other well-known spiritual figures might provide some ideas. I checked, for example Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, Satya Sai Baba and others. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Question
Dazedbythebell, around Oct. 2009 (Talk:Meher_Baba/Archive_10) deleted a quote from Eruch re: silence themes, on the grounds that it was a supposedly questionably attributed quote, somehow not directly from Eruch, and/or was from a non-reliable source, etc. (it was in fact quoted from a transcript of a talk Eruch had given, reproduced within a 1992 issue of the Glow magazine, verified by others here to be a published source). Now, within the Repentance Prayer article, D. has quoted from a secondhand account of a separate talk Eruch had given, distilled within an article in the Love Street Lamppost (Prayer_of_Repentance). My question is: why is this even more indirect and summarized quote from Eruch, in the prayer's case, considered reliable as a source, yet the direct quote from the transcript of Eruch's other talk, in the silence case, in not considered reliable, yet both are published in verifiably sourced periodicals, both referring to talks Eruch had given in Meherazad? (That is, both quotes from Eruch were given and received in the exact same setting.)

Just to be clear, I'm personally fine with citing from both sources in a factual, fair/NPOV way, yet why is an indirect, summarized quote from Eruch, via Parks, considered reliable, yet a quote from an actual transcript of a talk by Eruch is considered unreliable (when in fact a transcript is more reliable than a summary), both from published periodicals? If anything, the Glow (the source D. had previously deleted) is the more formal publication, more of an edited magazine and less of a newsletter.

Also, now that there is explicit context within the article about the silence issues, thanks to N. & H.'s additions, I don't see how including Eruch's quote from the Glow would be undue weight, given its importance and thematic parallels with Bhau's account. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's documentation about how the editors came to the decision to remove the quote in question from the Meher Baba article. I'll summarize from my memory, which is getting worse all the time.
 * First the Glow is not an ideal reliable source. It is not "generally" reliable. It's reliablity needs to be established for each individual citation.
 * Next the article itself was problematic. It worked something like this:
 * The article was about some aspect of Baba's silence
 * The article was rhetorical -- that is, it had been written to make a point
 * In support of his point, the author described a talk he had heard several years before
 * The author provided a "trasnscript" of SOMEONE ELSE'S TALK
 * The transript represented that person's words AS HE REMEMBERED THEM NOW, not from a recording or from contemporaneous notes
 * It was not entirely clear where the "transcript" ended and the author's rhetoric began.


 * Especially important in deciding on removal was that there were no other references to this talk ANYWHERE. In fact the article seemed to be intended as a Revelation of the author's idea. In Rhetoric Classes I have heard this mode called "I know something you don't know."


 * Now as a human being, I had a lot of pleasure reading that transcript. But as a Wiki-editor, citing it as a source gave me real heartburn. Particularly as the Meher Baba article went through the Good Article review. I have made quite public that I personally follow the teachings of Meher Baba, and acknowledge that this may affect my judgment on many matters, and I therefore specially rely on other more objective editors for opinions of verifiability and reliability.


 * This citation was full of holes. If we want to maintain GA quality for this article, it means making unpleasant choices.


 * You might have a look at the archives of discussions surrounding the GA process for this article. We took a number of questions to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and made a couple RFC's, if I remember right. One of the big items was to establish whether Lord Meher could be considered a reliable source.


 * I will note that I am not a big Fan of Lord Meher as read: I think it's overwrought and boring. But the book went through a very thorough editing process and contains many footnotes, newsclippings, transcripts of printed articles, etc. In short it seems to me to be a Reliable Source. But in the eyes of the Reliable Source Noticeboard, it didn't qualify as a fully reliable source -- citations from LM could and should be able to backed up by secondary sources. So for many citations from Lord Meher we also developed backup citations. That meant that some items that appeared ONLY in LM didn't survive cutting in this article.


