Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 14

Outside references
Discussion: I have some 'outside refs' as opposed to BL 'inside refs' which I got from a PhD BL friend. They may have some use. In light of the recent LM Wars, as discussed above some new RS refs are in order. I like Nemos list above BTW. I think it would be good to include some outside refs at some point, some new RS refs to distill LM and widen the ref base, for reasons discussed by us all. What do you think of these ones? Selected Text followed refs (I have much more). Its not my work, but I have permission, and Im posting it to get other opinions, not for a holus bolus cut and paste it in session. Its the the refs that interest me, refs like 'Rolling Stone' and 'Independent', that are outside secondary sources of MB which are like hens teeth to find.

Meher Baba (1894-1969) – a notable Indian spiritual figure. The Directory of Religious Bodies in the USA rated Meher Baba as arguably “...one of the most influential (new spiritual) figures in the West.”[1] There have been several studies in the field of new religious movements supporting this assessment, with recommendations for further research by major experts on new religions such as Robert Ellwood,[2] Gordon Melton,[3] Peter Rowley,[4] Robert McDermott[5] and Jacob Needleman.[6]

Partly through the anti-drug campaign, Meher Baba became part of the ‘counterculture scene’ - one of the most recognizable guru-figures of the 1960s/ 1970s[27] and apparently the first to attract a significant youth following.[28] Meher Baba’s face featured as the cover of the November1970 Rolling Stone magazine.[29]  Several Rock identities of the time – Pete Townsend of the Who, ‘Melanie’ Safka, Ronnie Lane of the Faces, and songwriter Billy Nichols declared themselves ‘Baba lovers.’ They subsequently produced several major works inspired by Meher Baba (most famously the world’s first rock opera – the Who’s Tommy).[30]

'Today, the Meher Baba movement is a quiet and inconspicuous phenomenon, but more influential and widespread than may appear - the British Independent dubbing it “probably the biggest underground network in humanity.”[32] Conservative estimates of followers of Meher Baba range from 210,000[33] to 1,000,000.[34] People magazine (India) claimed there are groups “all over the globe...so vast ... that the Net has nearly 600 web pages of information on (him)...including his favourite song, movies and so on.”[35]

[1] J Gordon Melton, Religious Bodies in the United States - A Directory (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), 161. [2] Robert S Ellwood Jnr, Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973), 285. [3] J Gordon Melton, Religious Bodies in the United States - A Directory, 161. [4] Peter Rowley, New Gods in America (New York: David McKay Co, 1971), 122. [5] Robert A McDermott, "Indian Spirituality in the West: A Bibliographical Mapping", Philosophy East and West Vol. XXV : 2 (1975), 227. [6] Jacob Needleman, The New Religions( Garden City: Doubleday & Co, 1970), 76f. [27] Robert Greenfield, Timothy Leary – A Biography (Houghton Milton Harcourt, 2007), 313. [28] There was already a substantial Alternate/ youth following for Meher Baba in the late 1950s / early 1960s. [29] Rolling Stone No.71 (26 November 1970). [30] Paul Birchard, 'Obituary - Delia de Leon: Head of the Q', The Guardian 10 February 1993. [32] ‘Baba Don’t Preach,’ The Independent 24 February 1994, II. [33] Robert Humphreys & Roland Ward, Religious Bodies in Australia: A Comprehensive Guide (Melbourne: Humphrey & Ward, 2002), 292. [34] Tim Thelen (prod.) & Dina Snow (narrator), Meher Baba, the Awakener Video recording, Divine Sport Productions (USA) 1994. [35] Meher Castelino, ‘As Luck Would Have It,’ People (India) Sunday Mid-day Section, 23 August 1998, 25.

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the quality of theses refs is as good as any non BL refs, which says there are not many good ones out there. I felt obliged to find some non BL refs after such a long discussion here about refs. These are the lean pickings Im afraid. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "Meher Baba movement" and the speculation of number of followers, I would like to avoid including too much on this issue for one thing because anything we include will be mostly speculation (even if properly referenced) and for another, we may come to some serious definition problems with "Meher Baba movement". Hoverfish Talk 11:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that this article is biography article, so the subject is the person himself, Meher Baba, and not the followers of today. Of course his following is part of his legacy and is noted, but it is not the main topic on this particular article. If there is to be lengthy discussion on the 'movement' or if there even is one, I have always thought it ought to be in a separate article. See for instance Shirdi Sai Baba movement and Sathya Sai Baba movement. However, personally I would not be interested in starting such an article. But I would help if someone did. I agree with Hoverfish that there could be a problem with defining "religious movement," another problem of baseless speculation for the most part regarding how many or where (even when well referenced), and so on. I would personally prefer to just leave most of this out as not good Wikipedia material. I think these scholars are kind of just making things up off the top of their head. To list the number of Baba lovers as '210,000' is absolutely absurd. The Meher Spritual Center, the main visiting spot of Baba lovers in the Western Hemisphere, reports a mailing list of 3000 people -- and that these are "Baba lovers" can't be confirmed as there is no actual definition to the word, no ritual initiation, no creed, no membership roles, no statement of faith, no article of clothing, no rules, no authority figure, no hierarchy, no authority of doctrine, and an extremely mixed bag of personal approaches to considering Baba. In fact I don't even think that there is a single consistent thing that one can assign to all "Baba lovers." No one I have talked to is even sure where the term "Baba lover" came from. My main point is that this particular article, regardless of whether one wants to start another on a movement or not, is about the person himself -- his biography. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with all points made. I did a mock up here in talk of how Legacy might look with some new stuff and after a few minutes deleted it. Didnt fit together. A guy I know with all the best intent has gathered these refs over the course of his doctorate and I said to him I'd pass them on here. This also satisfied my willingness to see what refs could be found. My POV with them is neutral, and I dont see much use for them, but I could be wrong. Some may be useful. He just now, this minute, sent me this.


 * One of the first Indian gurus to visit Britain was Meher Baba, Steven Sutcliffe, 'Wandering Stars - Seekers and Gurus in the Modern World' in SS Sutcliffe & Marion Bowman, Beyond New Age Edinburgh University 2000, p.21
 * Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad there is general consensus and agreement. I do appreciate putting the references here, and they may prove of use. They are certainly of good Wikipedia caliber as external and scholarly. Yet a good reference is not all that is required (as I think we are all in agreement on) to be a 'true statement.' For instance, the quote above by a reliable source states that "One of the first Indian gurus to visit Britain was Meher Baba." Compare this to this fact from the article on Vivekananda, which is more true: "[Vivekananda] traveled to the United States and represented India as a delegate in the 1893 Parliament of World Religions. He conducted hundreds of public and private lectures and classes, disseminating tenets of Hindu philosophy in America, England and Europe. He established the Vedanta societies in America and England." It is generally acknowledged, I think, that Vivekananda was the first Indian guru to open up Eastern understanding personally to the West. Baba came about 30 years later. It could be that Baba was the second. I don't know. But the quote is too vague to be of much use in giving people a clear idea of the order. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo change
The recent change of the lead photo by User:75.56.205.138 should be discussed and a consensus reached before it is put back. I personally don't see why such a static frontal portrait image of Meher Baba is preferable to a more candid one that shows how he more typically looked in the middle of his life. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The name of the image is "Meher Baba 1962.jpg", User:75.56.205.138 in the edit summary claims it is "a shot from 1957". This is confusing. If the image is of 1957, then the image should be renamed before considered for using here. Hoverfish Talk 16:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no preference over which image should be used here. Both are good enough, except that the date in the title should be corrected if used here. Hoverfish Talk 16:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

hi. all photographs of Meher Baba are expressions of the divine, however the current photograph (Meher Baba 1941 2.jpg) used at the top of this wikipedia page is, in my opinion, one of the strangest ones of Meher Baba on record. it's not particularly inviting, and i can almost picture an attached dialogue bubble which asks, "You lookin' at me?" we should remember that this wikipedia page will be many people's introduction to the Avatar. i don't feel strongly that the 1957 guruprasad portrait from Meelan Studio should be THE photograph to represent Meher Baba, however i believe there are countless other choices which may create a warmer, more humanistic impression. Timt17 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) tim t.
 * I propose a vote, since it is very subjective. I see no other way to reach consensus. I propose giving the vote a week. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Vote Change or Keep:


 * Keep Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral

--- A vote for something that is so subjective... I find this unusual... That Meher Baba's photos are expressions of the divine is not a valid argument for Wikipedia. Here we have a biographic article and the choice of image has nothing to do with introducing the Avatar to the people. If after reading this article a person that did not know about Meher Baba, feels that he is a spiritual teacher, a Perfect Master or the Avatar, we do link to plenty of portals and other material that can take this person further in his/her quest. Personally I see nothing "less humanistic" nor "more candid" in the image that is currently displayed, but neither do I consider it THE image that should be in the intro. Actually it has been here long enough to consider changing it. There are hundreds of photos of Meher Baba many of which are free of copyright and can be used here. My concern about the title of the proposed image was not addressed. Was the photo taken in 1957 or 1963? The title of the image and the text connected with it in Commons should reflect the date it was taken if it is to be used here correctly. My personal taste is for neither of the two, but this is no argument by which to effect a change. The criterion should rather be like using one from the middle of his life, one that represents Meher Baba in a simple but characteristic way, etc. Hoverfish Talk 22:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos are like a song. Depending on ones mood one can like this or that. I personally like all Baba photos but at times a particular one takes my fancy. Getting the date of the photo right is mandatory otherwise it should be excluded until the date is verified. Thats just a given. IMHO Baba photos have power but that is not a selection criteria. Neither is something like Baba picked a photo for a 64 trade fair. So what is the criteria for a photo of Baba? Correct data i.e. date / location. Copyright cleared. Matching text to photo. i.e if talking about MBs childhood or the new life one does not have a picture of him aged or a child respectively. And thats it for an encyclopedia. I suspect we should rotate the first photo in the article of Baba a little, showing him neither old nor young, encompassing the time frames he was active that are most covered in the article itself. --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The first image we used in the lead was File:BabaWithGarland.gif, which must have either been deleted or renamed. Then came Image:Meher Baba.jpg (1941), then a File:Meher Baba 7.jpg (New York, 1932 - missing), then File:Meher Baba 12.jpg (Nasik, India 1937), then File:Meher Baba 13.jpg (Meherazad, India 1967), then File:Meher Baba (UM).jpg (now missing) and since 21 Jan 2008 the current one is there. I am for rotating a bit (say once a year or every 2 years?). Hoverfish Talk 01:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the rotation idea suggested by Blade of the South and seconded by Hoverfish. I don't know the date of the photo. I am presuming the previous editor was right that it was 1957. If so the name should reflect this date, and any other details that can be determined. Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

re: the photo currently named '1962' - it can be found on page 143 in 'Love Personified' compiled by L. Reiter. credits indicate that it's from Guruprasad Poona 1957. the photographer is listed in the index as Meelan Studio (Poona.) Timt17 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC) tim t.

Ok I will correct asap the image name and data in Commons and OK it here. Hoverfish Talk 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

✅ I renamed the discussed file to File:Meher Baba 1957.jpg and adjusted the text and category in Commons. There are several uploaded (and copyright cleared) photos under commons:Category:Meher_Baba. I consider File:Baba 41.jpg a most representative one but I have no problem with the one suggested by Timt17 either. In terms of using one of representing the middle of Baba's life, one of 1930-34 would be best. Hoverfish Talk 16:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, Timt17, the impression I get from the currently used image is not a "are you looking at me" notion, but rather a "do you want to hear a VERY interesting story?". :) Hoverfish Talk 16:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

...yes, i can see that interpretation, as well! i realize this is all very subjective, so thank you all for considering a change. i also like the idea of a rotating photograph. (don't worry, i won't suggest an animated gif.) Timt17 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)tim t.

So given the fact that Timi17 suggested the 1957 image and Dazedbythebell stated it looks too static for the lead, can we now decide about the next possibility? If we leave out the Meher Baba 1941 1-7 sequence and were to choose between File:Meher Baba 1.jpg, File:Baba 41.jpg, File:Meher Baba 1957.jpg, I would go for the middle one. However, given the fact that for India "as of 2013, (anonymous) works published prior to 1 January 1953 are considered public domain", doesn't this leave us room for some possible uploads? Hoverfish Talk 17:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and changed it to File:Baba 41.jpg and if this move does not answer all the concerns raised above, we can still swap it with another one. Hoverfish Talk 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a great photo of course. May I suggest that when its rotated we consider again a 'looking at you directly' sort of photo to be included in the choices. Perhaps Tim's previous choice of photo. There are some examples in the article which is good, but when you first open the page and see Baba looking at you, well, they are so special imo. I do like this descriptor by Hoverfish, '"do you want to hear a VERY interesting story?". All the looking right at you pics appear to have variants of this theme, well he did come to wake us up did he not!

Regarding rotation frequencies. Anniversaries are a time honored Baba tradition, Amartithi, Baba's Birhday, Silence day and the like. Indeed there are many such events per calendar year. I would suggest using such a marker annually or bi annually to rotate the leading jpeg. And since a vote was suggested, so its a win win, I would lean towards Tim's recent choice as the next pick to be changed at Amartithi, if its correctly labeled and copyright clear, if its not then something like it. Then another choice could be made on silence day mid year. Roughly six months later. Its not a great expenditure of energy and it keeps the article interesting in a slight manner. And I suspect we all check often here for vandalism, so a brief amicable discuss and upload shouldnt be a problem. --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the photo and am up for whatever the group wants. I suggest changing it bi annually as suggested by Blade of the South, thus suggest Silence Day (July 10) and Amartithi (Jan 31), six months apart. I agree with Hoverfish that other images could be uploaded shot in India prior to 1953 so long as they are tagged right on Commons with the right Copyright justifications, which can be duplicated form several of the others. I also am much happier with a straight-on image from time to time as suggested by Tim17 if it is rotated so is not continual. BTW, there is extra heavy traffic on Silence Days, due to it being featured on the front Wikipedia page each year as 'what happened on this day,' and a new photo would be nice at that time. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest after I changed the image and saw the result published, it did occur me that for a biography article a straight-on image may be preferable to a side profile for the lead. And since Dazedbythebell also mentioned a straight-on and Blade of the South seconds Timt17's choice I have no problem if it is changed to Meher Baba 1957.jpg right now. After we do some more uploads, we could decide here on a group of photos that are best for use in the lead, so we don't have to decide every time which should be the next. And BTW, changing twice annually is fine with me too. Hoverfish Talk 15:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh and please make doubly sure the photos have a clear copyright clearance, which is stated properly when uploading, as I find it quite frustrating having to face deletion proposals in Commons. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I second all Hoverfish's ideas, including changing the image to the one favored by Tim17 and Blade of the South, if that is what the consensus is. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent choice of lead picture. Confirming all points. Bi annual lead pic change on Amt and SD. Full frontal jpeg is very appropriate for a biography, but a new lead picked from a group of pics will be considered here pre change dates. --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of Avatarhood
There is a somewhat misleading statement in the article, in the lead paragraph and repeated in the section Declaration of Avatarhood. It is that Baba declared publicly he was the Avatar in 1954 (when he was 60). This is a little subjective or at least unintentionally misleading to a reader who does not know Baba's life story. Baba certainly stated openly to many prior to 1954 that he was the Avatar. For instance Baba said to journalist Paul Brunton in 1930, "You know that you are a human being, and I know that I am the Avatar. It is my whole life!" (Lord Meher, page 1349). There are a couple dozen other instances where he explicitly said so prior to his Highest of the High Declaration in 1954. The sentence in the section in the article on his declaration of avatarhood says, "On 10 February 1954 in Meherastana U.P., India, Meher Baba publicly and explicitly declared his Avatarhood for the first time, spelling out on his alphabet board Avatar Meher Baba Ki Jai." What the reference page given actually says can be checked here. (See here) It does not say what the article states it says, but rather that "This was the first time Baba himself had spelled on the board Avatar Meher Baba Ki Jai." The implication that he was declaring his Avatarhood explicitly "for the first time" on that date or that it was the first time it was made "public" seems to be an interpretation of events. My suggestion is to do one of two things, unless others have suggestions. One is that it be reworded, such as that Meher Baba said he was the Avatar, without giving a special date for this announcement at all, or adding that he became more public about it in 1954 but it wasn't the first time he said it -- or put in a note where this is all explained, preferably in the lead paragraph, since many readers will not read further. It is misleading in that it gives the impression that more than half way through his life as a master he decided he was the Avatar. This would in fact be true of many other people who have, at some point but not originally, decided they were or declared themselves to be. Baba seemed quite sure of it from the get-go, and I hope the article can better represent this to a reader new to his life and what he said, which is the primary audience of an encyclopedic article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the best would be to simply mention in the lead that Baba said he was the Avatar without pinning it in time and then to elaborate further in the article, mention that he had said so before his declaration of 1954 and mention that during that event he made a special point of it, using the alphabet board, etc. Hoverfish Talk 18:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This sounds good. I figure we can wait a bit in case someone else comments, and then try to work out some wording. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest starting with the opening line, before doing the longer part in the body of the article. How about this?

