Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 8

Very good article
I'd keep it as is. DropSoul (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomb or Tomb shrine
I changed the word "tomb shrine" to "tomb" on several articles. However, after doing so I did a google search and it does appear to be a commonly used term, especially among Muslims. I am thinking of changing it back, but can't decide. The term "shrine" sounds a bit strange. The samadhi used to just be called the tomb long ago.

I am changing it back for now, but would appreciate any comments.

Auto accidents
Nice recent improvements. I just wanted to explain why I reverted the edit of wording that Meher Baba was in two auto accidents back to 'passenger in two auto accidents.' It's subtle, but though not explicit the phrase "After automobile accidents..." implies that Meher Baba was a bad driver. I have actually read where people have mused what kind of guru goes around crashing his fast cars. In fact Meher Baba, as far as I have read, never drove a car in his life. He was always driven. I would hate to cause confusion through wording. So that's why I changed it back. Thanks. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your version is preferred. I missed that it had been overwritten.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Meher Baba was of Indian Nationality
There has been some changes of Baba's nationality from Indian to Persian in the article. Wikipedia is looking for the nationality, not the ethnicity, in this section. The fact that Meher Baba was of Persian ancestry is explained in a footnote (#15; see notes). By saying that Baba was Indian, it means that he was born in India, lived his life and died in India, and was a citizen of India. It does not imply that he was of any particular ethnic group of Asia. It is well explained in the Early Life section of the article that he is of Iranian ancestry in that it is stated that he was Irani. I don't see any misrepresentation of his birth or ancestry in the arcile. And I say this with all due respect to the great nation of Iran from who Meher Baba traced his heritage - as all Iranis and Parsis do in India. Thanks. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is was discussed -- ad nauseum -- and finally a consensus was reached that INDIAN not Persian is the correct attribute. See the archives. There are hundreds of paragraphs on the subject. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Still Got Townsend Blues
I have been editing a little, very little, here on and off for four years now. Over that time the article has become very good, excellent at times. But this needs to be said. I have just reread the article and in the legacy section realty still has trouble getting thru past Townsend. Townsend gets 79 words. By comparision, Upasni Maharaj, a perfect Master and Baba's master gets 19 in the intro. Upasni's part is OK, fine, fits in. Townsends is way way to much. This is weird because he's a speck in Babas life, and I think this needs to be put on here.

Some personal views: In all my Baba contacts over 30 years, 5 trips to India, One to Myrtle Beach and many to Avatars Abode Townsend has come up maybe once or twice in a conversation briefly and I have never meet someone he greatly influenced. Never. Upasni has come up frequently in the same time frame. He is key to Baba. He is huge. What is this articel for? For new Baba people to read? The curious? Those who stumble on it? Therefore it should reflect fact. It should be good or better. Someone it seems had a real Townsend fetish when this article first went up (check archives). That must end. There is less of him now thankgod, but still too much. HE HAS HIS OWN SITE. I suggest he has a link to his article, and only a brief mention. One short line of 12 words or so. There are many many people not mentioned in this article that are bigger in Baba, IMO than Townsend, who are left out perhaps due to size restraints. But left out they are. Many. That Townsend has 79 words is silly. Also by self confession Townsend has made many mistakes and we should be careful about too much of him, he has admitted accessing 'three or four times' images of child porn on the net, including paying. That it was done he said 'purely for research' shows a lack of insight at best. He used drugs past Baba's warnings. He's a self confessed bi sexual. OK thats fine he can do what he wants, but do we want him here? No IMO. Now if Michael Jackson (who is innocent of all charges) was for Baba, that would be big news. He is a real star. I would say give him a lot of words and hordes would have come to Baba. Not the case. Not the plan apparently. Still we dont know how he does his work but comparing these two again MJ did masssive good works. Townsend what?

