Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 12

Criticism vs. Personal Ridicule
Let's be sure to differentiate between criticism and just plane abuse or meanness. For instance, if I point out or allege that someone has commmited some act that is seen as illegal or morally reprehensible, then that is definitely criticism. Howerver, if I say someone has a hair lip, is fat, and is insane, then that is simply abuse. Wikipedia articles do not have sections on published ridicule of people out of spite or simple dislike by those writers. If it did you would see these in nearly all Wikipedia biographies. So again, please keep in mind the difference between criticism (where something morally or legally wrong is alleged) and mere abuse of Meher Baba as a person, or his appearance, or one person's appraisal in that his beliefs were signs of mental maladjustment. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whats needed is an umbrella title, not specific, to allow the full range of responses in one place Reactions to Meher Baba is good as it eliminates the problems above or Responses to Meher Baba or Reactions and responses to Meher Baba

Pete Townsend
Yes its been discussed before. I know: However for the record; The paragraph in Legacy which includes Pete Townsend, IMHO, lets down this article. It needs reviewing. It's unbalanced and makes it sound like but for Pete T Baba was little known. Thank you Pete T ! Not. Its also clumsy and has a very long opening sentence.

I saw above how someone quoted above to reinforce their argument '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 '.

Yeah right. If I changed a few things the same person will likely revert and quote consensus and an edit war will start. I know there are ownership issues here. Its a Baba page so lets talk about the elephant in the room. If you dont think someone had a weird Pete T attachment go back and look at the article when Pete T was a huge section. I mean huge.

So again for the record: That paragraph in legacy is of a lower standard than the rest of the article.

No-More-Religion (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever is adding SPAM to the legacy section should please consider WP:POINT.Hoverfish Talk 13:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @No-More-Religion: As Nemonoman put it above, "If the stability and integrity of an article is important to you, you do things to get into the Big Leagues." To stand outside, state your preferences, complain about ownership by those who do the work and leave comments "for the record" is easy but pointless. The issue of Townsend came up during the Peer Review, so I suggest you take a look at what the reviewer (who has no sense of ownership, is neurtal to the topic and has good knowledge of what is proper and good for an article) had to say: WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Meher Baba : "I read something about expanding "Influence on Pete Townshend". Is there more material? Could possibly a sub-article be created?". Well, sub-articles are not in practice any more, but the first thing that came to his attention was the need for more material on Townsend, not less. Meher Baba certainly didn't need Townsend to make him who he was. It is Wikipedia which needs the connection stated for reasons of "notability". Hoverfish Talk 12:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@Hoverfish...more Pete not less!!!...I liked Tommy too...but thats so hilarious ...LMAO....if MB's life was a beach..Pete would be a grain of sand ...tops....he would agree. I so want u to go back and see the very early article...can u face it? why? someone put all that pete t in. was it you? hmmmm........and i have a life so big league wiki does not rate with me...which does not mean i cant comment..even if u find it offensive to be challenged No-More-Religion (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what the peer reviewer said. You turn it so that it appears being my personal preference. The position I held about reducing the mention of Townsend in the article is in the edit history, so if you want me to go back and look at the beginning of the article, I also want you to go back and check who did what before you start giving me sermons about who is a grain of sand in whose beach. I have never edited under any other username. You are welcome to comment, I am all for free speech, though this page is not available for engaging in personal debates between users. If you feel my role in the edit history of this article is questionable, you are welcome to use my user talk page. Hoverfish Talk 09:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK new tack, lets get to the point...whats stopping this article getting FA status? --No-More-Religion (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalchuri as a source
Following an investigation of self-published and devotee-published sources here, and a subsequent investigation of one particular devotee-published source here, it would appear that Bhau Kalchuri's Meher Prabhu cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Kalchuri is a major source for the Meher Baba article, and for a number of articles relating to Meher Baba, as well as a source for a range of articles on general spiritual topics. Unless someone can demonstrate significant scholarly citation of Meher Prabhu, therefore, I suggest that it be removed, along with any text that it supports (unless reliable sources can be found for such text), with the possible exception of non-self-serving references to Kalchuri himself. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Simon Kidd: I don't want to speak for others here, and I'm a relatively infrequent editor, but I think you're likely about to discover that the main editors of this article (Nemonoman, Dazedbythebell, Hoverfish) tend to not be primarily interested in applying Wikipedia sourcing criteria in an absolutely consistent way. Three quick examples:
 * N. has referred multiple times to the laborious process of defending Lord Meher earlier, to get a RS verdict, yet the same overall criteria which applies to LM as a source is not upheld in principle for other publications which actually have just as much, or more, editorial oversight (specifically a magazine The Glow, published since 1966 -- also a devotee-published source, yet arguably one with consistently greater editorial oversight than the 1st ed. of LM). In fairness, N. has also been much more straightforward than some others about at least needing to neutrally represent minority viewpoints within the article.
 * As someone who is personally familiar with editor of the Glow, and several editors of Lord Meher (I know of at least 5), allow me to give you this personal, non-verifiable observation. If my life depended on the accuracy of a fact about Meher Baba, and I had to choose between a Glow version and a LM version, I would without hesitation choose the one from Lord Meher. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nemonoman --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * D. deleted a quote from a transcript of a 1992 talk by Eruch here, primarily based on sourcing concerns, but has added an Eruch quote from a parallel source with even fewer merits (according to a strict interpretation of RS criteria) on another Meher Baba-related article (see question posed to him here, "Curious, re:...," with no response).
 * That quote was deleted from this article after some discussion that I was involved with. The factoid being presented was that a person, Eruch, had said certain words. The cite was from a small feature in the Glow where a person said he'd heard that certain quote in a tape recording. There was no way to test the accuracy of the person's words: no specific reference to the time or date of the recording, no transcript, no nothing. Supposedly Eruch had said these words to a group of people, and the quote, to say the least, would rock a lot of devotees' world view, yet no other person has publicly affirmed it before or since; Eruch who was alive and writing at the time never wrote anything like the quote. Etc. That was from the Glow. Compare with Lord Meher where items quoted often include photos of the first source of the quote, and references to actual pieces of paper preserved in a library. What people include or don't include in other articles is not my problem. Review the accuracy, verifiability and neutrality of the Meher Baba on its own merits please. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In past discussion, H. has written that he was concerned that including certain lesser-known, eyewitness quotes (specifically re: MB's silence around the time of his death) would be creating a new history of events, or somehow creating a dogma, seemingly unaware of the fact that not including currently known and sourced facts is equally representing history in a particular way, and risks affirming a certain dogma, also.
 * In other words, I think it's clear at this point that the sourcing decisions tend to be made -- whether consciously or not (I don't claim to know, and want to assume good faith edits) -- based on the content of the specific quotes in question, and whether any given quote is in line with editors' personal preconceptions, more so than on consistently applied RS criteria of the sources per se.
 * All this said, I'm not personally going to remove BK's citations myself, unless and until others contribute their own RS rationales, which I would be very curious to read at this point, honestly -- specifically re: how any rationales given for LM as a RS (given its editing history, summary of many others' accounts, temporal distance from times described, etc.) do not also apply to at least a couple other sources discussed here in the past, also. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This ground has been covered extensively at least twice during the good article nomination and reassessment. Your concerns about Lord Meher as a reliable source would be more reasonable if the factoids being referenced were under dispute or controversial. For my part I refer to it only for factoids, which have more reliability, in my personal experience, than any other work.
 * Lord Meher was extensively edited and fact checked by at least five individuals. For facts about Meher Baba, no other work comes close.
 * There are no source materials about Meher Baba, so far as I know, that do not rely directly on Lord Meher or other similar books written by devotees for their facts. Meher Baba has been written about extensively, but the FACTS about Meher Baba have not been subject to independent assessment or investigation. This is not unusual on subjects like this, it is in fact typical.
 * Lord Meher is NOT NEUTRAL. But sources don't need to be neutral. They only need to be reliable. No one to my knowledge has questioned LM's RELIABILITY.
 * The ARTICLE needs to be neutral, however, even if its sources are not. For my part I find Lord Meher's POV objectionable at worst and annoying at best. I have no desire to carry its POV into the article.
 * In summary.
 * An article needs to be neutral, not its sources.
 * The factoids in an article need to be verifiable. Hence citations to reliable sources.
 * Lord Meher and other devotional literature cited in the article is cited for factoids, not POV conclusions.
 * Citing Lord Meher as a RS has been extensively debated. Bring a new argument to the table, or accept the consensus of its acceptablity.
 * If the article contains POV conclusions inspired by the POV of the devotional literature, it should be NPOV'd ASAP.
 * Regarding the provenance of factoids and their inclusion or non-inclusion based on POV: It's a reasonable question, as I'm human and I think most of the other editors of this article are as well, and we are human in our imperfect editing. If you believe that factoids have been added or removed without just cause, please fix it, or bring it to my attention.
 * Meher Baba made GA for a reason. There are dozens, even hundreds of articles on spiritual masters of equivalent notablity. This article was worked over by devotees and non-devotees alike, and found acceptance as a model for articles of this nature. When the subject of the article is an object of devotion, editors need to work hard to establish verifiable, NPOV writing. The GA status suggests that this goal was achieved.
 * Unless you provide an expansion of the argument questioning LM and other sources as reliable -- beyond the enormous swath of ground covered in the RS and GA discussions -- I think it will be reasonable to remove your recent tag.
 * If you have specific objections or doubts please use the tag.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * well said --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

LATER:
 * Simon Kidd It MIGHT have been nice to make some mention on this talk page that you 2 or 3 editors planned to reassess LM as a reliable source. It might have been nice to include a clearer reference to that discussion on the reliability of LM in your comment above, something more obvious than here.
 * I have just read that discussion. It is a POV fest. There was NOT a consensus. You, Simon Kidd, drew a conclusion, one not substantiated by the discussion. If you don't have the courtesy to open the discussion to other interested editors, you are NOT seeking a consensus, you are pushing an agenda.
 * I suggest you rethink your options. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For those editors more interested in developing an encyclopedic article than in promoting an agenda, I have some observations I hope you'll consider.
 * The cites to Lord Meher in this article are to places, dates, quotes, etc. Facts and factoids. In this respect, much as I dislike Lord Meher's Point of View personally, it is (a) considered by devotees to be the most accurate collection of such information, and (b) the most easily verified source of this information, since its entire content is online.
 * Lord Meher, for example provides a useful cite for this factoid: 'He traveled on a Persian passport'. While the same factoid is mentioned elsewhere, only LM includes quotes, letters and statements by Meher Baba's fellow travelers. If someone wanted to look up the cite for more info, Lord Meher provides a little gold mine.
 * The factoid above is of some importance in the history of the article, some agenda-prone editors, notably Iranians have promoted the idea that Meher Baba was Persian, not Indian, using an obscure reference to the Iranian passport as a cite. The Lord Meher cite is so thorough and well documented that it provides a level of certainty necessary to give an accurate picture.
 * So I have no problem using Lord Meher as a source of fact.
 * That said, Lord Meher is NOT in any way a reliable source for certain items. Although Khalchuri says a dozen dozen times "Meher Baba is God Incarnate" etc., it would be half-assed to lede the article with "Meher Baba is God Incarnate." Kidd et al. make a point that Purdom was published by a non-devotee publisher. Yet Purdom says the same thing --"Meher Baba is God Incarnate". Does anyone think a NPOV lead would be "Meher Baba was God Incarnate" -- even if More Reliable Purdom says so?
 * It is up to the editors to discriminate the validity of the factoids they include and the cites with which they back them up. It is up to the editors to achieve consensus.
 * That the editors of this article have handled things correctly is affirmed that the article passed GA not once but twice, in challenging discussions that led finally to a consensus that things had been done admirably enough for GA status.
 * This article, principally because it is based on devotee sources, will never achieve FA status. Unless and until there's a reasonable body of non-devotee cites, that won't happen.
 * In the meantime, it gets viewed about a million and a half times a year. Academics may not be interested enough to dig into the subject, but SOMEBODY the hell is. It's my goal as an editor to make sure they have the most factual, most authoritative, most neutral article available. I welcome any guidance that makes it moreso, not less so. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * N.: I personally agree with you that LM is overall reliable for basic facts. ...I know it's not worth trying to change anyone's mind on the Glow citation of Eruch re: 1969, but your statement above that it contained "no specific reference to the time or date of the recording, no transcript, no nothing" only leaves me to conclude that you either have not read the article, or that you are willfully misrepresenting it (it does contain the specific date, 2/6/92, as well as a transcript -- this is why in the past I've even been so bold as to use the term "denial," in reference to how people sometimes characterize this article). My point in mentioning it again, though, was actually only to contrast all the ire which including that quote provoked with the non-issue of a Love Street Lampost quote from Eruch, which D. added elsewhere, from an even less reliable source (via Parks's recollection of Eruch's statement re: wish/will/marji: a paraphrase vs. transcript, no specific date or even year, longer amount of time between recollection and restatement, etc). My point is just that it's become very obvious that the same RS criteria is (sometimes) applied quite arbitrarily across and within articles, depending on the content of the statement in question, that's all. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, LM has never been discussed on the RS/N and, as far as I am aware, that is the place to discuss it. Otherwise, what purpose does the RS/N serve? It is also my understanding that that venue is primarily for non-involved editors to determine the reliability of sources. For instance, I successfully defended a self-published source on Wikipedia a couple of years ago, using the sort of nuanced interpretation of policy that Nemonoman is using here, and I was supported by experienced admin DGG. Notwithstanding that, the same source was recently queried on RS/N, and the editors there rejected the nuanced interpretation. Moreover, one of them (Fladrif) was very quick to implement the negative verdict, by removing all references to the self-published source within days of the decision. If there is a case to be made for LM, I suggest that it be made in the appropriate discussion on the RS/N. Fifelfoo's verdict there was tentative, pending further evidence, so I don't see why we shouldn't regard that discussion as still open. Regarding neutrality, I don't recall ever criticising LM for not being neutral. The question is whether it is reliable, and for that Wikipedia has guidelines. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, as Simon Kidd at least, you have never successfully defended anything or even edited at all in the RS Noticeboard before. I see that you have taken part in the Conflict of interest Noticeboard and the Good article reassessment, in both cases concerning the biography article of Kevin Shepherd, which has been deleted. Apart from this, I don't see how you expect editors of this article, or group of articles, to participate in the RS Noticeboard, since we are obviously "involved". And for this matter you too are also most involved, since your recent interest in Kalchuri as reliable source arises from the recent rejection of Kevin Shepherd as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 21:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish, I did not say that I successfully defended a self-published source on RS/N, but on Wikipedia. Btw, I also successfully defended an article that I created on Mabo Day. In addition, I successfully defended myself against a spurious sockpuppet investigation instigated against me by someone clearly using an SPA, an episode that was described by another editor (unknown to me) in terms of harassment of myself.