Meher Baba (25 February 1894 – 31 January 1969), born Merwan Sheriar Irani, was an Indian mystic and spiritual master who said he was the Avatar of the age.

Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I made the above change as there appeared to be no objections. The second issue (the section Declaration of Avatarhood) is more problematic. The statement appears there: On 10 February 1954 in Meherastana U.P., India, Meher Baba publicly and explicitly declared his Avatarhood for the first time, spelling out on his alphabet board "Avatar Meher Baba Ki Jai." [ref given is Kalchuri p. 4283] There are several problems with this sentence I think. To begin with the cited page does not say this. The second problem is that the statement is objectively false as stated. This was neither the first time Baba said he was the Avatar, or said it publicly (as saying it to journalist Paul Brunton 20 years earlier seems even more public to me), or said it explicitly. There are many quotes prior to this date where he is just as explicit about it (i.e. clearly expressed leaving nothing implied). "You know that you are a human being, and I know that I am the Avatar. It is my whole life!" (to Brunton 1930) is about as explicit as a person could be about their identity. From what I gather, there is an established belief among Baba's followers that this spelling out on the board was a very special event. Something seems to be inferred from Baba spelling out on his alphabet board, "Avatar Meher Baba Ki Jai," yet I personally don't see anything definite about it. If there is a meaning to it, a source stating the special meaning of his doing so should be cited, otherwise it reads as original research (interpretation by the editors). My suggestion is to remove the sentence, as it makes no sense without the editorial interpretation added. In place of it I would lengthen the preceding sentence to: In September 1953, at Dehradun, Meher Baba declared that he was "The Highest of the High," once again reiterating that he was the Avatar of this age, and spelling out on his alphabet board, "Avatar Meher Baba Ki Jai." I would also change the section header to God Speaks and Giving up the Alphabet Board. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with your changes so far. I did not know about this and had taken it from this article that it must have been so, and to be honest it did sound somehow peculiar: "Why did Baba suddenly make this public statement?" But now that you mentioned it and I checked the sources everything falls in a more reasonable view and is historically correct. Congrats for detecting this POV element in the article. Hoverfish Talk 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Belated agreement, have had a lot of work. Yes it was an awkward phrasing and insinuation. This is why less Bhau is better IMHO, certainly many good references for all sorts of events exist like this beauty from 'Listen Humanity' D Stevens page x111 where Baba says in 1945 who he is. We have to be careful using LM, for all the reasons so recently covered, just saying. --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, I have done some research, and this may influence your use of LM or maybe not. Its likely Bhau is not inner circle. Neither was Eruch according to what Baba told Mrs Duce. A K Irani was according to the same source and Eruch was his contact in the second circle out. Explained thus 'These one hundred and eight persons of the outer circles have their respective places in the nine circles in accordance with their past connections with the members of the circle ahead of them -LM '. Now Bhau came late, after Eruch. So many older Mandali had come and gone. This is a quote from LM from a primary source. 'Regarding the outer circles of the Avatar, none of the one hundred and eight persons in the nine circles holds any office similar to that held by those of the inner circle'. I propose again that LM be used only for its role of being a secondary source compilation of primary sources. Not for Bhaus interpretations which IMHO are and have been tainted by old age and medications for some time: And he is not afaik inner circle, close, Mandali --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In respect to Wikipedia, whether one belonged to Meher Baba's inner circle or not is irrelevant. What matters is proper documentation and as we know and have discussed earlier, Bhau wrote his biography of Baba drawing from sources of Baba's immediate environment that were present when events happened and recorded them in diaries available freely by the Trust. It is the correct documentation that matters and not the writer's "belonging" to some circle. Hoverfish Talk 15:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thats my point also. To be blunt and saying this openly now, I'm talking about the 'reliability' of the authors interpretation in some parts of LM and the possible belief some may hold, not the editors here I might add, in his interpretation being correct just because people believe hes inner circle. Im not against the valued reproduction of primary quotes from LM but we need to be guarded and check things from other sources as well --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed category
Removed the category Indian Zoroastrians for two reasons. First it is already covered by the subcategory Iranis, which is more specific and more accurate. Second, it is not clear that Baba ever identified himself as belonging to any particular religion after he was 20 years old. "I belong to no religion; all religions belong to me. (LM 4112, 4341)" "I love and adore all religions; but I am of no religion." (LM 3980) "I belong to no religion and yet to every religion." (LM 1757) "I belong to no religion. My religion is love." (LM 5877) Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture change
There was some discussion and agreement that perhaps it would be a nice idea to change the main photo a couple times a years -- the suggestion was Silence Day and Amartithi. Silence Day is in 3 days, so perhaps it is not too soon to make some suggestions. Images that are available can be found here: Commons Images. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is one suggestion that has been considered: Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's fine with me for one. Hoverfish Talk 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is more traffic to the Meher Baba article on Silence Day than any other day -- due to the Silence Day article usually being on the front page under "On This Day..." So I propose changing the photo the evening of the 9th. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Its a beauty. The timing you propose is acceptable. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Legacy
Was considering entering a mention of the recently released film Nema Aviona film at the end of Legacy. Here is a proposed wording in case anyone has suggestions how to improve it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2012 Louis van Gasteren's autobiographical documentary Nema Aviona Za Zagreb premiered in Amsterdam, including an interview with Meher Baba filmed in 1967. Filming for Nema began in 1964, but took 48 years to complete.