lastly as Ghandi said an error remains and error no matter how loudly or often it is said. Townsend in this article is in error in terms of space afforded and significance. --Jones.liam (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Like the part above by Nemonoman about Meher Baba as Indian being disussed at length to reach consensus in the past, the amount that Townshend is represented in the article (compared to others) is discussed ad nauseum (REALLY REALLY AD NAUSEUM) to reach consenus in the past also. See extensive talk archives on the subject. The exhaustive reasons for this choice, which itself was a hard-won consensus by many arguers, can be found in the archive. Please read them. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have read them, I was in it, thats why I put in 'It must be said here' that this Townsend content is still too much. It wasnt consensus. It was compromise with a fanatic. Enough of that. This big Townsend content is nOObish. It was massively extremely nOObish in the past. it was so nOObish that the changes made seemed extreme. they were not. Now its time for the final trim. Someone needed to say again whats obvious, that someones ego is hanging onto this Townsend content and that this Baba page is a vehicle for someones Townsend fetish. Thats what this is about now. Thats what the above post was about. Getting nOObs back in their place or waking them up to themselves. Instead of arguing about it, the person attached to this much Townsend content needs to explain / justify why it should remain at 79 words. If they dont, say in the next month, they have either 1/ are gone from involvement from this site 2/ cant explain or justify it but pride or some block prevents them from saying so, like an awareness of how nOObish they have been or 3/ dont care anymore or something similar. In all three cases the Townsend bit will be downsized to less than Upasnis bit at the least. WTF why is this even an issue???????? Considering the overall timeframe from 10 July 2009 the and the 1 month from now I think this is fair. Lets see whos flushed out and what they say.

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian language website
An unregistered user wants to replace the hub of websites with the Persian language website - apparently because Meher Baba was of Persian ancestry. In fact the hub that is linked has that website on it at Other language websites about Meher Baba. The problem with replacing the hub with a Persian language link on the English language Wikipedia article is... well I don't know where to start... it makes no sense. I don't really know what to say. There is also a Hebrew language website, a Portuguese one, a Czech one, a Spanish one, etc. I can't change it back any further without an edit war. If that happens I suppose there needs to be mediation or something like that. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need for excessive concern. We've been through this, and WP policy is clear: WP:NOT -- Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. To get this article to Good Article status one task was removing the growing lists of websites in favor of a directory listing only. Website spamming happens all the time, and it's just a question of keeping after it, like a good housekeeper.


 * This does not seem like an ordinary case of housekeeping. As of today (Aug 28) I cannot count how many times this has been changed back to the Persian, always using a different unregistered computer - probably in a workplace. It seems more like malicious mischief. Is there anything that can be done? Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not without a consistent username or IP. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

favorite song
What is this buisness about a corny song "there's a heartache following me" being Baba's favorite song? 20 years as a follower of Baba, and I've never even heard of that. Its well known in the Baba community that Cole Porter's Begin the Beguine was Baba's favorite. It was played 7 times (on Baba's request) at his internment, or his funeral so to speak. This isn't just the biased babble of a cultist; this is frequently mentioned in Lord Meher, which has been cited elsewhere on this cite, so I assume you count it as reputable. Anyways, this song is very important today to Baba's followers and sung frequently. Jim Reeves, on the other hand, seems to have absolutely no relevance. If you wish to mention Townsend's recordings, better to mention "O Pravardigar," his musical interpritation of Baba's prayer of the same name, which was made into a video that most Baba lover's have seen several times. http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp?pageBase=page.jsp&nextPage=5424 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.28.174 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the mention of Heartache Following Me is a quote of Townshend, "Townshend recorded the Jim Reeves song, There's A Heartache Following Me, saying that it was Meher Baba's favorite song." So it is true as stated. In fact Meher Baba made a big deal of Jim Reeves, his favorite country western singer, and his favorite was "It's a Heartache Following Me." He also liked "Welcome to My World" and use to pantamime the words as it played on the wind-up record player. The version of "Begin the Beguine" that Baba listened to and that was played seven times at his samadhi in 1969 by his request was a version with no words, so technically it was not a 'song' but a piece of orchestration. Hope that helps. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mani told me that during MB's stays at Guruprasad when he would go from the men's to the women's side of the building he would have Eruch walk behind him carrying a phonograph playing "A heartache following me." When I looked skeptical, she gave me hell and insisted. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mani told me this nah nah na na nah. You guys dont get it about favourite songs or favourite anything of Babas. There is no favourite. All are favourites. Everyone will have an opinion, even Mani AND It will be just that......... AN OPINION. Every person can walk away from time with Baba with the conviction that what he expressed to them was true. And it was....TO THEM. Being God he is above favourites. But being the Man God he will like what is suitable for that time, for that person, that moment in time. Thats his beauty. Now there remaims a memory and squabbles about songs and Townsend again..really someone has an obsession with him. Its so nOObish!!!.