 * As far as I understand it, even involved editors can make a case on RS/N, as long as it is not disruptive, but ultimately the deliberation is up to the uninvolved editors. I have no intention of contributing to the discussion, unless asked to do so.


 * It is true that the case of Kalchuri (and other devotee published sources) relates to that other recent case, since the former were implicated in the discussion and Fifelfoo's verdict. DGG has also compared these two types of source (the self-published and the devotee-published). In both cases (Fifelfoo and DGG), the devotee-published sources were regarded as less reliable than the self-published one. Fifelfoo commented on his Talk Page: "While individual devotional texts written by devotees and published by devotional presses would need to be individually examined they aren't reliable for religious history, scholarly theology, sociology of religion etc. There may be limited capacities to be reliable for the devotional content of a devotional practice, but wouldn't go to notability. Again particular cases would need to be brought, but the result would largely resemble the above. We aren't an encyclopaedia of religions that do not receive widespread external attention. Works published by commercial or general presses by devotees may or may not be reliable. Depends on the claim or notability they're supporting." Fladrif said in the same place: "I would agree that, at first blush, there are likely problems with other sources on the articles in question which look to be published by 'in-house' devotional publishing arms of the various movements involved. But, one would have to look at them individually rather than make a blanket pronouncement. I suspect that Mr. Kidd is correct that, once one eliminates the references that don't meet WP:RS, some of these articles may not survive a RFD." Simon Kidd (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for you Simon Kidd that your article was deleted. What is a devotee? How broad a brush do you apply? Is it a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something: "a devotee of Chinese calligraphy". Or a strong believer in a particular religion or god: "devotees thronged the temple". (General Sporting Terms) (Non-sporting Hobbies / Other Non-sporting Hobbies) a person ardently enthusiastic about or devoted to something, such as a sport or pastime (Christianity. Ecclesiastical Terms) a zealous follower of a religion. I just googled these in a few minutes. My point is are you limiting a person to just one hat? Can Kalchuri be also the university educated man as well, writing a book, that is chock full of dates and times and quotes, factoids if you like. Are any of you " very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something". We all are. We are all devoted to something. Is that a bad thing? If you did apply a harder line across Wikipedia, would Wikipedia be a lesser thing? I think so. I think by limiting a person(s) with a rigid label,Devotee, you lessen him and us --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Something to consider re the above discussion. 1/ Hagiography is the study of saints. Meher Baba was not and is not a saint. To be a saint you need a religious organization to make it so. It does not apply. 2/ To be considered a devotee of a religion you have to have a religion. Religions have clerical hierarchies. Meher Baba has none. Meher Baba went to great lengths to NOT found a religion. There are no organized behaviours, rituals, no Churchs. Anything done is buy personal choice, and may or not be done by anyone, without any pressure. Without a religion the devotee issue loses a lot of emphasis. It becomes like many other very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something writing. Meher Baba has no religion. Therefore Kalchuri as a Devotee in the religious sense is void --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