I think it is quite within the scope of "Legacy" to include this, plus this seems to be the first documented interview of Meher Baba in a film released commercially, unless I miss a previous case. The text is fine. IMO, we could include a clause about the topic of the interview. Hoverfish Talk 15:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion about the topic of the interview. As a film fan and a Baba fan that follows such things, yes it is the first interview released commercially. The only other filmed interviews were for newsreels, one for Paramount and one for Movietone, which I would not include as commercial films. Not only, but no film footage as far as I am aware has EVER been cut into a commercial film. A photo of Baba appeared in the background in Harry and Tonto (1974) and LOL (2012) on a character's T-shirt. I am putting the piece in now, and will think of how to word something on the interview over the next few days. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment
I came here for some information on the teachings of Meher Baba, and found that the lead of the article doesn't provide that information. I also noticed that the article layout wasn't helpful for anyone wishing to find that information. The article does not meet MOS:LAYOUT and WP:LEAD which are part of Good article criteria (criteria 1b). It has been a long time since the article has been assessed against the GA criteria, and I think it needs to have a re-examination. But before doing that I will have a look to see if I can address the issues.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea to try first to address the problems you see. You might also consider making suggestions here, as the reassessment process is slow and the problems you see might more easily be addressed directly. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are thinking of a community reassessment. That would not be appropriate here. A reassessment may take the same time or would be quicker than me doing it myself. I can see where the article doesn't meet GA criteria, as indicated above, and so can do a reassessment layout in a few minutes. The regular contributors could then spend 30 minutes putting it right, and we're done. So if you are concerned about speed, I can set up the reassessment for you right now. I'd be happier for you guys to sort it out. My main concern is the lead. If you read WP:Lead, you'll note where this lead falls down - it gives an overview of his life, but doesn't explain his teaching. To put it simply, each major section in the article needs to be summarised in the lead. And I suspect that some of the history details could in fact be reduced. And some statements only make sense to someone who already knows Meher Baba. For example: "Starting in 1949, along with selected mandali, he traveled incognito about India in what he called the "New Life." What does that mean? Why did he travel incognito? What is this "New Life"? What is the significance of mentioning the "selected mandali"? Why did it start in 1949? How long did it go on for? That one sentence, which tells the casual reader very little, actually raises so many questions that the reader is left a little baffled and frustrated. WP:Lead says: "the lead should not "tease" the reader". For someone who already knows Meher Baba you know what this episode in his life means, and presumably would regard it as an important element - so much so, that it should be mentioned, and that simply mentioning it would be enough for you, because it is already known and understood. But your audience is not other Meher Baba followers - it is the general public who don't know what the "New Life" signifies. If the "New Life" is significant, it should be explained.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, can you please give us a clue about the information you were looking for that is missing from the intro? Hoverfish Talk 17:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I came here because I'm doing some work on the Who. Wikipedia is one of my initial sources of information for work and recreation. I'll start here, and then go the main sources. The Tommy article says: "Pete Townshend's inspiration for the album came from the teachings of the Meher Baba". So I came here to find out what those teachings were, and why they would inspire Townshend to write Tommy.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that "why" Pete Townshend was inspired to write Tommy would be OR for us to speculate on or try to connect, unless there are statements from Pete that we can quote. From what I know, Pete is quite inspired by Baba's teachings as a person, and the article/section that treats this side of his life is here: Pete Townshend. One notable influence that it had on his life and that is mentioned in that article is that "following Baba's teachings, he was opposed to the use of all psychedelic drugs, making him one of the first rock stars with counterculture credibility to turn against their use". But in the making of Tommy, his inspiration has too abstract a meaning to attempt to include here. He was probably inspired by the idea that one can reach in consciousness a state of Perfection, but in the role of Tommy he related his own experience, as far as he has said in private letters. Now about representing less history and more teachings, it should be discussed by more editors. When I came in Wikipedia in 2006, I first attempted to add here a summary of his main books, however, at that time, to keep the article from becoming too long and to keep a due weight balance, it was decided we start two articles about Baba's two main books, for which I have done summaries. If it will strengthen the quality of the article, I am ready to work on including more, if there is consensus. Thank you for the explanations. Hoverfish Talk 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But even so, I am not sure to what degree this can satisfy the specific need for an explanation of how Pete was inspired to write Tommy. Hoverfish Talk 21:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I expressed myself poorly, and you are right to pick me up on that. I meant not that I came here to read about Townshend, I came here to read about Meher Baba's teachings. I wanted to read about the teachings because they are said to have influenced the writing of Tommy. I was hoping, once I saw the essentials of his teachings to make the connections myself. I was hoping it would be fairly straightforward. But even if not straightforward, with some idea of the teachings, I would be able to start thinking about what the connections might be. I am seeing connections between the character of Tommy who is deaf, dumb and blind, and Meher Baba's absolute renunciation as symbolised by his New life.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My goal is to try to reach the straightforwardness you describe. In certain areas Meher Baba's teachings are quite straightforward and easy to summarize without risking OR, but most of his explanations on metaphysics are not as simple. The Britanica article, for example, although excellent in prose, departs from the primary sources without offering any references. Many sentences include the summarist's interpretations, as for example: "These outward activities Meher Baba saw as indications of the inner transformation of consciousness that he came to give the world." We can't afford to do this here, not until a future notable scholar offers us secondary source material to quote. Our summary has to remain directly verifiable by the primary source. Hoverfish Talk 11:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked again at this article, and I think there's a lot of work needs doing, but I don't have the time to put in the research needed to help sort it out. The article is not clear. As an example of what the article should be aiming for - see the Encyclopædia Britannica entry.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if a subscriber to Britannica would email me a copy of their article. Hoverfish Talk 21:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have put the relevant text into a collapsed section in the GA review. I used my library subscription. I think most libraries have one - so you can ask yours. I also think there are other free ways of accessing the online EB.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Try this one: . Does that work for you?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I got the text from the collapsed section and now I can see this page you linked to. Hoverfish Talk 23:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a few problems with the name of the review. When it was automatically created it named it GA1, which it wasn't, and some links were not going to the right page. So I renamed it. But I renamed it incorrectly twice. It is currently correctly named GA2, even though this is the third review, because the previous review was a community review, and they are named and numbered differently for some reason. I'm hoping the software will catch up shortly and present the templates appropriately. At the moment the talkpage template is showing this as a community reassessment.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of the teachings' section
Before working on the lead we have to decide on the teachings sections and whatever changes we are to have in the biographic material, so we end up with the correct weight of each in the lead. So I suggest we develop the teachings section first. Hoverfish Talk 23:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we start this on a separate page, such as a sandbox page, and then link from here to it for those who would like to work on it? Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do, but starting tomorrow morning. I'm off for now. Hoverfish Talk 00:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a very first step: User talk:Hoverfish/Sandbox. I copied the existing section with a "reflist" section and above it we can start the rewriting. Hoverfish Talk 13:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The re-written part has been inserted in the main article now. Also the lead has been modified to include this section and effort has been made to make its phrasing clearer for the casual reader. Hoverfish Talk 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am starting further work on a possible additional extension of section Teachings in my User talk:Hoverfish/Sandbox. Any helpful input is welcome. Hoverfish Talk 13:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am moving here below all discussion relevant to the improvement of this article that happened in my sandbox, with its original date-stamps, as the work started there has been finished. Hoverfish Talk 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Organization of the material Issues
 * Suggestion: Mention when and how the books were written in the biography timeline and leave all issues of content for this section. "God Speaks" offers the core material needed to summarize Meher Baba's metaphysics, whereas the "Discources" offer the material for the practical aspects, along with further clarifications on the metaphysics.
 * The subsections should not reflect particular topics, like we have done so far, but different aspects of the teachings
 * The lead should begin with some explanation that Baba's life, and much of his teachings, remain somewhat enigmatic, and there is no authoritative interpretation -- making simple study of his life and teachings difficult. There is no perfect encapsulation of either, as both are complex and require effort to study and understand.
 * I admit being very confused after reading the essay Scope and the guideline Article size. Given the particular case we are facing, are we to simplify the section so it can be read by ANYONE at the cost of offering LESS to a researcher? It seems impossible to do both. Baba's teachings on metaphysics are by no means simple to reduce to the nice prose given in Britanica without seriously reducing what we offer to one, say interested in non-dualism who wants to see what exactly Baba is saying about it. Hoverfish Talk