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remember the principle of WP:Civility. The fact is in there because it's verifiable. Also remember the principle of WP:Verifiability: what's written must be verifiable as coming from a reliable source; it need not necessarily be true. It is verifiable that Townshend said the quoted fact. If you wish to dispute the reliability of the source, please feel free. I'm sure that there are other sources for the information. If you wish to dispute the notability of including the fact, please state your reasons. State them with Civility. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No its not that simple, its too easy to hide behind these principles and still act in a nOObish manner. This " and Townsend again..really someone has an obsession with him. Its so nOObish" is not an uncivil comment, it is based on fact (see the archives). For a time this article was the Baba and Pete show. Fact. People can verify things that still remains an opinion. However much they are printed. How solid is that verification that you speak off? How solid are all of them in this article? Is this verification merely anothers opinion that has been published. These sorts of self creating myths are common traps. Loops. A writes something. B quotes it. C thinks its fact. C is misinformed. C quotes it and on it goes. WMD !

BTW. talk above has a very good point. Not only is the bit on Babas favorite song just opinion its also just wrong on many levels. Take this piece from the article "Townshend recorded the Jim Reeves song,"There's A Heartache Following Me", saying that it was Meher Baba's favorite song.

Well really so what! Townsend says this or that. Two points. 1/ So what 2/ this is classic conjecture and poor referencing. where did he say it ( I say this ONLY as an example of poor evidece NOT that what PT says is worthwhile in this article), theres no verification, no reference, nothing, just an idea plucked out of where? what form would any verification be if it was found? a quote in Rolling Stone. All that would mean is he said that, (maybe) again so what? Hello. Its only P Townsend. In fact there may be so much stuff like this, poor evidence, that the people who put it there need to prove the evidence they have is rock solid rather than people like me suggesting why it should go. What does count as rock solid in the Baba world? Well this gets to the heart of it. A very few first hand Baba books or Baba directed / edited books like God Speaks. Thats all. There are discussions on this. These are first class evidence. Until the evidence dilutes a little and a little more and still yet more until what? we have this. Read this carefully.

"Townshend recorded the Jim Reeves song,"There's A Heartache Following Me", saying that it was Meher Baba's favorite song.

wow. U want civility? take this out now  .........please........b 4 I do. This is the lowest of the low evidence. Not only is it not referenced but even if it was its irrelevant.

--122.111.226.97 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

--122.111.226.97 (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree it's irrelevant. I think it should stay like it is. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Present your case. Show why.

--Jones.liam (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Do show why.--203.26.122.12 (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Liam, you've been banned before for using sock-puppets to create the appearance of consensus. I suggest you don't try this again. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ah AAAAh. Not no no. There was no ban. thats a lie. Put up or retract. Thas no civil. :Please remember the principle of WP:Civility. If you wish to dispute the notability of including the fact, please state your reasons. State them with Civility.

As 4 the above

--122.111.226.97 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC). yes this is me. Sure.

This was me forgetting to sign in. Oh yes I want to claim this writing. Its mine. I like it. I dont know the other talk contributions. U find out who they r. Contact wiki. Dont just accuse. :Please remember the principle of WP:Civility. If you wish to dispute the notability of including the fact, please state your reasons. State them with Civility.

So you are lying about the ban or misinformed. Put up or retract.

Now back to the point u seem to trying to avoid. No references for what is surely an opinion. Do u know I could do this too. I could insert lots of data into the article that has a higher degree of referencing value than your material (it must be your stuff the way u defend it) and if u remove my stuff your a hypocrite. Or i could remove your unreferneced bits using wikis own rules for unreferenced material. Both would be legitimate.

The trouble is with this article on Baba is that some people take any chnages personally. They cant seemt to stand the possibility they may be wrong. Is it because this is a spiritual subject? Who knows.

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Took this out guys The Who's 1971 song Baba O'Riley was named in part after Meher Baba and on his first solo album, Who Came First, Townshend recorded the Jim Reeves song, "There's A Heartache Following Me", saying that it was Meher Baba's favorite song. In the interests of getting a really good article lets keep things in that can be referenced. Otherwise its a joke. maybe it can go back when a ref is provided. Lets kep the standard of this good, not shoddy. I mean the things Ive heard re Baba have a big range. lots of SUBJECTIVE VIEWS. Objectivity is the key to good wikipedia. Dont just undo the edit. Thats nOObish. Do some work and find a ref. same goes for any such statments. ill be having a look at the other sections as time goes on. remember....be civil.