HTC, a point of clarification: the article that was deleted wasn't mine - I neither created it, nor had much to do with editing it (as far as I can recall). Your remaining points are semantic ones, and I see little value in being drawn into a debate about them. Meher Baba has de facto devotees, whether they call themselves that or not. I use the term in the sense of "follower", which is a perfectly legitimate use. If you search Lord Meher online, you will find a great many matches for that term in the book. But this is all beside the point here. The question is whether Lord Meher is reliable in the Wikipedia sense of reliability. For this there is a policy and it is quite clear: for a source to be reliable, it must be published by a reliable third party. This generally rules out self-published sources, and sources published by organizations associated with the subject (there are other categories, such as blogs, but these two are the ones that I have recently been involved with). The reason for such strict adherence to the letter of this policy would appear to be that Wikipedia is largely edited by non-specialists. Therefore it has to have criteria for reliability. Sources that might very well be reliable are not necessarily reliable in this narrow Wikipedia sense. Specialist scholars may very well use self-published and devotee-published texts, but that is because they are specialists. If books subsequently written by such specialists are published by reliable third-party publishers, then those books would be reliable in the Wikipedia sense. So, even if Kalchuri were the Professor of Comparative Religion at Harvard or Cambridge, unless his books were published by a reliable third party, they would still be unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. There's nothing personal about this - it's just the way Wikipedia works, because its articles are largely edited by non-specialists. This point is worth emphasizing because feelings run high in some areas of Wikipedia: unreliable in the narrow Wikipedia sense does not mean unreliable in general. Simon Kidd (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Simon Kidd, after all you have been through concerning RS, I wonder if you really have missed this point. RS is NOT policy. It is a Content Guideline and as such it depends on consensus. Nemonoman above addressed this concern, he did inform you that there has been discussion and consensus about the issue of using Lord Meher as a source here, but you have bypassed completely all his comments and continue to offer arguments that only fit your own views about how it should be. I seriously doubt you understand what consensus means in Wikipedia. In this case you are synthesizing various snips of X said Y from various places, and then talk about a "verdict" which should apply here. In the RSN you have also tried a comparison with a court of law. I do not care to speculate on how much and in which ways you misunderstand the various processes of Wikipedia, but what you had better notice is that the discussion you started in the RSN is not going anywhere. There is no consensus and certainly no "verdicts" for what you are trying to do here. Additionally I support, along with Nemonoman, the removal of the RS template from the article. Hoverfish Talk 14:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish, I used the term "policy" in the broad sense while replying to someone who appears to be a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor. The subject of reliable sources comes directly under the Verifiability Policy, one of the three core content policies of the Encyclopedia. In other words, it "falls under" or "is within the scope of" the Verifiability Policy. As for consensus trumping RS/N verdicts, I note that in the recent case of a self-published source on RS/N, once Fifelfoo passed his judgment, Fladrif implemented it within a week, removing all references to that source. There was no discussion of what the consensus might be among the editors of those articles. Your statement also assumes that once a decision has been made on Wikipedia, it remains for all time, regardless of other changes. But decisions can be overturned or seen in a new light depending on recent developments. Admin DGG pronounced on the above-mentioned self-published source in 2010, but his considered opinion was rejected by Fifelfoo during the recent RS/N discussion. I have had a look at the peer review and the GAR and, although there is discussion of sources being followers of Meher Baba, I cannot see any discussion of devotee-published sources as such, which is at the centre of the RS/N discussion. The consensus on the GAR is a consensus of four people. One of these, the notorious cultist Jossi Fresco was subsequently blocked from Wikipedia for abusive use of accounts, so not a referee you want to have on your resume! Finally, your dogmatic statement about the RS/N discussion "not going anywhere" seems to clash somewhat with your idealistic pronouncements on "consensus". Stephen Castro has indicated a conciliatory procedure, which would replace devotee-published sources with sources that meet Wikipedia RS requirements, and he's even offering to do the editing himself. But you're having none of that. This attitude only seems to strengthen the impression (already noted in 2007) that the Meher Baba article is "clearly heavily policed by devoted followers of this guru". Hdtnkrwll's comments also appear to support this impression. Simon Kidd (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of the template is indicate that editorial attention may be required following discussion on the RS/N. The suggestion of Fifelfoo, after a search on Google scholar provided no results re Lord Prabhu (Lord Meher), was that “this is sufficient to act on contingency.” If none of the editors of the Meher Baba article are prepared to make the necessary edits, then I will undertake the task. The article is no longer in length than the one I wrote (Meher Baba’s critics) and subsequently requested be withdrawn, and I possess the texts and knowledge on subject to replace the references to Kalchuri. The current MB article comprises mostly of statements tagged with references, rather than the (far too many!) numerous quotes and detailed references I provided in my own article. So, it should not pose too much of a problem for me. There are also other devotionally-published texts in the article which could prove problematic if used as R/S. I will edit the article sympathetically, seeking to retain the integrity and GA status. --Stephen Castro (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also support the removal of the template, IF there were also an accompanying acknowledgement by the main editors here that in principle LM could not then be considered a special case for all time; that is, that other sources which meet or exceed LM’s own editorial/publishing standard or status should also be considered valid for basic, verifiable statements (presented, of course, in a neutral manner and with weight and minority viewpoint concerns in mind). Without this explicit acknowledgement, reliability criteria will continue to just be an opportunistic exercise between various editors' wits, consciously or unconsciously favoring fragments from whatever self-published sources each editor happens to prefer -- in other words, how else can one honestly describe Dazed... adding a quote from a source with a more questionable RS status than the source he deleted from this article, or N. just above plainly mischaracterizing the factual content of specific sources, or folks earlier espousing concern over gaining a higher article rating, yet N. just recently flatly admitting that no article with self-published sources will ever move beyond a GA rating, etc.?? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the RS template from the article, for the reasons explained above by Nemonoman and Hoverfish. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to simplify my comment above: if there's not going to be any serious discussion about RS criteria as it applies to self-published sources in Meher Baba related articles in general, beyond just the most recent LM prompt being discussed here, then whoever is concerned should feel free to edit-away, as far as I'm concerned. For whatever my opinion is or isn't worth, it's conditional on a broader discussion of RS criteria across the board, beyond just LM. (In other words, it's not at all clear to me why the justifications others have offered here for LM -- the "facts" vs. POV distinction -- should not also apply to at least some other sources those same editors have previously vehemently argued against being worthy of considered a RS.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I am warning against attempts to "edit away" or to perform other "sympathetic" edits that go contrary to consensus. Also, I personally do not think that this is a good opportunity for anyone wishing to insert into Baba's biography views about Baba having broken his silence before he died and other new myths that some followers are very keen to transmit by inserting them in this article. Hoverfish Talk 23:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: Yes, but why not have an honest, open-ended, specifc-criteria-based discussion about self-published RS issues across the board, then, and not just in reference to LM specifically? If N.'s fact/POV distinction is to be taken seriously for LM, why should it not also apply for other verifiable sources? Everyone conveniently seems to fall silent when it comes down to offering clear, consistent arguments about why the factors which support including LM-supplied facts fail in other cases, even to the extent that N. has now begun to consistently mischaracterize the factual content of other sources. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs I put in above were also posted on the RS template and countered points raised by Simon in favor of Kalchuri not being reliable. Simon I'm not convinced by your response above. I also support the removal of the RS template from the article, for all the reasons given. BTW as for the long running issue of what goes in and out re Baba's silence: Cannot some compromise be reached? Something to create some harmony. I would support it. the Glow ref deletion is causing some issues now re Kalchuri. AFAIK It appears Baba spoke as a man before he died, but has not broken his silence as God. This cannot be referenced because its a dream by Mani. That's whats in Manis little book, 'Dreaming of the Beloved' and in the DVD 'Three Incredible Weeks'. But this info may be useful to reach a situation where Dazed BTB and Hdtnkrwll have dialogue and compromise--HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @HumusCowboy, it should be understood that we cannot place in Wikipedia any claim of "as a man vs. as God". This biography article does not consider Baba to be God, except it informs us that this was his claim and this is what he was accepted for by his followers (and it is not about his followers' views either). To mention such an idea we have to come down to who claimed that "Baba spoke as a man before he died, but has not broken his silence as God" and I hope you can see how this departs from using Kalchuri (or others) as a source of historical fact and enters the area of using his (or their) writings to express theories originating by him (or them). For the purpose and nature of this article, Meher Baba either broke his silence during his last years in life or didn't. The rest is very deep into POV. I really wish Hdtnkrwll would understand this too, but I doubt he is willing to. Hoverfish Talk 11:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: That's true, we cannot place an unsourced "claim," but we can include a representative variety of the verifiable sources on the topic and their claims, similar to how the article already cites Kalchuri's contradicting accounts (as they vary between editions of his biography). I do "understand this," but this is precisely what 2-3 other editors do not want to do, ostensibly due to RS concerns. Yet the refusal to apply judgements on RS criteria in an open, consistent way -- or even to accurately represent the facts of some of the other sources' content and production -- has caused me to seriously doubt RS (or even weight, or NPOV) is the actual concern. Yet, I am often the one portrayed as having an "agenda," or wanting to create a "new dogma," etc. All I am advocating is to neutrally represent the full range of verifiable factual claims, based on the available historical records, from verifiable sources, not to pick one strand as the "true interpretation." My point in this thread specifically is just that discussing the RS issues involved in a manner which is limited to LM alone is completely arbitrary. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish re it should be understood that we cannot place in Wikipedia any claim of "as a man vs. as God". I do know this --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Simon Kidd, please keep your comments in chronological placement as it gets very hard to follow what is going on in such long threads. The term policy means nothing broader or narrower than what it means. This article is very much in line with the policy concerning Verifiability. Every claim is very properly referenced to its source. Whether this source is Reliable or not has been extensively discussed and is still being considered. New consensus can be formed, but so far the existing one is still very valid as the article stands. So, are we back on the issue of who is a secular follower of Meher Baba? Have you really seen any proof that I am secular or is this your method of discrediting my concerns? Do you think that I belong to a group of followers or some organization? Is my interest in Meher Baba's teachings a proof to you for any of it? You have also jumped on me concerning this issue during the RSN discussion. Do you feel you know how I relate to the issue Meher Baba? And to counter your "accusation" do you expect me to make some kind of public apology to appease Kevin Shepherd's aversion of Baba followers, which BTW you carry over to Wikipedia as his most dedicated devotee? Stephen Castro created an article that was no more than an essay and even your single favorite (or should I say "favourite" to avoid being attacked in Shepherd's website as secular?) administrator, DGG, pointed out that this article had "so many other problems" that RS was the least of them. Now we are expected to trust Stephen Castro as the editor who will perform changes to this article and "replace devotee-published sources with sources that meet Wikipedia RS requirements"? The least I would expect is that he reveals these "sources that meet Wikipedia RS requirements" right here and see if we are in agreement about the changes he intends to perform. Hoverfish Talk 11:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your reference to "secular follower" of Meher Baba. Where did I use that term? Simon Kidd (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I have nothing to do with the website(s) outside Wikipedia to which you refer. All I am doing is observing attitudes and behaviour, and all I "expect" is that Wikipedia editors and admins be consistent in their actions. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you are not a neutral observer of attitudes and behaviour in Wikipedia. Your relation to Kevin Shepherd is obvious from all of your edit history and all your arguments follow his views all too precisely for such a claim of having nothing to do with him. It is simply not credible. You do not understand my reference to "secular follower"? First you mentioned in the RSN "People with sectarian agendas" (which you may claim had nothing to do with me, but...), after my reaction to this, and in a context of clearly describing Baba followers as secular, you addressed to me "I also think, in the interests of objectivity, that you should declare if you have a particular interest in Meher Baba". ("Particular interest"=?) Now you address to me: "But you're having none of that. This attitude only seems to strengthen the impression (already noted in 2007) that the Meher Baba article is "clearly heavily policed by devoted followers of this guru"." ("devoted followers"=?) Am I supposed not to notice the (very purposeful) association with "sect" you are making? Also I should note that I find very valid what HumusCowboy is trying to say in an inexpert way: there is no registered "Baba religion" and no official organization of "Baba followers" (apart from the Trust which is in charge of the historical grounds in India and the copyrights of various historical documents and books in circulation). You seem to go beyond this fact and promote in Wikipedia some "de facto" existence of a "sect": "Shepherd's point about Meher Baba's followers is that they constitute a de facto sect". It is a conscious effort of your part and an agenda of Shepherd's (obvious in his website) to promote this "sect impression" and to connect us editors of this article as members of such a sect and therefore discredit us. Knowing my own position in respect to the idea of "sect" and the position of the main editors of this article, I say with no hesitation that you are creating and promoting a very carefully planned association of us as "sect members", and I do not fail to notice any of your carefully placed hints, here, in the RSN and in administrators' talk pages. Hoverfish Talk 13:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The confusion here appears to be caused by your misuse of the term "secular", which is not the same as "sectarian". The meanings and origins of the two words are different. I have never referred to you as a "secular follower" of anyone. Regarding the rest, I simply said that I have nothing to do with those websites. I am familiar with them, but they are not mine. I have no input whatever into their content. Therefore, there is no point in trying to argue with me about anything on them. And I did not describe myself as a "neutral" observer, either - that is your qualification of the term I used. I quoted someone called Algabal from 2007: "This article is clearly heavily policed by devoted followers of this guru." So I am not the only one to notice this. I use the word "sectarian" simply to refer to an attitude or disposition, and a tendency to behave in certain ways. Nemonoman declares his conflict of interest on his user page, and Humus is explicit about his attitude on his user page. You and Dazedbythebell make no declarations, but your editing behaviour points towards a similar allegiance, as do various comments you have made, including one about events in the 1980s that would not be known outside Meher Baba circles. This is not to say that you and the other editors mentioned belong to some organized group, just that you have a bias towards Meher Baba and are not neutral in your attitudes. You don't have to be, of course, to edit on Wikipedia, but such attitudes will influence you to some extent. This was clear, for instance, when you made that reference to events in the 1980s. You are not familiar with the events themselves, but you are happy to pass on hearsay, presumably from other "Baba Lovers". Simon Kidd (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hoverfish, HumusCowboy: Re: comments along the line of, "there is no registered 'Baba religion' and no official organization of 'Baba followers.'" This is true in a strictly organizational sense, in that the Trust does not claim to have any spiritual authority per se, but this is irrelevant to issues of general allegiance and how that may be determining to some degree that RS issues are never discussed here in a specific-criteria-based way, across the board (across all sources of a certain type), vs. only ever here in a piecemeal, haphazard way. Not being able to recognize a de facto dogma is, in its own oblique way, a dogma of sorts. A quick example, just to illustrate this as succinctly as possible: it's a favorite theme of much 20th century (Protestant) Christian theology that Christianity is supposedly not really a "religion," just a message of "good news," salvation, etc. (as distinct from Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox lineages). Yet the "it's not a religion" view of Christianity tends to be propagated by those coming from a very specific historical current and lineage of their own, even if not from a single, unified religious organization. The recent upswing of "spiritual but not religious" rhetoric, within the post-industrial West, developed from specific institutional and cultural circumstances (not just from a "it's not religious" way of thinking or being that's somehow just out in the ether somewhere). I'm digressing on this not to start a spiritual-vs.-religious discussion (it was started by others here), but to explain why I think it's completely irrelevant to what the RS criteria and judgements should be for self-published MB sources. There either is criteria which should be applied in a consistent way to self-published sources in reference to MB, across the board (not just for LM), for Wikipedia's purposes, or there is not. Especially since reliability, policy-wise, is a subcomponent of verifiability. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree on both counts. First, disavowals of "sectarianism" by some "Baba Lovers" are disingenuous. If such adherents merely followed Meher Baba's teachings there would be no problem, but after Meher Baba's death there emerged a de facto sect, with authority figures, a tomb, meetings, prayers, songs, works of art, and even censorship of dissenting publications. See The Baba-lovers for one person's take on this. And I have seen this behaviour first hand, having attended a meeting of the Meher Baba Association in London during the 1990s. People there were attributing to the deceased Meher Baba the most mundane coincidences - they evidently believed that he was still intervening in their lives. Second, this is all a distraction from the main issue, which concerns the reliability of sources in the Meher Baba article, as well as many derivative articles. I listed LM on the RS/N because this is the most extensively used source, but other sources can be listed. To say, as Hoverfish did above, that the article is "in line with the policy concerning Verifiability" is merely to beg the question, especially since he goes on to say that reliability is "still being considered". Verifiability cannot be satisfied unless sources are reliable. It was evident during the GAR and the Peer Review that reliability of sources was the weak point in the article. Although "consensus" was reached, it is not clear that the current issue of devotee-published sources was even considered. Calls for removal of the template on the article page by partisan editors don't amount to anything. Of course that little clique wants it removed! I would prefer to hear the opinions of members of the wider Wikipedia community. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish, thank you for the comments on Meher Baba’s critics—yes, of course, “an article that was no more than an essay.” Nevertheless, an in-depth article which, in its original form, printed out at 20 pages and had 148 detailed references. An article that provided a broad perspective on the subject, and utilized all available published sources comprising both devotee and non-devotee works, including Lord Meher. Did you know that several weeks ago I had been in contact, through a third party, with the current editor in India revising LM? I was able to offer a constructive suggestion that corrected a significant factual error in the newly revised text of LM. The editor was kind enough to send me some documentation in return, which will be incorporated in the book I am writing on the subject of Meher Baba’s critics. Working together—that’s what it is all about. Not trying to score a point at any cost. Please do put your mind at rest; I will not assist in any editing of the Meher Baba article. You have my word. I attempted to be constructive on the RS/N by drawing attention to alternative texts to LM—texts that were originally not devotionally-published, but from recognised publishers. There are also other texts such as Listen Humanity (Dodd, Mead, 1957), God to Man and Man to God (Gollancz, 1955), and of course the numerous academic works on NRMs, many of which may well have a useful section on Meher Baba. Despite all the talk on this page, the fact remains that LM does not appear to be a R/S in the very specific Wikipedia sense of that term. That fact needs to be recognised and addressed; it will not be achieved by creating a smokescreen denigrating editors and authors. I have made my views clear on the RS/N about the double-standards and inconsistencies in the administration of policy on Wikipedia. There is nothing further I need to say on the matter. --Stephen Castro (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the conversation on the BabaisLove Talk Page is very revealing in the context of preceding comments (those preceding Stephen Castro's latest one). One of the revelations is that BabaisLove is in personal email contact with Bhau Kalchuri: "There is also this from Bhau last month in an email to me (email can be requested): 'Bill and XXXX (name X' ed out) are jewels from Baba’s time. Jewels don’t change, because though Baba is physically not present, He is always present internally. He is with you.'" In another eye-opener, Hoverfish, evidently embarrassed by the undesirable attention that BabaisLove might draw to the Meher Baba articles ("Acting the way you do creates a very bad impression in Wikipedia, and given the username you have chosen, it also creates a very bad mental association to observers"), attempts to instruct him in the ways of Wikipedia. In this he is aided by HumusTheCowboy (aka No-More-Religion). Hoverfish writes: "We add information only based on verifiable sources we cite. 'Verifiable' means that other people can check the cited material for themselves. This has policy level importance in Wikipedia and may sound very strange until understood ... The next step is to understand what are 'Reliable Sources' (reliable for Wikipedia, not as we usually mean it). This is by no means an easy topic, and even people who have been editing wikipedia for years do not have a good grasp of it. The reason it is important here, is because material published from within an organization is considered 'Self-published' and there are some very strict limits when using it as a source ... Although this is not a policy but a "guideline" it is based on very wide consensus in Wikipedia and is a very important consideration." There are several points worthy of note here. First, Hoverfish is clearly aware of the link between the Verifiability policy and the Reliable Sources guideline. Second, there is acknowledgement that "material published from within an organization is considered 'Self-published'". Third, there is the misleading statement that "'Verifiable' means that other people can check the cited material for themselves". In fact, the key point concerning Verifiability is not that other people can check the cited material for themselves (which would apply to self-published sources also), but that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For a clarification of "third-party sources", see Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources:


 * An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:
 * Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.
 * Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.
 * Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.
 * Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.