 * Please let me know if you would like me to comment somewhere else. I have a similar concern to the one stated just above. Baba's life is episodic and enigmatic. This cannot be overemphasized. I think this should be stated. However, it is hard to find a citation for it. Perhaps people don't like to admit it who write books about him. People hoping to see a life explained will be disappointed, given that Wikipedia frowns on original research - where we offer our own interpretation of events. The same is true of some (but not all) of his teachings. They are enigmatic. No one can authoritatively say what the mean. For instance his claim to do "internal work" can only be stated, not explained. Same with the New Life, brought up by the reviewer as lacking any clarification of its significance. The fact is that students of Baba have no consensus on what its significance is. Followers generally accept the enigmatic nature of his teaching and actions without question, as a point of faith. Beyond saying this (though I can't cite it) I don't know what can be done to remedy this. Baba's life is mostly inexplicable and 'strange.' It's an acquired taste. A vast amount of what he said remains to be explained or interpreted. The problem we face is that we are not in a position to do original research to offer some personal guesses, and even guesses one can quote from published authors make little more sense than the facts themselves. Rarely do they really offer clear explication. The only solution I can see to this problem is to make this extremely clear upfront in the article (and in the teachings section). This might be attacked for being our opinion, but anyone who spends the time to do the research will come to the same conclusion. Asking people to take our word for it will be difficult. The project of making Baba clear and concise is harder to do than it would first seem. Eastern masters (especially Meher Baba) are enigmatic to the utmost extreme.Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no way to make clear what the connections between Baba's teachings and the music of Pete Townshend might be. I know of no quote by Townshend that his rock opera Tommy was inspired by Baba's teachings. It seems to be a line created by and mirrored by the press, not one originating with Townshend himself. One song -- Lantern Cabin -- that is all music without lyrics, was likely inspired a stay in the Lantern cabin on the Meher Center in South Carolina. Yet is has no connection to his teaching. Tommy was his own creative license during a time when Baba in general inspired him. The idea it is based on some teachings by Baba has never been shown. It is extremely unlike Baba's teachings. I know of no source that can show a correlation between the two. Townshend has said in private letters that Tommy is based on himself, not Meher Baba. At most we might see a person who is a seeker - who has some kind of realization. But this is very general. It is hard to connect it to anything Baba taught.Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ... We have a case where notability is beyond question but secondary sources have not yet appeared to give us the luxury of quoting them. So we are treading a narrow path open to attacks from all sides. We are not being clear enough, but who on earth has been clear enough about the subject matter to quote? Hoverfish Talk 16:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible titles Possible contents & terms to mention
 * Possible new section
 * The Involution of Consciousness
 * The Stages on the Path
 * conscious longing for union with God, traversing the spiritual path consists in shedding the various "folds of the veil of ignorance"
 * intermediate stages are forms of imagination
 * brief description of experience of the planes
 * mention parallels to other accounts of the path (following cited secondary sources) - (St.John of the Cross, Santa Teresa de Avila, ...)
 * ... Hoverfish Talk

The period of involution is undue weight by itself, since Baba has three stages -- evolution, reincarnation, and realization. Thus I think to place this by itself would misrepresent his teaching. He goes into just as much detail in the stages of evolution -- giving their properties also, much as in planes. So this would have to be a tripartite under classification of the journey. Baba's theme is a going out, then turning around, and then return. Emphasis of the planes without grasping this I think would give people the wrong idea. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But maybe it was evolution that you meant to designate by "intermediate stages are forms of imagination." Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Baba is most notable (compared to others) for emphasizing 'whither and whence' while Christianity simply begins with man created out of nothing (dust) and never explains the 'whither' part. Baba wishes to clarify the full process, and to see the path as a part of a larger theme. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is emphasized throughout God Speaks and in all its charts. For instance the main fold-out by Rano, and the Ten States of God cover it too. And the chapters are arranged in the beginning to cover it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go into Involution (Meher Baba) or as a subsection of Involution in God Speaks. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right that if we pick this one topic to expand, then we have to expand just about everything else to remain in due weight to the original material. While researching I noticed that Stages on the Path are only 6 pages out of 282 in my version of Discources (MtG/GtM) and I also noticed that in God Speaks it is treated in a smaller length than for describing the divine states. I think you are right that we would end up with too much material overall. Hoverfish Talk 14:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Problems with writing on a Baba article:


 * 1. FACTS: Baba's life is episodic (it does not tell a story). It is broken into seemingly disconnected "phases" that have no clear cause or aim. It is all literally unintelligible. The names for his declarations and phases aren't helpful, and only add MORE confusion. It is like watching a person with bipolar disorder start and abandon projects, as if he has no idea what he's doing. He predicts what won't happen, makes promises he never keeps, says things that make no sense (and even tells us we can't understand) and dies unexpectedly with no apparent physical accomplishments beyond some books and gathering some real-estate and strange relics like boxes and buses to remind of his helter-skelter existence. He leaves without breaking his silence, with the world worse off than he found it. And no one can explain why or what was so great about him.


 * 2. PROSE: Because we want to tell the facts without original research, and because the details DO NOT SHED ANY MORE LIGHT BUT IN FACT LESS ON WHAT ALL THIS MEANS we tend to say nothing. We tend to just say "he did an enigmatic thing" called such and such, and give a date. We do this because we don't know what else to say factually that would help make things clearer to the reader. So the result is boring prose -- like a history outline of the Napoleonic Wars. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I should also add that most of our readers, though not all, come influenced from what they know of the gurus that came to the west and gathered a following, so they probably expect to get to Baba's biography and find all that feeling of new-age oriental-exotic excitement that the others are associated with. Then they find this series of completely inexplicable biographic facts, which we have made sure are the most representative ones of his life, and they assume it must be the fault of the editors of the article. We failed to make an article that appeals to the reader! Well, they are in for much more disappointment if they start doing their own research. Even so, I think this article in its current version is the best we ever had. We can't write like Britanica, this is simply so. We have to keep it all verifiable at the cost of glossy prose. Hoverfish Talk 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A rewrite is overdue imho. It needs expanding. I tried to get this going two years ago in legacy and teachings, got heavy resistance. Got that off my chest. You can hate me now. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In so far as "teachings" are concerned, I did a complete re-write and it is the only significant change I have ever done to this article. If you compare what was there before this reassessment and what is now there you will see the difference. However I see your list below, so I have to explain how I had to proceed and I will answer below about what you suggest. Hate doesn't come in question, just maybe one more effort to explain that "heavy resistance" does not come from my personal preferences, but from these rules that make what we state here be part of a good article. We have just one page, with a length of about 50KB of wiki-text presently, and we have to fit there what is most representative of Meher Baba's life, work, "teachings" and legacy. Now, about "work", it the hardest of all to say anything encyclopedic about it apart from what Baba claimed, i.e. that the main part of it is not what we observe outside but that his real work was "inner", and we may not speculate on this here. About teachings, what Baba left for the world is his book God Speaks. He made sure this was published in a reputable western edition and he meant it for the wider public. So this we have to take here as the most important issue, along with Discourses. And I did a big effort to take from these books the most representative points and sum them up here in a way that one can easily refer to the primary source and make sure it is all represented in in due weight. This much I can say to explain how I worked to effect my changes in the article. Hoverfish Talk 10:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested New Section
I propose a new section for the article discussing Meher Baba's unique sense of his "work," along with known enigmas surround its nature, as well as his own statements regarding the veiled nature of some of his words. I have created a sandbox for those wishing to participate. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me that this suggested section serves also as an answer to my last comment in the previous section. Hoverfish Talk 02:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not read the article for awhile and wont before writing this (kinda blind study) this is a list of non bio stuff (Re review and balance) that should be in there,( and may be already in there but need expanding or is not in at all). This is not a title suggestion for a new section (lets vote on that) but content suggestion re need for something the reviewer called teachings (groans). Or spread the teachings throughout. Ahh dont like that.


 * 1) The Work.
 * 2) Metaphysics, (Cycles / ages / manonash, Earths yes s)
 * 3) Spiritual hierarchy (circles)
 * 4) Perfect Masters / past Avatars / masters
 * 5) Mind / illusion
 * 6) Planes
 * 7) Other Planets, transmigration, reincarnation, Soul.
 * 8) Forces of darkness, powers of light
 * 9) sanskaras
 * 10) for starters

Then the lead will follow. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research on Tommy by the Who
Hoverfish brought up an important point above when talking about Legacy.