--Jones.liam (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

--Jones.liam (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Old sockpuppet investigation - January 2007
See Suspected sock puppets/Liam7

Investigated users: Liam7, Imogen4, Waylander.one, HectorTroy, and 203.26.122.12. See User:Waylander.one and User:Imogen4

Conclusion by admin: Proven.Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is me Liam at work, not signed in. Ok it was not sock puppet. Read the conclusion. Meat puppet? or people who just feel strongly about Baba and who dont do other wiki edits? The latter. I do know them, we did discuss the article because it was so stupid the way it was. One I never knew about any bans which proves the people who I know who felt strongly about the straw poll did only enter wiki for this poll. They may not even know they were banned. Big deal.


 * Back to the article problems now. Yes lets not shy away and try to hide from them.


 * Liam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Undo Edits
By undoing edits that have removed lines that do not have references you condone subjective views on wiki. Views without refs are personal opinions at best.

read edit tips / rules.

Put line back WHEN youhave a reference

Liam--203.26.122.12 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PS this discussion has been open since 10 July re edits without refs (see Townsend above) if you dont participate constructively, your argument about not building discussion is flawed. Respond to tye no ref argument. You do not because you cant win that. Stop undoing Undos. Its nOObish.

Liam--203.26.122.12 (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Undo Edits
By undoing edits that have removed lines that do not have references you condone subjective views on wiki. Views without refs are personal opinions at best.

read edit tips / rules.

Put line back WHEN youhave a reference

Liam--203.26.122.12 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PS this discussion has been open since 10 July re edits without refs (see Townsend above) if you dont participate constructively, your argument about not building discussion is flawed. Respond to tye no ref argument. You do not because you cant win that. Stop undoing Undos. Its nOObish.

Read this. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Liam--203.26.122.12 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One and a half months i have had this discussion on the page.

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

thats what i have done. Whoever is undoing these edits is in THE WRONG. be civil and stop it because there will be more. I have given notice that any quotation without a reliable source for quotations ...may be removed. You need to get used to the rules. You know who you are .

Liam. --203.26.122.12 (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New sections required
New sections are needed in the article to reflect Baba's work. I know what they are.

Get involved in a positive and civil manner keeping this in mind.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Liam --203.26.122.12 (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Im going to start with a new section on Sanskaras.

--Jones.liam (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Dazedbythebell ; Wikipedia is not your web host

and Dazedbythebell remember; Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. --Jones.liam (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

favorite Song nailed
With references. see legacy section

Meher Baba was fond of music and music features at gatherings in rememberance of him. His favorite song "Begin the Beguine" was often played on a phonograph for him. Baba remarked the song had an eternal meaning. He beat the rhythm with his fingers on the arm of his chair. "I always hear this record at Nariman's home when I go to Bombay," he commented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jones.liam (talk • contribs) 08:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats how its done.

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy with Townsend bit now
It reads better now. very small edit. More of a shift. Previously the word additionally was used 3 times in that paragraph. Clumsy. This reads better now and Townsend has a rightful spot

--Jones.liam (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Undo
Dont just resort to name calling when you undo an edit. How gutless is that. justify the edits dont hide behind giving another editor a label in the edit summary, that you think makes you appear cool and collective, for half a second, thats not what wikipedia is about. And if you put stuff in without a reference dont be lazy, get it a ref. If not its not verifiable and it can be removed. When and if it is removed dont be a tosser and just undo the edit. Thats childish. read the rules, if you dont repsect the wiki 3 principles, go and play Wow or whatever for your kicks

--Jones.liam (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Liam, please stop. I am observing silently, but this is going too far. What you added under Legacy is plainly irrelevant to the section. Hoverfish Talk 19:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop! U dont understand. Legacy concerns what remains. what I added addresses that re music at gatherings (very central, been to any?) and provides DEPTH in that IT GIVES BACKGROUND AS TO HOW THAT CAME ABOUT. DEPTH. Another concept is BREADTH. That means MORE range needs to be added. Not less!!!!!!!! Legacy is an OK title, but its content currently lacks BREADTH and DEPTH. It is too shallow and narrow. Got it? Dont u think, maybe just maybe in the key advent that the God man leaves a lot of both????? Hello. ...hello. Or r u a non believer? IMO if so i dont think u should be editing.