 * Lord Meher and several other devotee-published works in the Meher Baba articles fail this test. As Fifelfoo said elsewhere, they "do not even approach [the] threshold" for partial reliability. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The "X' ed out" name was an unintentional outing. The same happened with Stephen Castro in the talk page of the deleted article and I informed him as to how to have it redacted out. Bringing attention to this outing here, amounts to harassment towards HumusTheCowboy. BabaisLove appears to be an absolute beginner here, who, ignoring some very basic rules, had started removing cited text and was about to get blocked for disruptive editing without knowing what he was getting into. So seeing this, I appealed to his respect for the name he was using. I would have done the same if his username was JesusisLove or GurumaharajiisLove. I do not share your aversion for followers of gurus. I never said I wasn't aware at the link between Verifiability and RS. I said RS is not policy because it isn't. I also said all I had to say, so whoever wants to place things "across the board" is welcome to do so. Hoverfish Talk 18:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: Hoverfish's "I...said all I had to say," and N. & D.'s silence -- So, in practical terms, what this means is that if an editor tries to add material which meets or exceeds the criteria Hoverfish, N, & D have argued here is valid for LM (or for other self-published sources used on other pages by these same editors), then the other editor is quickly reverted and given a barrage of semi-coherent, cherry-picked policy instruction. Yet, when in discussion there's a good faith attempt to constructively hash-out exactly how, specifically, the policies apply, in terms of specific criteria which could be applied to source types consistently, everyone clams-up. So, "consensus" in this context is obviously just a shifter-word for the purposeful and occasional non-participation of those who have already made up their mind on an arbitrary, not-fully-discussed-in-detail implementation of policy. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@Simon re 'Bringing attention to this outing here, amounts to harassment towards HumusTheCowboy'. Why do this? Now I'm wondering about your motives for this discussion. re 'Although this is not a policy but a "guideline" it is based on very wide consensus in Wikipedia'. Actually it is and it isnt. In only a short time, on Sathya Sai Baba Inayat Khan Paramahansa Yogananda Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) and everything Mormon I found matters you should have issue with based on your talk here and elsewhere. So that you are not seen as obsessive about Kalchuri, I urge you to go on the talk pages of the sites given and discuss your concerns with them to broaden your position. Please report back here, or supply links --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish and HTC: I did not draw attention to any outing. It is both of you who have just done that on this page. Until you both commented on my last posting, it was merely a blanked-out name that was incidentally quoted by me as part of a longer passage. I did not draw attention to it, since that was not my purpose. You are the ones who have revealed it to be an earlier, unintentional outing.


 * @HTC: It is very likely that there are similar instances of devotee-published texts elsewhere on Wikipedia. LM happens to be the one I am most familiar with, and it is a "test case" (as Stephen Castro pointed out). Once it is resolved here, the other cases can be dealt with. If the matter of devotee-published texts is not adequately dealt with here, then there is little hope that it will be elsewhere, and the various criticisms of Wikipedia that have been made by several outsiders will only be confirmed. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Simon, I must object. Test cases is better, not test case. A broad sustained in depth critical analysis of many such cases is best. Not a single narrow focus on one case that will draw narrow shallow conclusions. For an informed choice, result, in science and law 'many' cases, subjects, topics examples etc is the norm, not the isolated case. That's a popular layman's fallacy. Please visit the sites above and question them --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, by definition a test case is singular. I'm not going to say any more on this subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To put what Simon Kid is saying above in plain terms, the Kevin Shepherd clique, after failing to have his opinion imposed in the Sathya Baba article, intends to impose his agenda here first and then revisit the Sathya page to impose it there too. "Today Rome, Tomorrow the World". You see according to his definition, Kidd is no partisan editor. Because according to Kevin Shepherd's dogma, anyone who doesn't accept him as an unbiased authority is by definition biased, partisan and sectarian, to say the least. We are dealing indeed here with a very unbiased clique, who offer themselves selflessly to "set matters right". If we reject their agenda it is proof enough that we are all sectarian and partisan. Hoverfish Talk 13:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish, that rant is simply your own feverish interpretation of matters, and I refuse to continue engaging at this level. Let's stick with the facts. Is Lord Meher a reliable source? Not according to the above-quoted section of 'Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources'. Therefore it contravenes the Verifiability policy. That should be the end of the matter. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would personally be very curious to hear from Nemonoman regarding how his definition of the Wikipedia "Big Leagues" (his phrase from the earlier sourcing thread above) differs from the policy and guidelines SK is relying upon, but something makes me think that discussion may not be forthcoming. So, if everyone is partisan except for Nemonoman, Hoverfish, Dazed... (and perhaps also 1 or 2 "inexperts" or "non-peers"), then it seems to me there are only two routes forward: either the concerned editors work together to come up with coherent, specific criteria for self-published sources in this context, which would be applied consistently beyond just a single biographical source (Nemonoman's fact/NPOV criteria in relation to source availability), or at least let the "Big Leagues" apply their guidelines in a consistent way, albeit using a reduced pool of sources. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

@Simon re 'No, by definition a test case is singular'. You misunderstand, which is evidence of your narrow approach; To be a robust argument your test case needs to be a portfolio, like a lawyers brief if you like, with many arguments and extensive supporting documentation. Dont be mistaken and think a lawyer marches in with a single idea and gets the law changed. Thats silly. they have to go over the entire field up to the point they are at and show why change is justified. Your argument remains spurious until it is made up from many articles in wiki. You should not be just testing Kalchuri, but the guidelines. Your focus if you like is backwards at the moment. By just focusing on Kalchuri do I detect a personal crusade? Simon, that aside, however you come to terms with it, your case, argument would better for being broader and deeper by engaging more articles. You cant deny that. But it would take a lot of effort on your part to do this well. When you present one author only, kalchuri, a narrow shallow perspective is the result. Your argument lacks robustness and merges on the fanatic. This is why you are meeting resistance. BTW So called precedents in law, had and have significant precursors and similar cases. If they do not they are invariably appealed successfully. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * HTC - Thank you. Now I see where you are coming from, and how mistaken I was. I really can't understand how I had become so blind to the prejudices that were influencing me. Now that I understand your position better, I can only imagine how frustrating you must have found my earlier responses. Surely you have a background in Logic and Philosophy. If not, you evidently have an aptitude for them. Don't let that razor-sharp mind go to waste! Simon Kidd (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ ah Simon...your'e fallback position is revealed, the gutter. I choose to argue simply with being bombasitic, ( really Simon Hagiography ....lol) and without the venom wrapped in polite niceties. My beliefs call that behavior 'hypocrisy'. Its Simple Simon, I can see why you don't want to go to the pages I mentioned. They would eat you alive. Like some small raiding party ambushed by an army of the realm they entered your arguments would last about as long. You know this, we know this, why are you here? --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it is to your advantage if you manage to anger HumusCowboy so you can claim that we are all inflamed fanatics. You are instigating this level so you can pose as superior to it. Having observed this above, I simply repeated the very vocabulary you have introduced in this thread, although in a context you certainly don't like mentioned, and so this was a "rant" of "feverish interpretation" and you refuse to engage at "this level". Don't let your talent go to waste, get involved in politics. I am surprised you don't recognize how much to your advantage Hdtnkrwll's offer of an alliance is. You can help him turn this article into a sectarian announcement magazine, have visions of followers analyzed, channelled messages passed as Baba's own words, paint a much more exciting "Magic Baba" who is hovering unseen in some Akashic level like an "acsended master", and then you can claim triumphantly that you were right all along. I see that the offer is still valid. Don't let him down. Hoverfish Talk 13:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, HTC is quite right. I did have a "narrow approach"; my ideas were "silly"; my arguments were "spurious", "lacked robustness" and verged on "the fanatic"; my focus was "backwards"; I had a "narrow shallow perspective" and I was on a "personal crusade". It's a wonder that HTC wasn't already apoplectic with rage at my shortcomings. But perhaps he sees me in a more benign light, now that I have come out of the darkness of my ignorance, thanks to his superior guidance. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: I have no idea what you are talking about, re: "announcement magazine"; I have been advocating for applying sourcing criteria consistently, to meet or exceed what has already been advocated and accepted as criteria for including LM, by others here. Yet, others refuse to discuss these issues further, apart from referring to past GA reviews, and will not respond in any meaningful, specific way to my earlier question re: D. applying the same RS criteria inconsistently across articles. (In fact, the responses I get either just misrepresent the content of sources, or else just defer to a vague notion of past Wikipedia cred & "Big Leagues.") Why not just discuss sourcing criteria here, openly & honestly, which we could all do regardless of whatever our personal interpretations may be of whatever issue, as long as known sources are used with weight & NPOV concerns in mind? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Hoverfish earlier spoke of consensus -- how does consensus stand even a chance of being reached if the sourcing criteria themselves are never discussed here, and if anyone bringing up the issue is portrayed as either some sort of agenda-crusader or sect-persecutor? If consensus is actually important, please work for it, and don't just resort to throwing accusations around. My criticisms are based on specific, public editing histories, not on any presumed knowledge I imagine to have of editors' personal beliefs. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hdtnkrwll, I remember very clearly all of your efforts concerning inclusion of sources, use of the cited material and result you wish displayed on the article. I do not make up things, though I do speculate a bit about where the article will end up if the particular use of sources you are after is accepted by consensus. So my position towards you has been clear and steady: no thank you. Are you sure that the "sourcing criteria" you have in mind to openly discuss here is the same issue Simon Kidd is raising? I think that one main reason that Nemo and Dazed are not taking part here is that although a lot is supposed to be on the table, they see nothing they can talk about. Firstly, Kidd's concern should be discussed in the RSN, as he pointed out earlier "LM has never been discussed on the RS/N and, as far as I am aware, that is the place to discuss it". But things there do not appear as they are about to go anywhere. So he brings over some "verdict" which turns out to be a very abstract suggestion he was given "to act on contingency", which appears to be what he is doing here. Now, you join in with a big interest hoping -what?- that we give up our several times stated position about the one particular quote that is very meaningful to you (or to some followers as well) and that we "openly & honestly" decide that the source you offer and the intended use of it is fine with us now, that we have finally awakened from our former state of "denial", and now please, do support the removal of the vain RS template from the article thank-you-very-much. If you wish to integrate your concerns with Simon Kidd's on the same table, make sure first that you understand what he is talking about and/or come to some agreement with him. From where I am standing, you two are after two diametrically opposite things. One is suggesting the elimination of Kalchuri as a reliable source in Wikipedia (no agenda there - no revenge - no sect aversion issue - nothing to do with his previous failed pursuits - just so, out of the blue) and another is after making us accept as RS a very unclear article from Glow magazine (with a big title making it sound like it was written by Eruch, when in fact it was by Tony Paternity). At least Simon Kidd is being straightforward, though he is hiding a self-serving interest in his concerns. So what is it that we should we be discussing "openly & honestly"? About re-writing the article according to Shepherd and Brunton or about whether Meher Baba can be stated to appear and talk in visions 32 years after his death? Be open and honest yourself to start with. Hoverfish Talk 16:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: Thanks for this clear response. I am being honest in my position, however. I personally would rather have clearly agreed upon RS criteria accepted by all the main editors here (even if it means losing LM & many other pubs as sources), than have to deal with all the double-speak, inconsistent editing, and disingenuous explanations I've witnessed here & on other MB pages; it's as simple as that. For example: why did N. repeatedly imply LM had already been discussed on the RS board, in the past, if in fact it hadn't, and was only discussed as part of the GA review? Why were concerns over gaining an FA status used as rationales to preclude certain sources in the past, and now it's flatly admitted that that's irrelevant, and only GA status is realistic anyway? In the name of "instructing," others here have often, clearly, just opportunistically cited policy that assuages their own interests and selective use of self-published material. I'm with N, and would rather this article really go in the direction of the "Big Leagues," OR have criteria for self-published sources at least be assessed in a consistent way, and not worry about the article status (since, IMO, it's not really in line with what's been going on here anyway, overall).
 * Also, from skimming the back story to SK's involvement, it seems to me that yourself & D. brought this latest RS query about, by refusing to co-edit a "criticism" section within the article. So some people criticized MB -- so what? If you had collaborated to edit together a smaller criticism section, it seems to me this page would be in a very different place right now. I'm going to let the "Big Leagues" sort it out, now that it's clear to me (either through comments here or others' silence) where things stand. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I can't help but also briefly mention that the Glow article's transcript of Eruch recounting 1969 has nothing to do with a "vision" -- you're confusing Bhau's "awakenings" account (already superceded by the 2nd. ed. of LM) with Eruch's transcript, which is partly what makes it so difficult to take much that is said here all that seriously, frankly. (And, BTW, if Eruch's memory of 1969 in 1992 is such an issue in this particular case, why is Eruch's memory of 1951 in c. 2000 of no issue elsewhere? It's opportunistic sourcing issues such as these which now makes me lean toward using no self-published stuff at all, that's all.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for stating the issue at hand so nicely: IF we had collaborated with SC&SC THEN there would be no problem here, BUT since we DIDN'T (or so it is taken), now the attack on Kalchuri. My point in a nutshell. As for your ethical code in all this, keep it to yourself pal. Hoverfish Talk 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: You're free to interpret my comments that way, of course, but what I meant was more along the lines of: If you're going to hold others to the strict letter of RS criteria, as you did with SK & SC, then it shouldn't be at all surprising that they might feel obliged to "return the favor," that's all. If Wikipedia's policy/guidelines implementation procedures have any integrity or consistency to them, then no one person can or should be blamed anyway, and RS should be decided on publications' merits and use-in-context anyway. (In other words: why such lack of faith in Wikipedia's review processes?) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Hoverfish about the references re Hdtnkrwll. Re Simon? You Simon do not know Masters & PhD research terms when you hear them, 'robustness' 'shallowness' 'depth' 'breadth'. By ignoring them your replies becomes 'spurious' 'silly' narrow. You invite responses pointing this out. Yet you present your self as being academic. Leave it too the big boys Simon. Put some more years in. Your writing frequently dips below the 'decency level' but you object when this is given back to you in kind. You avoid valid points made against you, by sliding sideways. Simon, I think HoverFish is right, go into politics, your'e wasted here. I choose to argue 'simply' because I'm too old to put up with time wasters, too educated and experienced to be fooled by them and bored with hypocrisy. You would win me over a bit if you took on the Mormons, all their pages. Lots of self publishing devotee stuff there, according to your definition. A veritable hunting ground for you. Make a name for yourself. As far as I'm concerned I wont be replying to you unless you present better arguments. You have no valid case here, yet. Be my guest, have the last say. Surprise me --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@ All future readers of this thread (if such electronic ephemera survive into the future): by now you will have realised that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Simon Kidd (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And of course they will also see your extreme bias by your above statement (lunatics & asylum) (which BTW is a personal attack). "If such electronic ephemera survive into the future" = net sanity, of course. Hoverfish Talk 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not a personal attack, and not directed at any individual. Just an observation on the topsy turvy state of affairs that has come to prevail here. Simon Kidd (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Hoverfish, Nemonoman, Dazedbythebell and HumusCowboy: I think we can all agree that we have different perspectives on things. Doubtless we have all arrived at them over many years, and none of us is likely to part with them easily. I can honestly say that I have my own reasons for my editorial choices on Wikipedia over the last six years. I have always done things on my own initiative and I stand by my decisions, to the extent that I am not afraid to use my own name and take responsibility for what I say. My contributions have been small, and generally in areas where I have an interest and where I felt I actually had something to add to encyclopedic knowledge. The recent decision that a self-published author was not reliable, in the Wikipedia sense, meant that some of my contributions were reversed. I did not agree with that decision, but that is the way of things on Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, it was the conclusion of several years of prejudicial treatment of that author, on and off Wikipedia. Some of you were involved in those activities and, given your allegiances, I would imagine that you were relieved at the final conclusion. The irony is that the sources you have relied on to develop the Meher Baba article, and its derivatives, were caught in the same net. Indeed, they were said to be even less reliable than the self-published author I had defended. The weakness of your sources has been acknowledged, even by yourselves, and it's not clear to me how any article relying on them could have attained GA status. Some of the articles simply should not exist. You have refused to engage with the discussion on the RS/N, or to cooperate with offers made on this page. You have not supplied any alternatives to Kalchuri. The issue here is one of equity. It simply cannot be the case that one self-published author is purged from Wikipedia, while other self-published authors, less reliable in some eyes, are allowed to remain. I draw your attention to Fifelfoo's most recent comment on his Talk page. Those who are not involved editors do not appear to support your claims about your sources, or the quality of this article. I suggest that non-cooperation is no longer an option. Either you cooperate with the editorial task of improving the article, including its sources, or there is no other option but to take things to the next stage. I will pursue this as a matter of principle, and the principle concerned is equity. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Simon thank you for stating your position decently, however you appear to be not 'non involved' yourself. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@:Simon Kidd, you have my support to bring this matter to a hopefully logical conclusion. I had already indicated texts which, although written by devotees of MB, were at least available in first editions by recognized publishers. Those texts are a lifeline for the editors of the MB article. Certainly, Charles Purdom’s The God-Man (George Allen & Unwin, 1964) is a very useful, thoughtful text, and the writer attempted to avoid hagiographic embellishment. The article about him on Wikipedia simply does not do justice to his life. Tom Hopkinson’s Much Silence (Gollancz, 1974; Dodd, Mead & Co, 1975) is brief, but useful, and “written in a language the man in the street can readily understand.” Again, embellishment is minimal. Then there is Marvin Harper’s Gurus, Swamis & Avataras (Westminster Press, 1972), written by an academic who treats the subject of MB in a neutral manner. There are other texts to be found, such as Jean Adriel’s Avatar (republished by John F. Kennedy University Press, 1971). It also has to be said here that, along with Kalchuri’s Lord Meher several other texts used in current MB article come under the category of devotionally-published—these being from Sheriar Foundation (“an independent, non-profit, tax-exempt foundation formed in 1989. The purpose of Sheriar Foundation is to broaden awareness and deepen the appreciation of the spiritual values exemplified in the life and writings of Meher Baba”), and Avatar Meher Baba Foundation, Inc., (who publish Charles Haynes’ Meher Baba, the Awakener). Both are included among the “nine Meher Baba organizations” that “anyone in the world can donate directly to the Avatar Meher Baba Trust.” I believe that such devotionally-published texts would not therefore be RS unless first published by a recognised publisher (as was the case with God Speaks and Purdom’s version of Discourses, which were not originally devotionally-published). I truly think that (a) the MB article can be improved upon, and (b) that this can be achieved by using alternative texts. --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Castro, you list a few so called devotee texts like Tom Hopkinson’s Much Silence and Jean Adriel’s Avatar, then say they now become Ok because of the republishing by a well known publisher. This surprised me. This is just hair splitting. The text remains the same. This is a specious line of reasoning. (I suspect you are trying to push in a thin wedge) Be that as it may, where does it stop? Why not then explore the whole issue of how do new authors get their obscure work published in the first place? And how well known publishers republish to make money, later. Does that then somehow cleanse the text? No. Or who is a devotee? When did they become one? Half way through writing the book? Is then the first half of the book RS? Maybe Castro and Kidd you could devise a scale. 'The Castro Kidd Devotee Publishing Algorithm' to be used everywhere. No, the permutations are endless. BTW Castro please look up the definition of Hagiography and saint. MB is not and was not ever called a saint. To be created a saint needs a religious organization. MB has no religion. Please do some homework before merely 'thinking out loud here'. Please present some hard facts instead of 'I believe' and 'I truly think' . Facts Castro ! Verifiable RS not hearsay and POV. Raise the bar thank you. Apply the standards you seek to your own arguments. This talk has gone on for so long and is going nowhere. SK has skidded sideways so much and attempted to silence me with the your not 'non involved' line, when he is more involved. (I have not yet checked you out. Are you involved also?) Now you Castro loop back to arguments already countered, e.g. hagiography and offer no fresh RS views, only POV. Please consider going away, both of you. Anything done with sincerity has been appreciated, but its way past that now. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures
Aren't the photographs on this article getting a bit stale? And too few. At one time there was a picture of Meher Baba on a poster at the Woodstock Festival and it was removed as an unessential non-free image, but it added some zest and public interest. Does anyone have any suggestions where public domain images can be found? Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion, add some zest, I liked that Woodstock pic --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are both timely suggestions, because unless editors here are willing to discuss in an open, honest way to resolve the sourcing issues SK has raised above & elsewhere, it seems to me that the article stands a good chance of becoming a mostly pictorial essay in the not too distant future, anyway. So you're right, should at least discuss what pictures will be left remaining here. I'm fine with the ones used currently. Hdtnkwe srwll (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a very negative response, an article mostly just of pictures. I like the one on the right thanks --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned about the picture of Baba with the headphones on in the movie studio. It could be misleading and make people think he made films, since there is some mention of his involvement with movie people and Hollywood. It would be a bit like a picture of him behind the steering wheel of a car, that might imply he ever drove a car, which I don't think he ever did. Perhaps a disclaimer within the photo description would help. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Now one other picture that could use some thought is the one of Meher Baba in 1925. It seems biased to me. It shows Baba looking a lot like Jesus, which seems a bit staged to look that way, implying he's the Avatar. Shouldn't this be replaced with an image from roughly that period where he looked more causal? As he would have more likely looked had he not been posing like that? For instance, see picture right. If no one is interested I may start to play around. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another possibility on the left.