It says, "Parts of the rock-opera Tommy were inspired by Townshend's study of Baba, to whom the album was dedicated." The reference given is merely the gatefold cover that contains the tiny dedication. No reference is given for this claim about "parts of the opera" which should be there to verify it. It appears to be original research, unless a published source can be found for verifiability. Townshend's article in the Rolling Stone makes no mention of this. If no source can be found, it should be removed for now as OR. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Bit more information on this. The Pete Townshend article has a section on 'religion' that seems to be the source of this remark here in this article. However, that long section has only a single reference: the 1970 Rolling Stone article which anyone can link to and read here. Note the interview does not say anything of the sort about Tommy. The section on 'religion' in the Townshend article appears to be nearly if not entirely original research and it has been tagged for references. As a GA article this article should not simply mirror its unreferenced entry on Townshend. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, these comments may be more effective if placed on Pete Townshend's talk page. Here they are just bound to get archived sooner or later. Hoverfish Talk 13:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The townshend article section that says this (unreferenced) is already tagged for citations. I am planning to remove it here (or reword it) and this will stand as its discussion, so long as no one here objects. I do not personally care what they say in Townshend. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Because of the potential for quarrels, I felt it was important to make a record of a discussion -- in case anyone now wants to defend it by finding research to back it up. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing at all is referenced in the section on Townshend's religion in the Townshend article. So mention of this single fact (among dozens) makes no sense there. The entire section appears to be one person's personal essay, and I don't want to get embroiled in the problems of that article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am for removing the speculation that Tommy was partly inspired by Baba, but also for keeping the fact that it is dedicated to him. Hoverfish Talk 13:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I also added references. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as this section is being improved, the statement that "Meher Baba" appears in the lyrics of a Melanie song: (In 1970 Melanie Safka mentioned Baba in the song "Lay Down (Candles in the Rain)" with the lyrics "Meher Baba lives again / Candles in the rain") is not referenced and does not bear out when checked. See Candles in the rain lyrics. Unless a reference can be found this will either need to be removed or reworded. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I found a reference that includes this and am inserting it. The problem appears to have been that the lyrics she sings on the album are not the same as the lyrics in the liner notes that came with the album, apparently containing only the chorus. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally, Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Where to go from here
I am starting a new section because there is discussion going on above in two places and it is very hard to follow.

First of all, I hope it is understood that the article has just gone through a lengthy peer review (25 days) which resulted yesterday morning in Pass as GA. To get through this an enormous amount of changes had to be made to meet the concerns of the reviewer who was an administrator and experienced. To see the more than 200 edits that were made go here.

On the suggestion of a new section on 'work', which I proposed while the review was still underway, if we took a vote on it today I would vote to shelve the idea. It may be a needed section in the future, but as the article is currently stable and has just passed administrative reassessment and at last passed, I am for doing as little as possible. I think, Blade, that as you go over the new article you will like the changes. You will also find that it is mostly just me and Hoverfish these last few weeks here, and you know that we at least don't hate you and never did. Much of the friction and bad feelings of the past are over, as many editors have quit or quit for now.

So let's all talk here about where to go from here. My own feeling is to for now remain with very minor clean up like citation checking, grammar checking, date checking, and so forth. At the end of the Expansion of Teachings Section above, I noticed Blade that you suggested a rewrite. ("A rewrite is overdue imho") Actually, as you said you hadn't reread it yet at that point, I think you will see after you go over it carefully that the article just passed through a kind of rewrite -- though one in compliance with reviewer suggestions.

Now if a full re-write were ever agreed upon, and that would certainly require consensus before anything at all could begin, that rewrite would need to be done in a sandbox, where writers could work on it a long time, come to an agreement it is better, and then place it in substitution of the original. That is the only way one could be done without a lot of edit wars, conflict, and so forth on the main article. It is a good idea to retain the long-held status of 'stable article' (meaning not too contentious) as it is one of the requirements of GA, which this article has enjoyed since 2007, and as of yesterday's closing of the GA Reassessment, still enjoys. I propose on the topic of big changes we keep our discussion here so it can more easily be followed. It is a drag to have to hunt for the parts of a discussion and piece them together what they are talking about. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points all through that above. I concur. I missed all the edits as I have become involved in some dynamic edits and low grade edit wars around the Syrian conflict. Which reminds me to say what about the 'manifestation' content of the article? Also I will read the article, this week. And give feedback. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

First impressions. Pretty good start. Teachings as a sub heading must go. Universal message??? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The section is not specifically about Baba's universal message. Literally, what we have in this section is a summary of Baba's most important books. If this article concerned a philosopher or a poet, the word teachings would be out of question, but here we have a "an Indian spiritual master". So what is it that spiritual masters do? They don't "teach" but we have to use a common and self-explained word. Up to now "teachings" has been the closest compromise. If he was a writer, we could certainly say "works" but here this would have a very different meaning and we wouldn't be covering it by simply summarizing his main books. But please, suggest no terms that need explanation. The title has to be something that is obvious to anyone. Hoverfish Talk 10:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think of "written works", "texts", "books"... I just observed that for Muhammad there is no such section at all, but for Jesus there is "Life and teachings in the New Testament", and they used to call him "teacher", or so it has been translated. For Gautama Buddha they have "Teachings". Hmm. Hard cookie. Hoverfish Talk 10:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also about your suggestion further above, to treat specific issues, like manonash, etc, I think the correct procedure would be to have separate article for them IF their established notability permits such articles. As we know, not many independent sources, if any, have treated specific parts of Baba's messages, teachings, or whatever they might like to call them. So we should really stick to the most basic terms, those which are necessary for anyone to learn the main points of Meher Baba. Material that would need evaluation, elucidation, or research on our part is not for wikipedia, but rather for a Baba-specific informative website. Hoverfish Talk 10:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the header from "teachings." This was come to after discussion. Baba made one statement that he had not come to teach but awaken, only once. Yet he did not say he didn't give teachings, only that it was not what he had come to do. The heading conveys exactly what we mean, i.e. what Meher Baba taught. Here are direct references by Baba to his teachings: "You will find in my teachings. . ." (LM 1547) "But to be true to my teachings before all. . ." (LM 4336) "it is helpful for my lovers to come together and think and talk about me, to discuss my teachings. . ." (LM 5604) "My teachings are not like any religion or philosophy. . . " (LM 6232) It is as much a Baba lover convention to shy from the word "death" (preferring "drop his body") or to not refer to his auto accidents as "accidents." But we must not bring such jargon concerns to Wikipedia. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Good arguments re Teachings, I'm convinced. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't know about these quotes. Thanks Dazed. Hoverfish Talk 02:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not 100% sure I know what you mean. Im taking them at face value, I thought due to the mentioned discussion there was consensus and its all been checked. Is it the LM issue again? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No issue with LM. For what I know every single citation we are using has been checked again and again to reflect only indisputable historical facts. Citations that contained elements of point of view or disputable facts have been removed. Hoverfish Talk 10:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Until all the original diaries are published in some form we can cite, LM remains the only source where what Baba said about himself and other matters is reported in a day to day basis. All other books contain what he said in a worked up, formal, "discoursified" version. So to this day, LM remains the only source offering us such most direct reports to refer to. Hoverfish Talk 11:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the recent removal of "a small following worldwide". It is an unsourced guess. Hoverfish Talk 20:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

References section not a Bibliography
The reference section at the bottom of the article is a list of books that are cited within the article. It is not a bibliography of books related to Meher Baba. For a rather complete bibliography of books by and about Meher Baba (as of 2009) see this nearly exhaustive 220 page Bibliography provided by the Avatar Meher Baba Trust. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Revised edition of biography has different page count
In the last couple days the new Revised Online Edition of Meher Baba's biography, Lord Meher, came online and replaced the original version. The original Online Edition had the same page count as the 1986 20 volume print edition, thus all references to it (either online or in print) are correctly stated as Kalchuri (1986). The new issue is that the new Revised Online Edition has a very different page count from the original, thus references to anything taken from it should be marked in some way to show which edition they refer to. The 1986 print edition is expensive (at 20 volumes, hard cover only) and out of print. Thus many do not have access to it. So in the future it would be fine, I think, to reference the Revised Online Edition so long as there is a clear designation for it (to differentiate it from 1986 original). I suggest a citation read Kalchuri (2013) or Kalchuri, (Revised Online Edition). Whatever is decided here ought to be the standard for any future references throughout Wikipedia (there are many other articles that refer to Kalchuri) to avoid confusion. Any suggestions how to broach it are welcome. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonble. I vote for this Kalchuri (2013) as Im lazy :). SaintAviator (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discus proposed edits first please
User:Parvardigar78 clearly you edited in good faith. Its best however to discuss changes first to get consensus  SaintAviator   talk  23:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture
There had been talk about changing the main picture a couple times a year, and that time is coming up. But I feel that we finally stumbled on one there now that addresses everyone's concerns. A good straight on image without that is a good blend between candid shot and studio portrait, not a profile, and rather representative of him in mid-point in his life. I'm for keeping it as the permanent picture, unless something better gets added. Right now I think it's the most appropriate of the ones in Commons. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, isn't it time to archive some of this page? Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Archived. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hazrat Babajan School
I changed a long-standing error. The school Baba established in 1924 was the Hazrat Babajan School, later called Hazrat Babajan High School. The Prem Ashram was another project that was an offshoot of the school, and had very few boys. It was from 1927-1929. It was not an educational institution, but literally an ashram for meditation and recitations where boys gained spiritual advancement through practices. The details are too long for this article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, thats right, Im actually reading the hard copy of LM on that section now.  SaintAviator   talk  22:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Saint Aviator for confirming that. I only learned this very recently. This has been in error since the origination of the article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Indicated vs claimed and other edits
Grunionspawn. I always assume good faith, but please discuss edits here first. This edit by you is less graceful that what existed before when the entire Baba story is considered.