Oh dear this may be harder than I thought. Stop!!!!!! mate its just starting. Observe silently on the fence, your call. I dont wait for the dark forces to do their subtle harm. This article needs fixing. You think fence sitting is OK? fine. My friend Erico eventually died yesterday after being bashed to death in India right near Lower M'bad. Baba demands a lot. U fence sit or be active but dont u dare say enough, stop to others. Get your best game out or go home.

--Jones.liam (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If one is a non believer one should stop editing!! New rules for Wikipedia? "Dark forces to do their subtle harm"? What are you talking about? Hoverfish Talk 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Im talking about these rules Mr vacuum cleaner. The three wikipedia principles some people are ignoring as they undo edits that are verifiable. Q/ If you dont believe in Baba R U the best editor? A/ Maybe not so keep that in mind as you mindlessly undo an edit. ask your self do you know what the hell you r doing? Hmmmmmm bagless wonder

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

legacy
legacy From wikipedia (go on do it yourself)

'A Legacy or legacies is what someone or something is remembered for or what they have left behind that is remembered, revered or has impacted current events and the present day.'

game over. re read that 'has impacted current events and the present day.'

Can that be any clearer. Since u even wrote what u did in the edit summary I will have to SPELL IT OUT.

'has impacted current events and the present day.'

This INCLUDES MUSIC AT EVENTS, in fact its such a wide defintion it includes all activities left behind by Baba that are remembered, revered or have impacted current events and the present day.' This includes all gatherings. read depth and breadth as to why HOW the activity came about is included. OMG u people. get with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont like put downs BUT brush up on your English as a written language. I mean it. No one knows all. i dont BUT when your wrong your wrong. if you cant admit it, your a nOOb.

--Jones.liam (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Game over

Other Planets
Oh yeah. its in there. heres a sample.....all referenced. All verifiable

Other Planets

Meher Baba asserted that there are other planets besides earth where living beings exist.[97]. However he emphatically stated that God can only be realized on this earth. [98].

jai

--122.109.196.213 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) --Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

yep me again above

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus did not die on the Cross
sample Jesus did not die on the cross

Meher Baba stated clearly many times that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that he lived a long life in India post Crucifixion,

yeah boys its time to nail your n--s to the mast

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

forgot to sign in OOOPPPs

--122.109.196.213 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)--Jones.liam (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

nOOb puppets
what r they. Not meat puppets but similiar. Not sock puppets but similiar. What defines them? They are like all nOObs in that they cant be told anything, they avoid discusssion, they hide behind convention even though they break the 3 principles wikipedia is built on. If they put something in an article they dont need to verify it. They undo edits, willy nilly. They travel in flocks but dont know it. They r nOOb puppets. they will bring down wikipedia left unchecked by creating a soup of misinformation.

--Jones.liam (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New sections added
He left NO teachings so a big section called teachings is wrong on so many levels

new section: Heaven and hell

Metaphysics given depth and breadth as it was way too sparse and dry.

legacy made so plain that even the die hard nOOb can c that the one clear LEGACY of Baba is how his celebrations and anniversaries MIRROR what occured during his life. Lots of songs for instance

Next is a bit on the evil self. (yet to come)

You all know that right, e.g. when a nOOb clicks undo on an edit without reading it. Evil esp as we r talking about the God Man. mess with him and his work at your own risk. U R warned. I mean it, its on your heads.

--Jones.liam (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits will be judged and possibly modified according to their quality, relevance to the section they have been added and importance in respect to the whole article. Your many and various misuses, threats, unkind behavior, claims that we undo your edits without reading them or thinking, your claims that your edits are "his work", that others are evil and dark (while presumably you are not) only reveal your state of mind and character. If you want to revert to a civil and friendly behavior you might still get others to discuss with you about your edits. Hoverfish Talk 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish get a grip. My edits are not his work. My edits are verifiable from his work and anyone who takes verifiable Baba stuff out better have a very very very very good reason. Got it. Its simple. You will be judged too on your edits, be sure of that, and if u got off the high horse you will see edits undone without any apparent thinking have occurred and are anti wiki rules. You and your lot DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. ITS NOT YOUR WEBPAGE. This is God in human form you are trying to stiffle.......think on that....heres u r trying to limit contributions on him who has no limits....READ THE RULES. ALL MY STUFF IS VERIFIABLE. I will undo your petty things if you are acting from the dark side. (sound of thunder)