 * well its old so copy right is probably not an issue I Imagine --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Biographication of Meher Baba
Nemonoman has spoken clearly and intelligently at the top of the discussion above titled Kalchuri as a source. And I don’t know how to add to what he has written there, beyond that he has succinctly summarized past developments on the issue at hand pertaining to this article, and worked on with previous administrators. In fact if one consults the history, they will see that Nemonoman worked very harmoniously with administrator Jossi in 2008 on this entire issue of entering in any third party sources wherever possible to supplement the given biographies concerning factoids on Meher Baba’s life, and I think the two of them did a very good job. This was during an earlier attempt to archieve GA status, which the article has enjoyed until now due largely to their efforts. Incidentally Jossi was not a devotee of Meher Baba, but an administrator concerned over sources, including ones being discussed now.

So it seems pointless to repeat here what Nemonoman has already re-explained above, or to summarize that lengthy period of work for those who don’t know about it, since it is in the Discussion Archive (namely ARCHIVE 5).

So instead of restating what would be redundant, I will try to explain to the current editors a little bit about the biographication of Meher Baba, which is a complicated and detailed subject.

Meher Baba is not your average guru. Meher Baba showed a great interest in his life being carefully documented, most importantly after 1922 when he began his public work, and personally saw to it that a careful contemporaneous record be kept of the events as they happened. This he saw to by assigning someone among his group to keep a diary of daily events. First this was done by a disciple named Ramjoo, and then one named Chanji. Later this was handed to other secretaries and finally to Adi Sr., his last secretary. His sister Mani also added to this by keeping devotees around the world up to date on events by sending “Family Letters.” This is also now published as 82 Family Letters. She also shot extensive movie footage of her brother and took photos. There are thousands of photos of Meher Baba and hours of films. Beyond these efforts to chronicle Baba’s life and keep a careful record of events, Baba saw to it that during his lifetime two biographies were written of him. One of these is The God-Man by C. B. Purdom and the other is Jean Adriel’s Avatar. C. B. Purdom was a very respected British economist, author, editor, and critic. Yet even beyond these sources, numerous contemporaneous discourses were preserved by Baba, as well as all correspondences. These are now kept in the Avatar Meher Baba Trust Archive in India. Of course we can also add newspaper and magazine interviews that were also included.

Before Meher Baba died, near the end of his life, he asked his disciple Bhau Kalchuri to write a full biography of his life. Kalchuri is a Brahman with three Master’s Degrees (engineering, agriculture, and law) and is from a prestigious educated Indian family. After Meher Baba died, Kalchuri did his best to compile all these sources named above into a single accessible biography, now called Lord Meher, the biography under a lot of discussion now. Kalchurit had a lot of help, both through the Trust in India, and the United States, with many editors, typists, and so forth. One of the things Bhau had access to, which is not available to most other biographers now, are the original diaries and correpsondences now kept in the Trust Archive in India. This is what makes it such an important source for factoids used in this article.

The book, begun just after Meher Baba’s death and completed and copyrighted in 1986, was published through Manifestation, Inc. in Myrtle Beach in the United States. The founder of this publishing company was Lawrence Reiter, who for a certain sum bought the copyright of Lord Meher from Mr. Kalchuri in India. Reiter, as well as the author Kalchuri, were, as stated by Simon Kidd and Stephen Castro, followers of Meher Baba. No one else at that time would have possibly been interested in the investment into a 20 volume biography of such a low profile personality as Meher Baba. However, Lord Meher was not self-published. Self-published means a book that an author pays to have published. Kalchuri was paid for the rights and had no further involvement.

It is true that Manifestation, Inc. published books concerning the life of Meher Baba. However, very many publishers are specialized in this way in areas of such specialized topics. For instance Shambala Books mostly publishes on Buddhist and Eastern topics. However, this does not make the publisher, Lawrence Reiter, now deceased, dishonest. As far as I know there has never been any claim against Manifestation, Inc. for doing anything dishonest.

Because Bhau Kalchuri had access to so much materials from contemporaneous journals and correspondences dating back even earlier than 1922, since he was on the Meher Baba Trust, and because the book has been generously made available online (all 6,742 pages), and because it has so many easily checkable factoids about Meher Baba, it has continuously been used since its publication as a main source for factoids concerning Baba. Most if not all of the factoids in Lord Meher can be found in earlier books, journals, discourses, and correspondences. However, this single sourcing made searchable online makes it an ideal choice to rely upon for most short biographies such as on Wikipedia.

The issue is, are there third party sources for these factoids on Meher Baba’s life? The simple anwser is no. As Meher Baba began to become a little well known in the early 1970's due partially to Pete Townshend of the Who, Baba died almost unknown to the Western world. His short-lived fame in the early 1930’s due to a visit to Hollywood, where he left suddenly for China after making arrangements to ‘break his silence’ in the Hollywood Bowl, left him pretty much remembered as a loving but eccentric person of no great importance, and he was quickly forgotten until shortly after his death. Almost immediately after he died he did reappear in the news, for instance for appearing in a song by Melanie sung about the Woodstock Festival. But when he died he was a relative unknown. Thus there really truly are no third party contemporaneous books on Meher Baba. What sources there are, such as the Encylopedia Britanica, are in fact based entirely upon the contemporaneous biographies and kept records and diaries of followers. Baba simply was not important enough in his lifetime to warrant independent third party written and third party published accounts of him in his lifetime. The few mentions of him that do exist, such as the small mention in Paul Brunton’s A Search in Secret India, are big on opinion, and very short on facts about his life. Beyond this, there are just a few New York Times and Time Magazine references to his visits to the West in the 30’s, which have in fact been referred to in the article. That’s it.