Your edit. Baba is said to have believed that his automobile accidents and the suffering that attended them were, like his silence, purposeful and brought about by his will.

Previous. Baba indicated that his automobile accidents and the suffering that attended them were, like his silence, purposeful and brought about by his will.

Baba did not 'say' (said) anything. He was silent. Indicted is the far better phrasing.

Also another of your edits again used claimed. Here is the original line. 'Baba indicated that their spiritual status was actually quite elevated'. All things considered, indicated is best I believe. SaintAviator  talk  06:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that assumption SaintAviator. I assume the same of you.

The edits are "less graceful" perhaps to Baba lovers who take Baba's claims at face value. Yet more accurate. "Indicated," in the manner in which you have repeatedly used, means to specify or point out something that is objectively and observably true. I assume you do not mean "indicted," but "indicated" is also wrong. I stick by the phrasing "said to have believed" as the objective one. There is no implication that he said it himself. Better still would be to either tell us who said it or delete the magical claim (that he could cause accidents by force of will) entirely.

Likewise since there is no such observably true thing as "spiritual status" Baba could not have "indicated" anything about it. I do not "indicate" that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has touched me with his noodly appendage, I "claim" it. Kindly cancel the reverts. Grunionspawn (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of the automobile accident. The reference given is Lord Meher p.5241. I do not have a hard copy and evidently this page does not correspond to the revised online version. So assuming it is p.5241 of the old online version (p.4219/4220 of the new), I read that in response to Eruch's bad feelings for having been the driver during the accident, Meher Baba told him: "It has nothing to do with you. The accident had to happen and it has happened. I had told you all there would be a personal calamity. Why should you feel so sad about it?" Then in p.5242 of the old version (p.4221 revised), Meher Baba is quoted to have stated: "My accident is no accident, and it all comes to one thing: what I wanted has happened, and what I want will happen." I do not see any statement that the "accident happened purposefully and brought about by his will". Maybe we should think of fixing this statement.

About magic and belief: I can say "I wanted team A to win and it won" with no magical implications involved. I can also say "I want team B to win and it will win" again with no magical implications, even if team B ends up winning. In the second case it can be said that I had a belief that came true, but here we are not dealing with future events. In our case, it would be our guess or evaluation to state that Baba believed it, or guessed it or had the absolute certainty of it, or said it to make the driver feel better about it. According to the source, Baba is not said to have believed something, so it would be best to stick to what we have, i.e. a statement so-and-so. Hoverfish Talk 20:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have access actual quote old online copy (hard copy). Checked Page 5241. You are correct Hoverfish. '"What makes you so presumptuous to think you are the cause of my pain? Who are you?" "I was the driver", Eruch said. "It is but natural for me to feel this way." "It has nothing to do with you. The accident had to happen and it has happened. I had told you all there would be a personal calamity. Why should you feel so sad about it?". SaintAviator  talk  22:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor NPOV Edits
It has been a few years since I visited this article and I must say it has been vastly improved since then. I did however note some lingering verb usage that indicated less than unbiased viewpoint. The claim that Irani "experienced visions" cannot be independently verified, and thus must be identified as a claim. In multiple places the verb "indicated" is used to describe an observation or belief by Meher Baba or his followers; since the accuracy of the observation or belief cannot be objectively verified it must again be described as "Baba is said (by ???) to have believed," "Baba claimed," "Baba stated," etc. Thank you. Grunionspawn (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and the edit summaries and I think that the points raised by Grunionspawn, however minor, might help the NPOV of the article.

However, I find "is said to have believed" somewhat complicated in the flow of the text, although correct in principle. Is there a simpler alternative? As for the definition of "indicated", here is what I find in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indicate : 1. To show the way to or the direction of; point out (an arrow indicating north; indicated the right road by nodding toward it). 2. To serve as a sign, symptom, or token of; signify (The cracking and booming of the ice indicate a change of temperature). 3. To suggest or demonstrate the necessity, expedience, or advisability of (The symptoms indicate immediate surgery). 4. To state or express briefly (indicated his wishes in a letter; indicating her approval with a nod). Can you please, Grunionspawn, indicate where you find the definition "to specify or point out something that is objectively and observably true" and tell whether that source has any other definitions apart from it? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that #4 above can refer to some issue that is not objectively and observably true, like one's wishes, as in the above example. Hoverfish Talk 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@SaintAviator: I understand that "indicated" is used here to differentiate from "said", but its valid use would be "indicated by hand movements that...", or "indicated by means of his alphabet board that...". To write that Baba "indicated" that the accident was brought about by his will, would be like pointing to a fact. The verb "claimed" applies better as it stands for "to state to be true, especially when open to question" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claim), and obviously whether Baba caused the accident with his will is open to question by the general reader. "Claimed" also is "a statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth". Another alternative would be "asserted". Hoverfish Talk 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hoverfish, you are correct in that "indicated" does not have to refer to an objective reality. Yet the current construction of the article uses an improper use of definition #1. For definition #4 of "indicated" to apply here, the construction would properly have to be "Baba indicated his belief that," or better, "Baba indicated, through the use of alphabet board and hand signals, as interpreted by Eruch, his belief that..." Considerably less elegant than "claimed," which captures the intended meaning rather precisely I think. I am OK with "asserted," but the casual reader might take that to mean that Baba was an assertive person, or that he argued the point with others, which I don't necessarily see to be the case as despite his various insistences he doesn't seem an assertive sort of fellow. But I'm sure you know of his personality traits better than I.Grunionspawn (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As said, I have no problem with "claimed" and since "asserted" may be taken to indicate an assertive character, I agree that it is not a good alternative. So unless a fourth party disagrees I will turn one instance I see needed to "claimed" and will modify the statement about the accident to reflect the reference given in a more direct way, avoiding any questionable statements. Hoverfish Talk 22:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you @ Hoverfish re 'differentiate from "said" up to a point. With MB all four definitions can apply at once as we know, and this article is not a shallow one anymore. It has as Grunionspawn asserted 'vastly improved'. It now has enough scope to plumb Babas depths a bit more. There is a synergy of some words used in relation to Meher Baba not talking that work well, because of the linkage between 'said' and 'talking'. Indicated is one of them. Claimed is a good descriptor also, but its use earlier by Grunionspawn didn't flow as well I thought. However his input has raised some good points. I believe we should have a mix in the lexicon, using asserted, claimed and indicated and other such words: Diversity is better, like we do by mixing the references by not relying too much on one i.e previous overuse of LM.

I do however like asserted. IMO its entirely the correct phrase for use in relation to this article and MB at some points. We shouldn't exclude such a descriptive word because someone presumes some reader will think MB aggressive when 'asserted' is used. Such speculation is an unlimited game, dependent on mood and other factors we should leave alone. Best to use accepted definitions. Denying such descriptive words and the nuances they offer does lead to blandness in writing. However since it was bought up, the view assertive = aggressive is a common and unfortunate misnomer. From WP. Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive. And more 'a form of behaviour characterized by a confident declaration or affirmation of a statement without need of proof; this affirms the person's rights or point of view without either aggressively threatening the rights of another'. Asserted is thus a great word which fits some of Meher Babas trait, very well .i.e. confidence, making declarations, being self-assured without either aggressively threatening the rights of another. The loss of such a word is a loss for this article.