 * I have practically no involvment with Prayer of Repentance, but I would guess that it is an article still in flux and not yet ready for the rigor of a GA review. When and if the editors want to step up that game, they'll be forced to follow the rules more rigorously. A lot more fouls get called when the game as actual referees. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This does not alter in any way the reliability or non-reliability of Lord Meher and its footnotes as cited in this article or elsewhere: it has come to my attention that most, if not all, of the footnotes in Lord Meher, in both the printed and the online versions, have been addded by Lawrence Reiter without the approval of Bhau and now the whole set of volumes will be reprinted without them. This is just information I have received, but nothing I can cite, unless something reliable is released on the issue in the near future. Hoverfish Talk 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, well this discussion and past discussion here at least confirms for me that D.'s edits have not, in fact, been based on Wikipedia policies per se, then: he's deleted this article's citation of the Glow article, which quoted a direct transcript of Eruch on the silence issues, but added an even less reliable source (by the criteria N. notes above) to reproduce an even more indirect & secondhand quote from Eruch, to the Repentance Prayer article. I'll leave it at that. (Respectfully, N., you are mistaken on your last two points, though: the Glow article's transcript was from a recording, not from the author's or editor's memory, and the article's formatting makes it perfectly clear where the transcript begins and ends.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember very well what happened back then and Dazedbythebell did not take any action that was not thoroughly discussed and decided here in advance. What is going on in the prayer article is another issue, with very different factors to be considered, and it should be discussed there not here. Hoverfish Talk 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, H., it was not "decided in advance" -- if you review the discussion carefully, both yourself & N. were each on record saying that, despite your respective misgivings, you were not going to delete the Glow article citation; then D. deleted it. The Prayer article is another article, but the issues involved are exactly the same, as far as sourcing criteria goes, unless you are suggesting that Wikipedia policies should apply differently to different articles. I have yet to hear exactly what sourcing criteria is different, btw, or why the same sourcing issues don't apply across articles. I'll stop writing about this here, though; there's a separate question added to the discussion page of the Prayer article. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Hdtrkwrll: Several wiki principles apply here:
 * First, Be Bold. Second: Break all the Rules. If you feel you have a point to make, make it. If you need to cite or uncite something, please do so.


 * If you think the Eruch/Silence/Glow transcript is a verifiable source, by all means be bold and reinsert it. I think you will find that a general consensus of editors will not find it so.


 * >>'the article's formatting makes it perfectly clear where the transcript begins and ends.'

The formatting indeed makes it clear where the author of the article asserts that the words are his, and when he asserts that they are someone else's. But since the entire article is based on memory and reflection, and since there is no recording of the talk or contemperaneous notes so far as I know, I'm not sure that the line is quite as bright as your comments suggest.