The point then is that, while it might seem to be odd that there are no third party biographies or contemporaneous sources given to support facts about his goings and comings in this Wikipedia article, none but these actually exist. No one has ever suggested that Meher Baba was not notable enough for Wikipedia, because he did become famous after his death. In fact one need only check what links to the article to see how notable he was. But anyone who suggests that the biographies given of his life as references are not suitable, needs to understand (since Wikipedia on this issue works on a case per case basis, and not by a single blanket rule) that no other reliable sources exist. These are in fact the most reliable in existence, the ones given. As a matter of fact, if all sources originating from devotees or disciples of Baba in his lifetime were removed as not being reliable, then there would be nothing left to say about him, since beyond his own small circle in his lifetime, he was virtually an unknown in the West. And if only third party sources were used, the article would only be able to write about opinions about the man, but have no factoids from which to grasp who that person was under discussion. Understand, then, that when some editors refer to ‘devotee’ sources, they are referring to ALL sources, and not just Lord Meher. For due to his relative anonymity in his lifetime, no others exist from Meher Baba's lifetime, beyond a few spotty references in the New York Times and Time Magazine, already referred to in the article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ DBTB What you write is true. Kalchuri is not the 'test case' Simon wants. Simon is also 'involved' and I detect bias. There is no test case Wikipedia can be based on for these complex issues. Its case by case. I explained this to Simon by pointing out he needs to widen his search in Wikipedia and not become obsessed. This case is complex, as you show DBTB. I notice above Castro lists a few so called devotee texts like Tom Hopkinson’s Much Silence and Jean Adriel’s Avatar, that he says now become Ok because of the republishing by a well known publisher. This surprised me. This is just hair splitting. The text remains the same. This is a specious line of reasoning. Where does it stop? Why not then explore the whole issue of how do new authors get their obscure work published in the first place? And how well known publishers republish to make money, later. Does that then somehow cleanse the text? No. Or who is a devotee? When did they become one? Half way through writing the book? Is then the first half of the book RS? Maybe Castro and Kidd you could devise a scale. 'The Castro Kidd Devotee Publishing Algorithm' to be used everywhere. No, the permutations are endless. The onus remains on the likes of SK and Castro to prove these books are not RS because of the publisher. And soon. Either you have evidence or you dont. You have presented nothing at all to show this is true. All you both have have done is talked about the idea, not proven anything. I am taking this tone because this discussion is becoming disruptive because its going nowhere. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Dazed...: Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I overall agree that LM could be fine for just citing basic facts. Just some comments to try to sort this out, though: Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the wiki definition of self-published refers to the absence of an "established" third-party publisher -- does this unambiguously apply if the 3rd-party press is established solely to pub. the works of a specific person? How is this different in principle or specifics from the case of Shepherd's publisher? (I don't know.)
 * Ramjoo's Diaries was published by Sufism Reoriented, as far as I'm aware
 * Re: your mention of press'/editor's honesty -- I don't doubt this, but why did you yourself argue elsewhere that the ed. fabricated footnotes without the (still-living) author's permission?
 * Which principle applies, for Wikipedia's purposes: that the MB article "needs" many facts (as long as given due weight, and with NPOV), whatever sources best fill the role, or that the article length should be a function of unambiguously RS sources? If the former, I don't see why other cases shouldn't be given as charitable a treatment as LM is being given -- that's my only point in all this.

@Dazedbythebell: I will simply state here: even if Purdom was relying on the same sources as Kalchuri (and indeed, Purdom writes: “The account of the early years of Meher Baba is based upon a record compiled by K. J. Dastur, supplemented by my own enquiries, also upon the diaries of the late Behli L. Irani and various diaries and papers lent to me by Indian and Western followers, in particular the late F. H.Dadachanji), he is acceptable because (originally) published by a third party. LM is clearly a devotionally-published text (initially funded by devotee benefactors), and the publisher is ruled out by virtue of being associated with Meher Baba. First editions of Purdom, Hopkinson, etc., were from recognized mainstream publishers and written for the man in the street.--Stephen Castro (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your point being? HumusTheCowboy (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @HumusCowboy: At the risk of overlooking Hoverfish's earlier admonition not to inadvertently anger you, please consult this. (Your earlier comment seems to misunderstand the reprinted-by-another-publisher allowance that had been mentioned earlier.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Hdtnkrwll. Anger hmmm. No one has angered me here. Bitterness you know about, I know. One word. Glow. I quote you ' It's opportunistic sourcing issues such as these which now makes me lean toward using no self-published stuff at all, that's all' . Now thats bitter! Let go the Glow Hdtnkrwll. I agree with Hoverfish. BTW I know the link above. Keeping this brief from that link. LM is not a Questionable source. It is not either a self published source of the description given. The definition needs more work and expansion. That is the issue. LM does not fit, however LM is used in the article well i.e. the material used in the article is not self-serving; the material used used in the article does not involve controversial claims about third parties ; the material used in the article does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material; the article is not based primarily on such sources. LM is also written mostly from primary sources by a person with direct knowledge of the situation. The factoids used in this article reflect this. please consult this Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is what the determining criteria for "reliable third-party publications" is, and to what extent Manifestation, Inc., as a publisher, is considered to be "established" as a press (apart from or in relation to having been formed to publish works by a single person). My point throughout is just that if LM meets this criteria, so do several other sources (and/or exceed this criteria, weight within the article and NPOV wording issues aside). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Hdtnkrwll, no the issue is the 'entire pie' not a slice of it. The issue also is motive. Yours is strongly tied with the lost 'Glow' argument. This is worth any new readers exploring. Having reviewed this material the revenge motive of yours weakens your argument now because its driving your desire to get some sort of payback and have LM degraded as a reference because you could not get your way re Glow. You have admitted as much above. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @HTC: OK, you're right, it must not have anything to do with the broader sourcing issues that have been discussed in different ways on these talk pages for some time. I should have known that the broader issues and how Wikipedia policy is applied doesn't matter, only imputed motives do. (Even if that were the case, this specific concern -- brought up by SK, not me -- will still be decided by other editors here, over time -- I thought, from others' earlier comments, that LM had already been hashed-out on the RS discussion board, but apparently it hasn't, just as part of the GA review instead.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Hdtnkrwll Glad you agree with me. LM is better than Glow and motive is everything as you now see. Now maybe people will stop beating the same drum over and over driven by motives they did not understand. Yes editors will decide over time. Im happy with that. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The current editors of the MB article have made no attempt to revise the article following expressed concerns about Bhau Kalchuri’s Lord Meher on this Talk page, and also on the RS/N. I will therefore make a final further attempt to be constructive before the matter invariably goes to the next level. I have tried to demonstrate below how a number of alternative RS can be employed to replace references to LM. Please note that I simply provide a basic example of what could be achieved across the whole MB article using texts that are RS. It is not a suggestion on how to reword the article—I would personally read all the available RS texts and then rewrite the article afresh using the current MB article as a template.

Meher Baba was an Irani born at Poona (Pune), India, in 1894, to a Zoroastrian family. His given name was Merwan Sherier Irani. He was the second son of Sheriar Mundegar Irani, “born in Khooramshah, a village in Persia, in the year 1858, the son of a keeper of the Zoroastrian tower of silence, which belonged to his native village.” From the age of thirteen Sheriar had been a seeker after spiritual truth, an itinerant monk or dervish roaming first in Persia and then in India for around eighteen years before finally marrying, and then settling in Pune with his young Irani wife, Shireen, just sixteen when Merwan was born. He is said to have led a normal childhood, and according to his mother “very active and mischievous,” showing no particularly strong inclination toward spiritual matters. He received the education of a middle-class boy, and in 1911 entered the Deccan College, “where his favourite study was poetry.” One day, in 1913, at the age of 19, as he was riding home from college on his bicycle he came into contact with Hazrat Babajan, a local female Muslim saint. After that first meeting, over subsequent months he would visit her every night. Their meetings were spent in silence. One night in January 1914, as he was about to leave, Babajan kissed the young man on the forehead, a symbolic gesture during which she bestowed her spiritual grace upon him. The event left him in an abstracted trance-like state in which he was “totally unconscious of the world,” a condition that lasted for nearly nine months.

There are sufficient alternative RS texts available to not only reconstruct, but also to improve the MB article. This is what this Talk page is for: discussions re the improvement of the article. If LM is not RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term due to being devotionally-published, etc., then surely it would improve the article if the text and references related to that work were replaced. My suggestion would be to first seek to replace the references to LM using the alternative RS texts, and then if there is anything essential to the article that cannot be found in the alternative texts, or cannot be worked around, that should be discussed with other editors on this Talk page. --Stephen Castro (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ SC, the text you wrote above is not an improvement. Im sorry to say this Stephen, but the writing now existing in the article flows and has charm, your piece above has not. And re RS you have not made a strong argument. See above. The editors here have done a fine job with the article. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The above text is very clearly from a person who has an opinion on what was important and what not in Meher Baba's biography. This person would like to describe Meher Baba as he sees him, ie an "Irani Liberal". Is it really so difficult for the writer to see his POV in this? So far the article has managed to remain NPOV. I will protect it as it is. Hoverfish Talk 13:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And of course the other one of Kevin Shepherd's books and obsessions is about Babajan, which he considers a "matriarch". And already the lead suggested is loaded with this writer's favorite topics, seen from his favorite POV. This is attempt to turn this article in an essay similar to the deleted "Critics of Meher Baba" and by the same editor. Hoverfish Talk 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: I’m sure I had qualified the use of the example with the words: I have tried to demonstrate below how a number of alternative RS can be employed to replace references to LM. Please note that I simply provide a basic example of what could be achieved across the whole MB article using texts that are RS. It is not a suggestion on how to reword the article … The example was merely intended to illustrate that RS texts can be easily employed to replace the 80 or so references in the MB article currently linked to various devotionally-published texts.


 * Would Kalchuri’s devotionally-published version be better suited to editorial literary tastes?


 * “In the early morning of Sunday, February 25th, 1894, the long awaited moment of our Age arrived … Poona was just stating to awaken. Was it because of the baby’s first cry? It was as if he had proclaimed, “Arise now, I am the Awakener! … At that holy moment, by taking birth in the early hours of dawn, the child had signalled his arrival as the Awakener—the Avatar of the Age.”


 * The section heading Once Upon a Time could perhaps be used? Anyhow, I accept that you “will protect it as it is”—an article based largely on devotionally-published texts, such as the one quoted above (and cherry-picking from Kalchuri’s version will not change that fact). We will just have to amicably agree to disagree on this issue and see how things progress. --Stephen Castro (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: So is this how "consensus" is reached (a principle which you referenced earlier), by accusing every other editor but yourself and 1-2 others of having a "point of view" or "agenda"? Would you rather that a completely random Wikipedia editor just remove all text which depends on Kalchuri's texts altogether, if they're determined to not be RS (in the Wikipedia sense), once the discussion on the RS board is concluded? I don't understand what you're hoping to achieve, re: "I will protect it" -- this isn't combat, or a living entity needing protection. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @re Hoverfish. yes the Stephen Castro Kevin Shepard link. Its a key point: Kevin Shepherd publishes the writings of Stephen J. Castro thru through Citizen Initiative Publishing. This can be found on the net. Link available. An internet search also links Simon Kidd, and his other user name on Wikipedia and Kevin Shepard. Re Kids other user name: Simon Kidd states on his user page ' I have retained my former user name for editing one article' adding 'These reasons have been accepted by ArbCom, who registered my alternate account use.'  But a search of the users contributions of this other user name show many many contributions to many articles most of which Kevin Shepherd is deeply involved with. Link available. Additionally this to Simon Kidd from the below link is interesting 'The overwhelming weight of the article is based on Shepherd's own works. That is a major failure of WP:V, and a serious flaw in the article. In addition, the article lacks an actual references section, substituting it for a "notes" section'. please consult this In my view there is a pervasive link between these two editors above and Shepard which is driving an agenda to somehow undermine the Meher Baba article for unknown reasons HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of all this, I will just note that none of it really affects RS criteria for 3rd-party sources in the least. (I just think it's interesting that those who, earlier, have been very keen to defer to fragments of Wikipedia policy seem to lose all interest in Wikipedia policy when it becomes clear that actually implementing it even-handedly will likely affect their own editing proclivities -- yet the "agenda" always belongs to others.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hdtnkrwll no its not that simple. These people came with an agenda. Your Glow reference loss and wanting revenge made them allies with you. This does not make them impartial. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that justly applying Wikipedia policy is not always simple. There doesn't seem to be any point for me to even attempt to discuss the issues involved here any longer, if this whole discussion is just going to devolve into some sort of weird conspiracy-fest, and/or if any query or happenstance agreement about applying RS criteria consistently is dismissed in terms of "revenge" and/or quack motivational analysis of presumed "agendas." Good luck -- and who's ostensibly not coming from the perspective of a religious sect, here, btw?? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes its not simple. But the water is made muddier by SK &SC. Their tone and history and links to Shepard. A quick look thru the archives shows a lot of conflict Wiki style between you Hdtnkrwll and other editors, mostly over that Glow thing. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you HumusCowboy. Just so you know, a lot of people know about this. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. So I heard, but its good to have it here for posterity I imagine. BTW I wonder if the Arbitration Committee would be interested in Simon Kidds over use of his other user name?--HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What is devolving in conspiracy fest Hdtnkrwll? Do you need to belong to a religious sect to follow what happened just before SC&SK came here to "set things right"? If you don't care to look or pretend you don't notice, how does this make me part of a sect? Do try to imagine what would happen to the information we know about Socrates if we were to discount the accounts of Plato and Xenophone as "devotees" or "insiders" and only take the "outsider", "independent" caricature of Aristophanes as our only acceptable source. Kalchuri's work has NOT been through the process of scrutiny by academics like Plato's has, but without it you will never end up with a even a minimum of valid info to place under anyone's scrutiny. Meher Baba does NOT fail the Notability criteria. Meher Baba's notability is big enough for the amount of information we have here currently. It doesn't have to be cut down to the size of the Britanica entry or to SC's fancy. For those who care for this info, Wikipedia is already offering the most objective available information. You think you have one more bit of the whole and you think it is very important to include here. Anyone who finds it trivial must be surely biased according to you. There has been a lot done to decide what we can state as objective fact and include here and what is too marginal (or POV) to include here. This is not called cherry-picking either. This is called lots of good, useful and hard work by several editors, even if you have this disagreement with the rest of us. So what religious sect do you see in what we have to say? Have you invented a name for it yet? Hoverfish Talk 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish: I have only been mentioning my past defense of the Glow article here -- actually added by another editor much earlier, not myself, but then deleted by D. even after others had agreed not to delete it -- as an example of how RS criteria has sometimes been arbitrarily implemented across articles, and in relation to similar pub. RS criteria already deemed OK for LM here. Differences in opinion re: POV or weight issues are completely valid, and I respect that (it's not like I've been engaged in an edit war, just discussion here). Re: the Socrates example -- that's true, but this is Wikipedia (as I remember being helpfully told in the past), not an Academy. I'm going to remove myself from discussion on these RS issues at this point, because no matter how clear I attempt to be with my comments I don't seem to be being taken at face value (re: sorting out consistent RS criteria implementation, not other aspects of weight or POV). My rhetorical question re: sects was in reference to an earlier comment by HTC. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * HTC, you are clearly confused, and your Tilting at Windmills would be hilarious, if the implications of perpetuating such confusion "for posterity" were not so serious.