--Jones.liam (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey discuss all you like. There has not been any real communication because a quick look at the above will reveal some of you are not talkers, just undoers. A few of you have thouroughly deserved all you got. Totally. U know who U R undoing edits without a mention in the discussion forum. But lets move on and see how you go. yeah cmon lets talk about the sanitised, sterile, dry meher Baba article with the bland titles b 4 i got to it. C'mon talkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. If u dare. I mean teachings as a title. OMG HE STANDS 4 NO TEACHINGS !!!!!!!!!!!!. lets kick off here. Who put that there? Cmom own up. Was it U hoverfish/ Hmmmmm. The whole article needs a freshen up here I reckon and you better have a damn good reason to take out what i put in. DAMN GOOD. minor edits, changing a few words yeah.....but major edits. NO. What i put in happened and is verifiable so NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mindless undo edits. You crtiise my State of mind and character Hoverfish. Who do you think you are. God? Back off on that tack HoverF. Back right off otherwise it will get personal. All I have said above has substance. I dont lke you H. change my mind or keep it clean

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't mind if the word teachings is not associated with anything Meher Baba has written or spelled out. This however is on the very start of Meher Baba's Discourses 6th Edition : The Seven Realities of Meher Baba’s Teaching

EXISTENCE, LOVE, SACRIFICE, RENUNCIATION, KNOWLEDGE, CONTROL AND SURRENDER

Meher Baba’s teaching gives no importance to creed, dogma, caste or the performance of religious ceremonies and rites, ..."

OMG Liam, maybe you should start correcting things from there, because as long as this remains written there, it can be used here as well. Hoverfish Talk 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And BTW the phrase "Your many and various misuses, threats, ... only reveal your state of mind and character" does not contain any criticism whatsoever. And I don't need to be God to criticize someone. Plus your behavior in this talk page gives me the right to criticize you for it. And the same goes for other editors you are referring to. And even more so for any administrator that may have to interfere if you don't quit behaving in such a provocative and abusive way. Hoverfish Talk 10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of last few days
A lot has been written. A summary is deserved.

1/ Some glaring problems existed (others still exist) in the article that I have corrected. e.g. previous editors did not understand the meaning of Legacy and what can be added there and a main article title 'Teachings' goes against one of the Avatars fundamental bodies of work namely his silence. He was silent in part because he gave no teachings, on purpose. Serious errors in the article like this existed for perhaps years. People have become attached to them it seems as ...

2/ ...previous editors acted with hostility when changes were made, by undoing edits and not discussing. They were surprised when I fought back. In short these editors have acted as if this article is their web site. Wikipedia expressly warns against this danger.

3/ New sections have been added as the article lacked and still lacks depth and breadth. I know this because I am a researcher.

4/ Many parts of the article cannot be verified as they have no references.

5/ I have stated up front that IMO if you do not follow Baba you may not be editing at a high enough standard. This is one explanation for the lack of good content in this article, its lack of breadth and depth and its range of topics and the reisistance to expand the article. seriously Meher Baba is God in man form. He leaves a devastatingly wide and deep trail this article does not reflect adequately.

That is all

--Jones.liam (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Liam thanks for your enthusiastic efforts. I'd like it very much you would do a few things about your recent edits.


 * A bit of proofreading/editing. For example the first sentence of your newly-titled "He left no teachings" section begins "Meher Baba asserted constantly that he left teachings...", which is a confusing start, yes? Also your legacy section starts Meher Baba's travels and teachings left a legacy...Etc.

Yes point taken ...--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your additions have occasional reference problems: example Meher Baba,1955. God Speaks, p.34 . You're clearly determined to be a top-notch editor, so please have a look at the WP:MOS.

yes another good point and I have been looking into that just today. (c below)I mean I cant say almost all refs are bad when I do the same...so Im going to go back and refine them. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to be consistent on the use of levels (the "====" and "===") in titles. Why is "Heaven and Hell" for example level4 and "other planets" Level3? Again see WP:MOS for suggestions.

Let me say this. The entire article from Teachings on has serious structural flaws in regard to what Baba life was about. This section needs to entitled Universal Work. with an explanation of what his work was and is, this followed by lesser headings, e.g what is there plus more. Im working on this edit now...will post in discuss 2 day/

--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please discuss changes where you re-characterize information. For example: changing the description of Brunton's account from "disillusioned" to "spiritual" might be considered a POV edit, particularly since Brunton has a chapter dedicated to how disillusioned he was with Baba, and it is a well-known critique. You have made other similar changes in tone. This article got a GA rating because of its efforts at neutrality; please don't change that lightly.