 * Standards of verifiability @ wikipedia are constantly in flux, and what passed for verifiable yesterday may be deleted as garbage tomorrow. The article on Parapsychology for example attained Featured Article status, and about a year later had virtually every reference removed as unverifiable. Go figure. As to what's different between this article and the other, I'm both ignorant and indifferent. If you think the other article's criteria should apply here, apply them. If you think this article's criteria should apply there, apply them. Be bold. Don't be surprised if not everyone agrees with your opinion, whatever it happens to be. Happy Editing! --Nemonoman (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@N.: Thank you for these comments, but what I'm not understanding is where this notion that the "entire article is based on memory and reflection" is coming from -- right on p. 13, in ¶ 3, T.P. writes, "The tape begins with Eruch imitating the sound he heard..." Are you taking this "tape" to just be a metaphor for his mind or imagination, for some reason? Have you read this article carefully, from the beginning? To me, "the tape begins" is clearly referring to a recording, which is why there is a transcript included. Which is also why this article is much more reliable, in fact, that the recent quote used by D. elsewhere, which is just summarized indirectly via Parks. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also...the talk by Eruch was on February 6, 1992, then published in the May 1992 issue of the Glow, just three months later. Are you seriously claiming that that amount of time is too long of a publication delay, for a quarterly magazine?? My original question, though, was: if this is an issue in this case (Eruch reflecting back to 1969 in 1992, the case D. deleted), then why isn't Eruch reflecting back to 1951 in 2000 even more of a concern in this regard, in the other case which D. has just added elsewhere?? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid any confusion: the "contemporaneous notes" for Eruch's comments in 1992 was his 1969 letter to his brother Merwan, which is explicitly mentioned in the article, as even being physically present with them on 2/6/1992. I do assume peoples' comments are coming from a "good faith" perspective, but sometimes I do wonder if these comments re: the 1992 Eruch article are from a misremembered version of the text, and not based on the text itself? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, and I am not very advanced in the knowledge and experience of raising articles to Good or Featured status, I do not consider this Glow article appropriate as a citation in a GA (but not in ANY article) because its title consists of a quotation in big captals followed by Eruch's name in capitals, whereas the writer's name is not stated except maybe in the end note, where it is stated that Tony Paternity has marginally edited the transcript, not that he has written the article, not that he has selected the various quotes from Eruch and placed them in such a way as to clarify a point that he (Tony Paternity ?) wants to make. In my opinion, this editorial fact and only this, is too misleading for use here. Someone else than Eruch is writing about Eruch under Eruch's name. Maybe this was not intended so, but this is what I see from the photocopies that Hdtnkrwll has provided us. I do not know if in the contents of this issue of Glow the name of the writer is stated, but here it is not. This is why I find this a very bad choice for a citation in a good article. Hoverfish Talk 10:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * About the double standard issue raised, I would like to add that much more questionable citations are often given in smaller articles, especially stubs, where any information on basic facts is badly needed. Often such articles get tagged for need of better citations, and such tags can stay on the article for years. If however such an article is nominated for a higher status, the quality requirements are such that all these tags have to go by eliminating the reason they have been placed there. This is not a case of double standard in Wikipedia, it is a case of tolerance of a questionable citation among lower quality articles. But even so, such questionable citations, although they can be used to justify some parts of the content (which may well be contested), they cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic itself. For example, if all I have is the Glow citation and the transcript from Bhau's chat and, based on these, I try to start an article called "The breaking of Meher Baba's silence", it is 99% certain that this article will be nominated for deletion. Hoverfish Talk 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Hdtnkrwll I am totally ready to believe there's a tape and that the quote is a fair transcript. Because as stated above I have a COI (conflict of interest): I'm one the followers of this master. On the other hand I am also a WP editor who has made an effort to bring several articles to GA or FA status. Let me break it to you gently: It's a non-reliable source. That there's a reference to a tape in this non-reliable source does not increase its reliability insofar as WP Reliable Sources is concerned. If the tape were available as an MP3 or something on line, and the Glow transcript could be compared to the transcript, you MIGHT and emphasize MIGHT be able to squeak that through a Reliable Source review. You and I may believe the reliability of that source...I for one am acquainted with both the author of the article, and the Editor of the journal, and I am 100% convinced of their reliability. My recommendation doesn't carry a lot of weight as regards WP RS standards. Nor would yours. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Hoverfish, N. -- OK, I appreciate these honest comments, yet what I'm basically hearing, then, is along the lines of (distillation:) "RS criteria is only significant because someone someday is going to try to enforce it in the process of an article's status review process" (even though, as far as Wikipedia as a whole, all different types of articles continuously coexist for reading anyway, so the difference probably isn't all that significant to most W. readers). Verifiability criteria is very clear to me, and important, but the "reliability" factor can and is just spun any which way, it seems to me, if it's just used to preclude source inclusion in article X prior to a hypothetical, future (next) status review, or if used to justify using the very same criteria in article Y which an editor may be criticizing in article X. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Hdtnkrwll This article draws a lot of attention and agenda-jamming. Because we made the effort and succeeded in bringing the article to GA standard, it's in a better neighborhood now. It's on the watchlists of a number editors and admins who have no direct association with Meher Baba, but who make it their habit to keep an eye on certain potentially turbulent articles like these. Going through the GA process, stepping up to both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia rules means faster resolution of disputes. Example: the recent spate of "cult leader" edits -- and editor who inserted the words "cult leader" with six footnotes to articles about cults on to this and several other pages associated with Meher Baba. Hoverfish and I followed the Verifiability and Reliable Sourcing rules with those citations, and found that they didn't really cross over the bar. Our subsequent deletion of the edit had some backup from other editors, because we applied the same criteria to this new editor's additions as we had done to our own during the GA review. If the stability and integrity of an article is important to you, you do things to get into the Big Leagues. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Darshan vs. Darśana