 * First, if you had properly researched the facts, you could quite easily have discovered that I began editing under my real name on 27 September 2009. From that day, I "retained" my former account (The Communicator) and have used it on only six occasions (in two-and-a-half years), the last one being over a year ago. Furthermore, for the record, my email to ArbCom declaring my alternate account use was sent on 7 December 2009, which means that I have only edited with my old account on three occasions since that declaration. I received a reply from ArbCom member, Peter Casey, on the same day, accepting my reasons for alternate account use as valid. I have nothing whatsoever to hide from ArbCom, or anyone else, and you are only making yourself look silly here. Hdtnkrwll is right: the conversation is descending into a "weird conspiracy-fest".


 * Second, the irony of this is that the conspiracy theory is being perpetuated against real-name Wikipedia editors (and a real-name author) by pseudonymous editors who don't have the courage to use their own names. Although they have the protection of Wikipedia anonymity, their childish use of ridiculous pseudonyms (Dazedbythebell, Hoverfish, HumusTheCowboy, and Nemonoman) goes completely against established conventions of authorship (such as those existing in scholarly writing and investigative journalism), where people stand over what they say and take responsibility for it. If, as one of them said above, he is "too old to put up with time wasters, too educated and experienced to be fooled by them and bored with hypocrisy", then why does this old timer call himself "HumusTheCowboy"? What does this straight talker have to hide? (Incidentally, there is no mystery over the real identity of Hoverfish, and his list of Facebook contacts reveals three explicit Meher Baba connections.)


 * Third, my principled defence of a self-published author is not something I need to hide or be ashamed of. That author has been attacked both on and off Wikipedia, initially because there was some criticism of Sathya Sai Baba in one of his books. His integrity was called into question, and his attackers attempted to blacken his name publicly. Added to such deliberate misinformation has been the perpetuation of hearsay. I could not stand by and see such cowardly acts perpetrated without speaking out in that author's defence. His integrity throughout the whole affair has been exemplary. By the way, the injustice has lately been acknowledged by Jimmy Wales himself, at least implicitly, as the target of the attacks recently indicated.


 * Fourth, I agree with Stephen Castro and Hdtnkrwll. There is no point in continuing to engage at this level. Let the non-involved members of the Wikipedia community decide.


 * Simon Kidd (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Simon Kidd. You are confused. This from your talk page I have retained my former user name for editing one article Now you have not done that Simon. I see three different sites edited. See here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=The+Communicator  HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment Jimbo Wales left in my talk page concerning Shepherd, indicates that he is well aware of his involvement in Wikipedia, as he asked me to remove a comment I had on my user page, to encourage him "to move on from Wikipedia". Simon Kidd and Stephen Castro, by whatever real-world arrangement, express Shepherd's interests and concerns in Wikipedia. For me this is neither a mystery nor a conspiracy nor do I care whether it involves sock/meat-puppets. I see it as a misuse of Wikipedia, but I don't care to sleuth after it. I have also found that there are many editors, not present in this thread, who see the misuse. - In facebook I have much more than 3 connections who follow Meher Baba. Since I "accept request" for any of them who ask, I have more than 40. BTW, I have met only one of them in person, several decades ago, and he has never met or belonged to any group of followers. Is there some kind of stigma this places on me? Does it disqualify what I have to say in this thread? Hoverfish Talk 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @the Communicator From http://kevin-shepherd-exposed.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/kevin-shepherd-cites-anonymous-scholars.html 'It is also important to point out that “The Communicator” has very close ties to Kevin Shepherd. This opinion is supported by the fact that “The Communicator” mostly edited articles that Kevin Shepherd is deeply involved with (i.e., Stanislav Grof, Holotropic Breathwork and the Findhorn Foundation). “The Communicator” added links to Kevin Shepherd’s Citizen Initiative website and continually cited Kevin Shepherd, Stephen Castro and Kate Thomas (all affiliated with each other and the Citizen Initiative website) as sources on articles and on talk pages' . Interesting HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so all this mud-slinging at SK, SC, & KS speaks to the RS criteria issues...how, exactly? The discussion devolves to this, and then people are surprised or defensive when perceptions of sectarianism arise? (The only responses I've read here mention notability or POV issues, but not RS criteria per se -- apart from D.'s essay, but then there's been no response re: criteria to evaluate presses/publishers.) I'll leave it at that. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * HTC, it is indeed "interesting" that, like others before you (including a contributor to the discussion on this page), you link to one of the many websites maintained by the person who originally attacked KS back in 2006, and to whom I was referring above. This editor, who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia, is notorious among critics of Sathya Sai Baba, and his Internet propaganda is very well known. See, for example, Evidence of an Internet Activist in Action. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish, I don't doubt that you have other editor contacts who "see misuse". But, apart from the slanderous and extreme POV comments by the likes of the banned editor referred to above, there has never been any case of misuse against me. I strongly countermand your claim that I have expressed anyone's "interests and concerns" here. Where I used any author to contribute to an article, I always did so in a rigorously NPOV way, in complete accord with Wikipedia requirements. It is not misuse to refer to published books in relevant articles. All that has changed recently is that an editor on RS/N has decided that the self-published books of KS are not reliable in the Wikipedia sense, even though they had been accepted by other editors for several years. At the same time, he also claimed that devotee-published books are even less reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sanity expressed by Hdtnkrwll and Simon Kidd. Surely, after all the washerwoman talk on this page it is time for a reality-check and address the actual issue. According to a recent administrative decision by Fifelfoo:


 *  “… self-published texts regarding the history, biography and sociology of a new religious movement, and devotionally-published texts regarding devotion to a new religious movement [are not] reliable for the history of new religious movements or the biography of new religious movement figures as both sequences of literature fail the self-published sources criteria: they are published by presses that are immediately involved and do not display the review required for the establishment of a secondary source.” 


 * Kalchuri’s devotionally published texts, and other similar texts used in the MB article, are therefore not RS according to that decision. Why not invite the administrator to clarify the ruling so that all the name-calling and mud-slinging on this page can cease? No author should be denigrated for not being RS. Outside the context of Wikipedia that term is invalid. We are merely talking about a standard specific to Wikipedia in order to be RS. It is not a judgement on an author or their work. --Stephen Castro (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@ The point being made is it looks like these editors above may come with an agenda. They have a shared edit history. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, HTC, for productively moving this discussion forward and sticking to relevant arguments (again). Since everyone who wishes to actually discuss sourcing issues here must somehow now be the same person, according to you, it makes it much easier to sort all this out, knowing this. Yet, to my knowledge (just following comments here), you seem to be the one who's changed your username very recently. Thanks for clarifying. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ H I did change my username, yes, but I dont have an alternative username I got approved to use for one article and then decided to use it for three articles and I dont edit in a pack and I dont follow Shepo HumusTheCowboy (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No author has been denigrated at all for not being RS. You may feel very strongly this way but I don't. I am only talking about the behavior I see within Wikipedia. I highly approve of people who do their own studies and spend their life researching and writing. From the editors of this articles I am aware of at least two researchers/authors of books and none of them has ever tried to use them as references within Wikipedia. If they ever do, I will object to it immediately. In any case, the only other alternative explanation to SC&SK having come here after the RSN decision to grossly damage this article as an act of revenge, is that they have come here to raise havoc so that they can see how we try to defend it and use our arguments to reverse the decision of the RSN concerning their Shepherd concern. The rest about "principles" is plain hypocrisy. If it was for pursuing a principle, there are lots and lots of other places to apply them, some of which are flooded in POV. A "principle" whose application centers on one specific "test case" (and especially one which has been recognized for its NPOV) is not a convincing argument in Wikipedia but is seen as an indication of agenda at work. Hdtnkrwll, as your new allegiance has already pointed out, this is not the page where a more general RS decision can be taken. If you feel disinterested and uninvolved on the issue of LM, please discuss in the appropriate page. Hoverfish Talk 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hoverfish. Thank you for your theory. Now let’s try another perspective:


 * Firstly, I have constructively listed on this page, and elsewhere, alternative texts to Kalchuri’s LM that are RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term. I do not see how that can be interpreted as an attempt to “grossly damage” the MB article. Much of the current MB article would in fact stay undamaged. In most sections it will just be a matter of changing the devotionally-published text references to RS texts. A few sections may well need to be revised, but articles are not written in stone, and there should always be openness and flexibility towards improvement. In this instance, the improvement will be the removal of devotionally-published texts. I was indicating a lifeline and a valid option for editors. Is that “revenge”? I think not.


 * The facts of the matter are that I had produced an article that immediately raised editorial concerns (yourself included) and which manifested as a multiple issues template being added to the article. The main concern expressed on the Talk page was that it was not “encyclopaedic”, but rather a “personal essay.” Over several weeks I attempted to negotiate those concerns, but after a number of attempts, rather than mutilate the integrity of article, I requested that it be withdrawn. At this point an administrator, SmartSE, objected to simply withdrawing the article as other editors had contributed and protocol required that the article had to be nominated for deletion. Smartse specified the main issue being that the article was based on a number of texts that were not RS. That administrator listed and also commented on those texts, which included LM. This was before Fifelfoo’s decision was posted.


 * So, two Wikipedia administrators have highlighted LM as not being RS. Fifelfoo coined the useful term “devotionally-published” to describe a specific type of text that falls outside the Wikipedia requirement for RS. What is occurring here is indeed an important test case, and in the sense that the outcome will serve as a precedent so that other editors can identify such texts and take appropriate action. What makes this particular case so interesting is that there are a number of articles on Wikipedia directly linked to Meher Baba and which use LM —articles which you would term as “flooded in POV”. The outcome regarding devotionally-published texts will assist editors to clean-up (or in some cases, delete) such articles. It will actually have a positive outcome for Wikipedia given the number of articles on NRMs.