Lastly we should not also try to protect MB from the idea someone may think him aggressive or such like. I dont get that Grunionspawn. Lets just be NPOV with a good mix of words. Good writing is re writing. SaintAviator  talk  22:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Since my level of English is near-native, I would wait for Dazedbythebell to offer a fourth opinion before I make up my mind about "asserted". I think I did use "asserted" once in a side article and he corrected me, though I may remember wrong. To avoid repetition of the same expression where possible is good, but to use words that may add unclear connotations to phrases would be worse than repetition. It is not a matter of "protecting Meher Baba" from any "improper" implication or characterization, but a matter of protecting the status of the article. If we should describe Meher Baba as having an aggressive side, or any other side, then 1. we have to base such claim on a certain notable source which makes this claim directly (without getting into original research to come up with the statement), 2. the qualification should be essential and helpful in describing the subject, and 3. it has to be done in due weight within the overall context. Hoverfish Talk 03:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with equalizing good writing with re-writing, especially after all the gradual progress done to bring this article to its present level. I just read it from from top to bottom and I think it reads very well. I am also thankful when we get feedback or constructive criticism from users like Grunionspawn who were not so much involved in the particulars of all this work, and they see it from an independent perspective. Hoverfish Talk 03:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Re re writing. Re-writing includes 'the gradual progress'. Authors talk about the struggle over a single word or phrase. So we are on the same page with that. We dont need another seismic edit.

Yes feedback is good. I thought what I said about 'Assertive' made a lot of sense. SaintAviator  talk  06:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Grunionspawn raised a valid enough point about a phrase that was vague, and Hoverfish was right to check the source. I also took a look. I think the new phrasing meets Grunionspawn's objection and improves the paragraph. I think SaintAviator's points are heard too, and I think this is likely as good a compromise as we can reach. I hope this can now be moved beyond. Looks good. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It does look good and we can probably close this off. Perhaps next time 'asserted' can top the list of next phrases to use.  SaintAviator   talk  00:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have no problem with "a personification of God in human form" to explain the word Avatar, although I would prefer the expression "manifestation of God in human form". Also changing the definite article to indefinite is fine. But the change of the next paragraph to "During this time he learned from five spiritual masters before he began teaching and instructing his own disciples in early 1922, at the age of 27" has some problems. One is grammatical. He learned what? Or if the intransitive form is meant, He learned about/of what? Then teaching and instructing are overlapping. I will change this sentence back, as it was more correct in both respects. Hoverfish Talk 23:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Saint Aviator, I was doing a partial revert and there must have been an edit conflict between us. Hoverfish Talk 23:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...ok Saint Aviator  lets talk 05:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing with the indefinite vs. definite article on "Avatar" depends on the level of explanation we want to offer. If you read the article Avatar you will see that it is not clear for any reader that Avatar is one and the same always. For people who understand God as One and only this should be self-explanatory. But there are all these uses as in Avatar of Vishnu, Avatar of Shiva, Avatar of Brahma, so yes, in Baba's own words, the Avatar is always the same One, but this should need to be made clear then, hopefully not in the intro as this would put too much stress in this one point. Hoverfish Talk 23:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Hoverfish and SaintAviator (who commented twice in his edit summaries) that the recent edits by 111.69.102.38 were in good faith, and that the editor meant well. But both editors are correct that the subject is highly complicated, and while these expressions sound more normal they would be entirely wrong in the context. Also the expression "personification of ____ in human form" (regardless of what you put in the blank) is a redundant sentence. Baba did say he was "the" Avatar and not "an" Avatar. SaintAviator is right that on the first page of the discussion history log at the bottom of the page this is already explained. There are 32 instances of his saying it in his published biography and it is in all biographies in those words. As it says in that discussion thread, "Whether or not he truly was is irrelavent to the article, as it is at least an encyclopedic fact that he said that he was." Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, on Hoverfish's points about the definition of Avatar. This is a very hard topic for the reason that Meher Baba clearly and repetitively defined the word one way. To go into that does not fit in the lead paragraph. One will notice, however, that it is covered in the text of the article under the heading Perfect Masters and the Avatar and there is even a sub-article it links to for further detail. It cannot fit within parentheses in the lead. The words "God in human form" are there as this is one way Baba phrased its meaning, and to separate it from the various other meanings in the Hindu term article. Incidentally Meher Baba was not himself Hindu. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good lets say somewhere what THE Avatar is to differentiate between that and what pic I put on some blog. I still remember when Avatar was a rare word. Lol. Saint Aviator  lets talk 05:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at how clear this is. It could be the best place is to make it a whole section in the sub-article that is linked to. This will give us a place where this is discussed and referenced in some depth, and so we don't have to clutter the main article with this side-show that only now (as you mention) has become so important to everyone. Thank you James Cameron for bringing attention to this confused word. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See past discussion on Avatarhood
Please see this Apri-May 2013 discussion about Meher Baba's Declaration of Avatarhood. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @ Jvpwiki. Please do not revert without using the discussion page and reaching consensus. This has been discussed at length in the past and a consensus was reached then. While it is often said that Meher Baba first declared his Avatarhood in 1954, it is not actually the case. There are eight instances of Baba saying he is the Avatar before 1954 in Lord Meher alone — including saying it in 1930, 1938, 1939, 1952, and three times in 1953. See for example from 1938:


 * "The time is near – the world is in chaos. That is why I declared publicly in the magazine article, 'I am the Avatar.'" (Lord Meher, 1986, p. 2324). Such examples are not limited to his main biography. In December 1942 Baba said, "I am the last Avatar in this present cycle of twenty-four, and therefore the greatest and most powerful." (Gift of God, by Arnavaz Dadachanji, p. 72)


 * Please do not edit war, and avoid this and the lengthy past discussion and consensus. Also, when you change what is said in a referenced sentence, without checking the references, it is not constructive. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware that this article is an ongoing group project. I also understand your point about previous declarations of Avatarhood, although the wording I proposed did not apply that 1954 was the first occasion. My only remaining points are, first, that the switch from presenting as a Perfect Master to presenting as the Avatar is incredibly significant, and if it is a gradual process rather than a single declaration, then that seems quite worth of more detail than the article seems to provide. Second, "said he was the Avatar" is a pretty lame representation of a formal declaration of that status. Said over dinner? On the way to the airport? Over toddy? I notice that the discussion above uses the term declare and declaration, and I suggest that this term is much more representative of the significance of this event. Along that line, I think "Avatar of the Age" is much more accurate than simply "Avatar" as a reflection of what Baba said about his status. Big difference, I think. Why not say "Avatar of the Age"? I don't want to slog over well-worn paths, but it doesn't seem that these points were made in the discussion you cited.

I agree that an edit war is inappropriate. JCvP 00:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)


 * In the form it was in before you changed it, as it was agreed over a year ago by those who participated in the discussion I linked to, the wording was that he "said" he was the Avatar. This is in fact true. The references (and there could be many more) if followed show that he said literally "I am the Avatar." So this wording that he said he was the Avatar was precisely right. Because that is what he said. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm yeah going with Dazedbythebell on this one Jvpwiki <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have restored the lead section as it was before the recent changes and moved one paragraph pertaining to God Speaks in the appropriate section. There is also an added and referenced text that can be added to a relevant section, but not in the lead, as we don't have any supporting text in the rest of the article and the lead should "summarize the content of the whole article". Here is the text I removed from the first paragraph of the lead:

While Meher Baba does not emphasize intellect alone as a path to perfection, in his principal publication God Speaks Meher Baba goes deeper into the subject of metaphysics than most other Indian masters. In his book Mastery of Consciousness, Allan Y. Cohen, Ph.D. writes that Meher Baba's "explanations of the creation, purpose, and evolution of the universe may be the most explicit ever written."

Please discuss any intended changes so that a consensus can be reached. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 10:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is the diff of the whole edit by Gnganing. Hoverfish Talk 10:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This material about Allan Cohen on God Speaks was simply copied and pasted from the Overview section of the God Speaks article. It should not be simply repeated here since a link is given within the article and at the bottom. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The section about the review by Evans Wentz lifted from the article about the book in its section on Reviews, does not seem to belong in a section in the main article under the heading "Teachings." The rest of that section sticks to the topic, and the review belongs in the longer article on the book itself. So I'm taking it out at that spot. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)