I changed the spelling of Darshan back to its original form for several reasons. First, the article Darśana clearly shows that "Darshan" is an acceptable spelling. Second, within the article the word is spelled "Darshan" in six other instances, so for the sake of consistency. Third, a Google search for common spellings gives 500 thousand for Darśana and over 17 million for Darshan. Lastly this is the spelling of the word in the sources that the article relies on. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Meher Baba and Paul Brunton
Please see the discussion at Talk:Meher_Baba_and_Paul_Brunton. It is suggested that it be merged with Paul Brunton, and some other issues are brought up there as well. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Section (or subsection) about criticism
As per Dazedbythebell's notice above, I see the possibility of improving the article by including a small amount of the information offered in Meher Baba’s critics (previously titled "Meher Baba and Paul Brunton"), possibly in a new section called "Criticism". The lack of mention of criticism/critics in this article has come up by experienced editors before and recently again. Given the fact that there has been no criticism concerning Meher Baba's teachings, but only pesonal attacks against him, "criticism" will have to be used in this narrow sense. I understand that Due weight has to be carefully implemented to keep the overall quality of the article and that therefore the section will have to be limited to a mere mention of the people who opposed Baba with a short description of their actions and possibly a concise explanation of their motive. As notable examples, I would include Colonel Irani, J.K. Dastur, Meredith Starr, Paul Brunton, Rom Landau, and possibly a few more. Hoverfish Talk 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This sounds fine, so long as it is balanced. For instance, along with what Brunton had to say about Baba, it would be nice to include Baba's own response, which is in the article you mention. I also think that if the section is called "criticism" then it should be about the actual criticism. It is hard to find what the criticism of Baba is by some of these people. For instance, if I psychoanalyze someone's state of mind, and I am not a psychologist, as Brunton tries to do with his guessing about past events he was not witness to in Baba's life with Babajan that he speculates caused Baba to have a screw missing, that is not actually a criticism of Baba, but an unprofessional theory. An article about criticism would name the actual criticisms. Also, in the past, this topic has confused people, because many have wanted to include modern negative feelings about Baba's current Baba lovers, feeling they act strange or are a bit nuts. This is not actually criticism of Meher Baba, and thus doesn't pertain to his biography. So if such a section is launched, I hope it is made clear what the parameters are. If it is criticism of Baba, it should be criticism of Baba. Another thing to keep in mind is notability. There are likely thousands of people who simply don't like something about Baba. He might seem egotistical to them, or they don't like how he looked, or that he was flamboyant, etc. But not all of these can be notable. So what counts as notable? People who met him? Or simply famous people who have expressed not liking him. So I hope it remains on Baba, and that if it is a list of his critics (rather than the actual criticisms), that the selection is from notable people, and hopefully from people who met him, or are experts in the field of spiritual teachers, etc. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One other thing. A person who expresses not liking someone else is not a critic of that person. Nor is a statement of one's feelings about someone based on one's preferences actually criticism of that person. Rather these are statements of taste. If there is a credible case of Baba committing a crime, or doing something morally reprehensible such as embezzling money, lying, etc., that would be criticism. But if a person writes in a book that Baba was eccentric or that he seemed to adore himself, these don't seem like criticims. In short an article on criticism ought to focus on those cases where something truly wrong and that is considered unacceptable is pointed out or allegated. With Brunton I don't see that. Lots of historical people have had extremely eccentric, and even egotisitical personalities, such as Truman Capote. But someone's mentioning finding such behavior repulsive to them, is not a Capote critic. He simply has a certain taste in behavior within a normal range of eccentricity, generally accepted by the majority with regard to notable and famous people. We don't have a section under every eccentric of people pointing out how they felt about their eccentrities. Anyway, I am all for such a section, but would hope that some parameters can be come to by consensus that makes the section really about its subject title, and not just a place holder to make some editors feel their very interesting writing has been included. Sorry to be so long-winded. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is what I also expressed in the Critics article "where is the criticism?" and I was told it was "adhominem criticism", in plain terms "personal attacks". But I agree with you that criticism may not describe well the defamatory attacks of Colonel Irani or the unqualified evaluations of Brunton. I am open for a better title for the suggested section, though I can't think of a good term (people who opposed MB, claims against MB ?). But surely, whatever it is, it has to be focused on Baba and not his followers. Hoverfish Talk 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It could be titled Notable People's Personal Feelings about Baba's personality. Or it could be called Feelings about Baba. Another possibility is Dislikers of Baba and this would inclusive of all the named people. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