The problem with the original version is that Brunton may have been disillusined he may have been a chronic depressive, it matters not what matters is that the wording implied clearly he was "disillusioned" with Baba. That was not the intent Im sure but that was the result and as such it needed either changing (i did) or that point made very clear with a ref. yes I hear u re GA, understand that the edit made is an improvment and can be verified. the removed word was not verified and said too much, in fact what it was not meant to say --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some recent entries may need to be edited re write

Specifically, these items might apply: ''[Wikipedia is not] A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.''

Yes that may be tru, I know editing and writing is re write, re write, re write to get it right.....but what i am offering may have flaws which can be corrected but it is more rich and flaws along the lines you here mention already existed and still do

--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Introducing whole topics with no secondary sources, but only quotes, is generally not acceptable. Several of your new sections lack citations from secondary sources (i.e., other than quotes from Meher Baba), and are therefore not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:RS.


 * Please review your language for neutrality. Meher Baba has dispelled the general belief that... is not a neutral statement, it is a conclusion and an assertion.


 * Continuing the above example, unless you can show that a reliable source asserted that MB dispelled the belief, it is also Original Research. See WP:OR, and as that policy shows, consider whether you are simply reporting and citing reliable sources, or whether you are drawing conclusions. In some cases you have introduced facts without citations, but I'm sure you'll add these citations soon, yes?

Minor edit needed. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But I accept this challenge and will do this. Widen it to you all. As well as putting some time into WP:OR I will apply the same rules to the entire article. For starters all editors see the inline quotations discussion below. Its a disaster. If you want fairness not hypocrisy everyone check their own work. i will post what i find that needs correcting using all the above points in the discussion

--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The title ""He left no teachings" boldly breaks many rules. It is uncited original research, it is Non-neutral POV, it is inconsistent with part titles as per WP:MOS, and it is contradicted by the text that follows, including text you added. Can you please reconsider that title?

Its a work. I will find a quoate that will silence you on this, I leave no teachings, something like that. its out there and neutral.

--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, have another look at your new work. Consider that the problems you had with the "favorite song" passage are frustrating to all editors and many readers. Try to see your work from a disinterested viewpoint and check it for accuracy, precision, consistency, and adherence to WP policies.

yes a point there, but consider just how bland sterile and shallow the article is compared to MB's life., In short, have another look. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I begin the process of trying to work with your recent changes, I'd like to know that they represent your best and final efforts.

in progress. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, please consider re-reading WP:Civility. Please do not suggest that editing be limited to adherents or believers, or that the article must conform to those beliefs. That is very bad form indeed. This article is unusual in that it achieved GA status, although it is about a provocative recent spiritual figure. It has been cited as an example to editors of articles about other recent spiritual figures. Attempts to add POV, Original research, or boosterism should be avoided. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reread that last post on this. IMO they are better editors if they accept what Baba has left. how many people are comfortable 'out there' with reincarnation? life on other planets, jesus died in india? etc very very few. Are you becoming a passive aggressive? You said this 'Baba is a provocative recent spiritual figure? Really? POV surely. hes not to me. ref it. perhaps your motive is clear, keeping'GA status'. You seem clearly affected by what others think of this article: Do you need it to be lightweight to keep this GA status? Yes? No? . This may be a problem here. Listen, I can adjust all these little things and get some stuff in there you may not like as it may be provocative. Will the GA go down? Who knows. Did the stuff i will and have put in happen. Yes. Verifiable? Absolutely, Yes or it will be, can be. You, this GA issue, may be the problem. Have you considered that? I just talking straight here. You seem sincere. But Its very liberating just going for whats right and not caring what others think of you or the work, just doing your best and leaving the rest to God. Sound familiar? Its Baba and its what he said many times. Need a quote? Shouldnt do and this is one poingt about this article, Baba is like no other, if you edit from just the mind, it may get a GA, it may also not capture what Baba is about. What do you want? A GA based on falseness or a dynamic GA based on a remarkable life. Its possible. Do YOU have the will and courage to go for it?--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking/Repeated Links
Liam, please see WP:LINKS, specifically the sections on repeated linking and over-linking. It is not necessary to link to Earth five times in the "other planets" section. I personally don't think a link is required at all, but if you feel differently, only one is required, or desirable. Your edits are pretty liberal with repeated links. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2009