 * It would surely be “hypocrisy” to ignore and protest against the ruling by administrators who had raised the important issue of devotionally-published texts as not being RS, when you had previously been an active participant in advocating the deletion of an article that had made use of several devotionally-published texts related to Meher Baba. Anyhow, have a happy Easter. --Stephen Castro (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The ruling was concerning Kevin Shepherd specifically as RS. The discussion in archive 118 about Kalchuri is still open with no ruling. Have a happy Easter too. Hoverfish Talk 21:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Yes. really its obvious SC is angry about his loss of an article. I hope Easter helps him reflect and he has a happy time HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I must confess that I am dazzled by the logic: I am angry about the loss of an article that I had requested to be withdrawn before it was nominated for deletion. I believe I had even left a message on my Talk page in reply to Hoverfish, when the matter of deletion was first raised: “Don’t worry. The important thing is that the article is deleted as I had initially requested. It will just take a little longer.” As to the administrator who nominated the article for deletion, SmartSE wrote: “As the basis for this nomination is mainly due to sourcing, I'll go through the main sources and add notes regarding the publisher and how they are used.” Yes, LM was left “open” simply due to the fact that the administrator had failed to do any research on the subject. If he had, he would have realized that the publisher was “Established in 1979-80. The main publisher of long-time disciple Bhau Kalchuri's writings, including his most important works such as The Nothing And The Everything (part of Meher Baba's missing book) and the meaning of his Manifestation, titled Avatar Of The Age Meher Baba Manifesting. For the past ten years, Manifestation, Inc. has been publishing Lord Meher, a multi-volume biography of Avatar Meher Baba's life and work, written by Bhau.” Now, regarding LM, we are not simply talking about a book that is devotionally-published and therefore not RS, but also that the text is written by a devotee, for devotees, and is flooded with devotee idioms and embellishments. Neither Charles Purdom nor Tom Hopkinson, whose texts are RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term, used that exaggerated style—their books are from recognized publishers and were intended for the general public.--Stephen Castro (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You knew the game was up with Shepard, thats why you said to delete it. A tactic. Changes nothing HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears that discussions re the devotionally-published text[s] used in the MB article have now reached a stalemate. I believe that arguments both for and against the use of LM have been fully represented on this Talk page. Therefore, over the next few weeks I will read through the alternative texts currently available that are RS. These can be used to replace the devotionally-published text LM and also other similar texts used in the article—which account for around 80 or so of the references. I will provide examples of RS references, yet seeking to retain the integrity of the current article. However, flexibility on the part of the editors is required. Some sections may need to be re-written. As I stated above, articles are not carved in stone. The results will be posted on this page indicating the page references for the RS text. The editors will then have the option look up the page reference, verify the text, and edit the article. Should this fail, then the matter goes to the next level. If the alternative RS texts are not used to replace the devotionally-published texts then the article will end up as a stub—simply because the removal of devotionally-published texts would leave insufficient text for there to be a recognizable article. We are no longer seeking consensus here because according to an administrative ruling elsewhere, a devotionally-published text, such as LM, does not even cross the threshold for reliability. Enough talk. --Stephen Castro (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of alternative texts that are RS


 * Marvin Henry Harper (1972). Gurus, Swamis, & Avataras: Spiritual Masters & Their American Disciples (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press).
 * Charles Purdom (1964). The God-Man: The life, journeys and work of Meher Baba with an interpretation of his silence and spiritual teaching (London: George Allen & Unwin).
 * Tom and Dorothy Hopkinson (1974). Much Silence: The Life and Work of Meher Baba (London: Gollancz).

As a brief example, below I have used a few alternative texts as valid options to replace references to Bhau Kalchuri’s LM and other devotionally-published texts found on the first page of the MB article.

--Stephen Castro (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) This is an attack. SC your motives, always clear to me, are now openly expressed: You would see this article as a stub as revenge because an editor here was in involved with the demise of the article on your pseudo guru Shepard. If you get your way, on the way to being a stub article ( your goal) your approved edits will make the article less and less until it is not reflecting Meher Baba but reflecting instead your bias. And that is also pleasing to you. This is your plan. It has nothing to do with altruism. Its a dark service to self agenda. I oppose it. Other editors need to now choose.HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [3] Harper, pp. 56–57.
 * [4] Hopkinson, p. 23; Harper, p. 56.
 * [6] Hopkinson, p. 58.
 * [7] Hopkinson, p. 47; Purdom, pp. 51–52.
 * [9] Hopkinson, p. 64ff.; Purdom, pp. 94ff.
 * [10] Purdom, pp. 136ff.; Hopkinson, pp. 81ff.; Harper pp. 59–60.
 * [11] Purdom, p. 399–400.
 * [12] [13] Hopkinson, pp. 121–122, 136–138.
 * [14] Purdom, p. 359; Harper, p. 68.
 * [16] God in a Pill?  Cannot presently find RS text to cover this, but Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins wrote Getting straight with Meher Baba: a study of mysticism, drug rehabilitation and post adolescent role conflict. (Warner Modular Publications, 1973). There may also be something in “Youth Culture Religious Movements: Evaluating the Integrative Hypothesis,” Thomas Robbins, Dick Anthony and Thomas Curtis, The Sociological Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter, 1975), pp. 48-64. Unfortunately, A Mirage Will Never Quench Your Thirst: A Source of Wisdom about Drugs, ed. by Laurent Weichberger, is published by the Sheriar Foundation.
 * [17] ?


 * @HTC: We "...need to now choose"? Did you mean to use this web service to display your text? I think I'm going to choose not to deal with this level of discussion -- if "good faith" Wikipedia discussion is continually dismissed in terms of collaboration or "allegiances," then what's the point? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with users who are obviously after specific aims in Wikipedia, "good faith" is hardly the proper way to look at it. "Good faith" BTW does not mean "be naive". Hoverfish Talk 07:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems to me that SK & SC's aim to implement Wikipedia's reliable source criteria is a "specific aim" of Wikipedia. Others here, in the past, have done much deferring to Wikipedia policy (at least when it suited their sourcing preferences), but apparently overlooked some of the basic guidelines in the process. N.'s fact/POV distinction applies to what Wikipedia considers RS, not to every verifiable text in existence, for better or worse. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Hdtnkrwll. Ha ha. Did you just come off this web service. I can feel the crystal pools of love, where conflict does not exist. Not. By the way Hdtnkrwll did you not hear ''Bhau Kalchuri clarifies his earlier remarks about Meher Baba’s silence. “The words ‘Yaad Rakh’ were expressed in gestures '' Enjoy HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @HTC: If true (BK on gesture, then speech, then back to just gesture, apparently), wouldn't that just further call LM into question as a RS? It's stated each way in the two existing printed editions, already. It doesn't speak to Eruch's separate account of speech either way. I don't think it can be heard here coming from me, apparently, but other editors will eventually have to spell-out or decide on the RS criteria, regardless of whatever personal interpretations any of us may hold on whatever issue... Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Hdtnkrwll re I don't think it can be heard here coming from me, apparently, You often say this sort of thing. Is it false modesty or a cry for sympathy? Its Mills and Boon material. Why don't you look at what it is that made other editors not listen to you rather than accuse. Live above the line with your reasoning and deal with the issues for the sake of anyone who comes in here and does not want to go thru ten archives to find out how you put them offside and what your obsessions, if any, may be. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * HumusCowboy has a point, and Hoverfish is right that "good faith" does not mean "be naive." Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to some previous discussion of sourcing and notability issues in the Meher Baba group of articles. Apart from the GAR itself, the issue of third-party sources came up on the MB Talk page in June 2008. Jossi comments: "The main concern is the need to make the tone of the article more encyclopedic, as well as look for and represent material written by third parties. Otherwise the article can never achieve NPOV, let alone GA status. Do you know of any authors that discuss Baba, that are not close to the subject (besides Brunton, that is)". In response, Nemonoman admits: "As I have stated, I know of NO repeat NO reputable scholarly sources who could not be characterized as devotees. Maybe Shepherd, but I have never seen that volume" (note that the discussion here concerns devotee authors, not devotee publishers). And in October 2008, several months after the conclusion of the GAR, some concern was expressed on the NPOV Noticeboard. Editwondergirl had noticed the proliferation of articles relating to Meher Baba, many of which she didn't think were notable. At the top of the section, she refers to "sourcing problems" and later, in reply to Nemonoman, she remarks: "I take your point about the difficulty in finding sources on Meher Baba-related issues that are not written by devotees and/or published in Meher Baba newsletters, websites, etc - but if people and organistations that are not closely associated with Meher Baba have not written about a topic, then that may well be a sign that it is not notable. I do not suggest that Meher Baba himself is not worthy of at least one entry, but at things stand he has effectively got many entries, many of them not of a high standard and with questionable claims to notability." Even Editwondergirl doesn't seem to have noticed that the major source for these articles (Kalchuri's book) is a devotee publication.

The continuing NPOV problem with this group of articles is clearly evident in the in-fighting that is currently displayed on the Avatar's Abode Talk page. In the Avatars Abode article section, BabaisLove (a name that says it all) informs HumusTheCowboy: "I have created a referenced article, at the request of several Baba lovers connected with Avatar's Abode. Bill is currently looking at this. It includes mention of Bill and Francis. He has been asked by other Baba lovers to write for Wikapedia on Avatar's Abode. In my understanding even the Trust [presumably Avatar's Abode Trust] is supporting this. I hope, given your familiarity with Wikapedia, you will be able to assist with these efforts." HTC makes some explicit comments in the Concerned section, as he attempts to rein in the behaviour of BiL that he evidently finds so embarrassing. HTC goes so far as to say that BiL's behaviour is "detracting from Baba and airing dirty laundry".

The main problem, however, is with LM as a source. According to the Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources:


 * An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:
 * Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.
 * Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.
 * Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.
 * Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.

LM and several other devotee-published works in the Meher Baba articles fail this test. As Fifelfoo said elsewhere, they "do not even approach [the] threshold" for partial reliability. His assessment was backed up by Fladrif: "Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by 'in-house' imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS [i.e. self-published sources]". Simon Kidd (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, regarding Nemonoman's reply to Jossi (quoted in my previous post), one of the reasons he might not have been familiar with Shepherd's book on Meher Baba is that this book was basically suppressed by the Meher Baba movement, because it was critical of some of the leading figures involved (not Meher Baba himself). Shepherd has recently presented his side of the story online. See Meher Baba Movement. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good and now please do consider what User:Presearch has replied to you here and if possible please refrain from repeating your position over and over. This page is getting too loaded and a lot of time is getting wasted. Hoverfish Talk 20:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Above. Excellent link Thank you. here. This from User:Presearch has always summed up LM for me. I would contend that allowing Foster to speak to Christian practices, and Kalchuri to speak to Meher Baba's recommended practices, is merely common sense, which Wikipedia guidelines tell us we should retain.

And Kidd please refrain from endless time wasting repetitions. The threads are way to long HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon I read that link. Meher Baba Movement. The first part I like, the background. Its a sad story. There is truth in it AFAIK. If it happened like that I now understand Shepards motive. From what I have heard over the years Adi jnr behaved badly. This was the man Baba slapped very hard with his sandal, affecting his hearing. He was not Mandali from what I know. He did have family and mandali connections of course. BTW Baba's older brother said once he was the real Avatar not Baba. He retracted later. So things got messy in that family, and I guess thats natural. In the end Adi Jnr is just one other soul like the rest of us.

I still think LM is Ok for use here, and will stick by that, but I now understand some of the driving motives here. If what is written is correct it looks like Adi jnr fooled Mani. Thats a betrayal of family trust. And yes the mandali are fallible, I have seen that first hand, so its possible. They are however very good people and Mani would not have liked that betrayal, when and if she found out. Have you considered Adi Jnr had his own sort of banishment to England. Was he an embarrassment? I am sympathetic after that story. I am not a devotional type myself: However LM is about use of material that is not devotional AFAIC, factoids and the like. And in the end its use is correct as it stands IMHO.

The second half of the article I dont like. Its not a sect. Period. Or a Cult. I dont do them and Im in it. Like any gathering of mankinds, it has its idiots though. But I now understand more what made Shepard like he is. I am so over special personalities and big Egos in 'Baba world. Perhaps in his own way Shepards story needed to be told, here, but this does not mean all Baba followers are devotional junkies and vis s vis LM must go. I acknowledge Shepards story but want LM to stay because its used in the right way for the right reasons HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW I think Hdtnkrwll may have gone from Wikipedia. I may be wrong but it looks like his page is gone. His position became untenable once he was yadrakhed and he was faced with the likely prospect of LM staying as it is, despite his protests. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I am likely leaving Wikipedia, but it's not because I was "yadrakhed" (whatever that's supposed to mean in this context). My sole point has been that LM is not a unique case, in terms of publication criteria, not that I necessarily think it should be removed (I have no "protests" against LM per se). But I still have not read here any direct responses to succinct questions put to others, re: how they are evaluating specific criteria of presses/publishers as RS (apart from repeated NPOV-use clarifications). All people seem to be offering (apart from D.'s extended comments, which still don't fully address the self-publishing issue) are delegitimization techniques. Your comment below about the sources within the Jesus article is a good example, because it misses the point -- the vast majority of the sources used there are "established" (third-party publishers with editorial staff publishing works by a variety of authors). My point is only that if the publication criteria for LM has been considered to be good enough to be considered a RS, then so is the pub. criteria for some other sources others don't seem to want to use here (completely apart from NPOV and due-weight concerns, since the same fact/POV distinction N. makes should apply to any RS source; the difference would be the publication specifics). No one has been discussing the details of publication criteria, though, just point of view issues. If SK and SC do pursue their concern over LM, eventually someone will have to actually address specific publishing criteria here -- I've been trying to get the issues on the table, but apparently just attempting that equals "revenge" or having an "allegiance." In the past Wikipedia policy was the rationale given for not using certain sources, yet, now, when there's an opportunity to specifically discuss publication criteria in relation to RS guidelines, no one will explicitly discuss the criteria. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Presearch's opinion should be the deciding one, although it's easy to understand why Hoverfish, HTC and Dazedbythebell would claim it to be so. Other experienced editors have expressed concerns over sourcing issues in the MB group of articles. This is not a one-man crusade on my part. I have had advice from Fifelfoo on his Talk page and will pursue the matter in due course. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)