However it should definitely not be titled Criticism of Meher Baba and then be followed by no criticism of him, as the current article is written that we are trying to merge here. If it is Critics of Baba, it should include also again critics, which means bringing up the criticisms, not just their dislike. The problem that we have been having is having criticims when the word "critic" and "critisim" is used as the subject header (as the topic header of this discussion says we are discussing). So far this hasn't been done. Rather what people are putting in is personal feelings, with no clear explanation for what these feelings have to do with Baba. For instance in the past many have wanted to include in this biographical article books by people that describe their dislike of Baba followers. But this is not a criticism of Baba. It is a statement of feeling, and could have any number of explanations. Thus either the section should be about Baba's failings as a human being, crimes or sexual perversions, etc, or it should just be a section on how well he was liked and disliked by certain various notable people. So it could be a "Reception" section. So then it could be titled Baba's Reception by notables during his lifetime. But if it's criticism it has to have some criticism, i.e. behaviors generally agreed by the majority of people to be bad (outside the realm of entirely acceptable eccentricities that many famous people exhibit). Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfavorable Opinions About Meher Baba??--Nemonoman (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine. It has my vote. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think this describes the content I had in mind best. Thank you Nemonoman. Hoverfish Talk 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that the standard term these days was simply "Reception" (as suggested by Dazedbythebell above). I agree that this should include Meher Baba's responses to critics, which are significant in themselves, and these should also be included in a separate final section in the Meher Baba's critics article. I think that some of the points made above about the definition of criticism are arguable. In the case of a spiritual teacher (or whatever you want to call Meher Baba), criticisms of personality are more significant than they would be in the case of, say, a physicist or a historian. It is more difficult to separate the personality from the teaching in the case of the spiritual teacher, and people will be influenced in their opinion by allegations of personality flaws, such as those of Dastur and Brunton. The question of interpretation is also very significant here, and I believe that this is what Stephen Castro was getting at by providing so much contextual material (although it really needs to be cut back). Personally I believe that Meher Baba was a very subtle psychologist, and many of his statements were gnostical in character. So, for example, to say that he broke his promise by not breaking his silence ignores his gnostical statements concerning that event. This involves interpretation of historical statements and events, rather than merely recounting them. But as Wikipedia editors we are not allowed to provide such interpretations ourselves, since that's OR. This is why the (informed) opinions of an author like Shepherd are significant. Simon Kidd (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen "Reception" used in films, books, music bands, scientific theories, but I am not aware of it being any standard term in biographies, so I am very much for "Unfavorable Opinions". As for "criticism of personality", I would expect it to come from a qualified psychologist, not from laymen. Are any of the people you call "critics" qualified to express criticism of personality? If not, the words criticism and critic do not apply, except maybe in a very limited/popular sense which is not appropriate for use here. As for the informed opinion of Shepherd, I see that there is strong disagreement about it being used as a reliable source for Wikipedia in the relevant discussion. Hoverfish Talk 02:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the disagreement has mainly centred on the extent to which Shepherd has been used by other authors (and, as I have just pointed out in that discussion, there are complexities involved in making such judgments). The issue of Shepherd's authorial opinions has not been tackled at all, except where you raised it and I responded. I do not agree at all with your limitation of "criticism of personality" to that made by qualified psychologists. There is no requirement for such criticism to be medicalized in this way. Consider the "failed prophesies" in the case of Criticism of Joseph Smith, or that "Smith was narcissistic and overly concerned with power", to take just two comparable examples. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you could call the section Psychoanalysis of Meher Baba. Where, however, under that tile, would Brunton's descriptions of Baba's "pointy chin" and "receding forehead" come in? Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Unfavorable Opinions" will do, but I can't figure out where it could fit as a subsection. I mean, I doubt there is enough notable material to start a level-one section for it. And no, if it is about facial characteristics it is too trivial to include. - I had a look at the failed prophesy section, and what I see is that Criticism of Joseph Smith should definitely be merged to Joseph Smith. The article is a mess and serves only as a "List of criticism of Joseph Smith". I wouldn't follow suit here. A "disputed neutrality" tag here would be the end of years of good work. Hoverfish Talk 16:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well then it looks like the consensus is for a section here called "Unfavorable Opinions." However, as you say, there is only a little to write that is relevant to this subject, so perhaps this could rather more simply be merged into the Legacy section at the end. For instance, a sentence at the end could begin with the phrase, "Over the years there have been some notable negative opinions of Meher Baba. Among those that are most notable include..." Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * However, I think it's important in such a set of sentences that the actual criticisms be named. To simply say the opinions were "negative" is not really saying anything encyclopedic. So the charge against Baba needs to be expressed clearly. Otherwise it is no more than "Some didn't like Baba at all upon meeting him." Not liking someone is not a criticism of them, but a statement of choice. I'm also okay with the section being about that, if that is what people want to name it. So my point is that it is unfavorable opinions, and not simply unfavorable reactions. The latter is sort of trivial, as no one is liked by everyone. Even Jesus was disliked by many, as is well known, as well as Mohammed. That is why he left Mecca. So the criticisms themselves are what needs to be included, and as you say not his physical appearance. That would really be pointless and obviously mean nothing encyclopedically. As for a psychological theory of trauma, I also don't see that as a criticism. The writer would need to add what Brunton felt the tauma caused in him, not just that some unknown trauma occurred according to a guess. In other words what was the resultant negative behavior that the theory of tauma caused in Baba? Is it that he was strange or unusual or egotistical? That Baba was egotistical in one person's opinion would however be encyclopedic. It is noteworthy that Paul Brunton felt Baba was conceited. Many have noted that. So that might be included. Baba showed an extreme like for himself, and said he was God, and he was very definite that he was the Avatar and what he meant by that, and even that he was "The Highest of the High" and was not shy to say so. So this could be included, as not being seen in a favorable light by Brunton. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But for balance and POV, if the article is to include negative opinions of Baba, it needs to have positive ones as well, of which there are obviously more in print. So far, there is no mention anywhere of how anyone felt about Baba upon meeting him, either positive or negative. Simply then to include negative and not mention the positive would give a false impression that everyone felt like Brunton did, which obviously is not true. So if Brunton's dislike of Baba's personality is encyclopedic, it ought to be given balance with a statement that many also liked him, and mention these people and their statements, and give sources. This would be quite easy to do. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So a section could start out: "While the overwhelming number of biographical sources on Meher Baba describe very warm and positive reception of Baba, and positive appraisal of his character, not all agreed. Talullah Bankhead, after Baba did not break his silence at the Hollywood Bowl, later expressed disgust for his strange behavior. Likewise, Paul Brunton felt that Baba was highly egotistical." How is that? And to that add others, and give references. This would thus form the basis for a nice little section on how people responded to him, which is obviously what some want to include. I'm happy with it if everyone else is. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought: forget about the merging and let's be careful not to add trivia here. So what is of some essence to this biography? Could we take a look at how Baba faced opposition? In his biography it is often mentioned how he was glad to have people oppose him, because he believed that was also useful. Could we start from this and mention instances he was opposed? Hoverfish Talk 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Nemonoman just suggested a title, but I didn't quite get his comment as "consensus" and since I respect his opinion, I am suggesting a shift from "opinion" to "opposition" to maybe have some hepful comment from him here. Hoverfish Talk 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reactions to Meher Baba is good as it eliminates the problems above or Responses to Meher Baba or Reactions and responses to Meher Baba No-More-Religion (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)