(UTC)

Ok good point, yes one is fine. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please no revert wars here, use sandbox to develop new sections first
I see that in the meanwhile there has been a major revert. So I will clear my position to all concerned. This article is in plain view of many-many people daily and since it keeps a Good Article status it shouldn't deteriorate with edits that are still under development. I am not against adding some carefully chosen new material to it, provided that this material has first been worked up to a certain quality (say in a sandbox) and has gained the approval of some of the editors here involved. Since we are presently four editors in all, the approval of one more (other than Liam) will do for me and I will not oppose the section becoming part of the article even if I have disagreements on particulars. I will oppose however what I consider poorly written sections added directly on the article and if needed I will revert. I do not want to see this article become an anthology of various issues and I do not want to see this article in a messy state with poorly written new edits. Hoverfish Talk 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

yes I agree. from now on I will sandbox, and put in a finished product and put it in the discuss page. But if no one logs on and its ignored, then thats a new issue. I will be trying to convince you that MB's 'Universal Work' is the correct main heading for the previous one Teachings. It is his WORK that defines all other topics he spoke abou ofr left behind and they thus they are secondary. eg

Work, teachings, metaphysics, hevane hell, ...all the rest

From God Speaks p. 153

"During the Avataric period, the one, from amongst the then living five Perfect Masters, who used to function as Q u t u b-e - I r s h a d, ceases to hold this divine office with the advent of the Avatar a n d delivers his duty a n d c h a rge of the sole responsibility for the aff a i r s of the universe into the hands of the God-Man as soon as He is able to assume His office as the Christ—the Avatar of the Age—and remains himself, as long as he is in a gross body, holding the same office of Qutub as the other four hold"

what more needs to be said.

--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above statements
I agree with the above statements, especially what Nemonoman has written about the GA status of this article being hard to achieve. Writing that takes Wikipedia policies on POV lightly are particularly troublesome on an article about such a recent and controversial religious figure. It is only by great effort by many editors and the strictest adherence to Wikipedia principles that it has maintained its GA status up to now. So I am for moving cautiously, and in a sandbox with general agreement if necessary, for such large changes. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Use Reverts Carefully, Please
We're all tempted to hit that UNDO button when changes get made. Jones.liam has made a number of good edits, and provided a lot of discussion of his work. He seems very dynamic in his opinions and not particularly given to building consensus, which is unfortunate. I've had dealings with these sorts of editors on other articles, and I want to stress CIVILITY -- which cuts both ways. Good ideas and good edits often come from editors who have very powerfully expressed opinions. I have learned to appreciate that and to try to find ways to reach consensus and work together with them. It is often worth the trouble.

Liam, if you will make a little effort to work with consensus, I believe many of your desired changes will be incorporated. The edits that got reverted, however, were a little rough, and not really up to the mark for a GA. I hope you'll work with us to develop and improve them to a slightly higher standard. --[[User:God speaks 153


 * Nemonoman]] (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I am a fighter first and dont apologise for that, I will respond in kind..........but I hear you Nemonoman lets have some time out and a truce and work together. Baba would like it. But bear in mind the otehrs have not spoken on such a truce yet. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Inline quoatations not up to wikipedia standard?
Have withdrawn this. They seem OK.

--Jones.liam (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While there may be some more recent exceptions, the use of proper WP referencing was an essential concern of the GA review. You --Nemonoman (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may also wish to have a look at WP:CITESHORT which is method used for the inline citations. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

replies to above points in text between paragraphs
sample of reply and an important one.

Reread that last post on this. IMO they are better editors if they accept what Baba has left. how many people are comfortable 'out there' with reincarnation? life on other planets, jesus died in india? etc very very few. Are you becoming a passive aggressive? You said this 'Baba is a provocative recent spiritual figure? Really? POV surely. hes not to me. ref it. perhaps your motive is clear, keeping'GA status'. You seem clearly affected by what others think of this article: Do you need it to be lightweight to keep this GA status? Yes? No? . This may be a problem here. Listen, I can adjust all these little things and get some stuff in there you may not like as it may be provocative. Will the GA go down? Who knows. Did the stuff i will and have put in happen. Yes. Verifiable? Absolutely, Yes or it will be, can be. You, this GA issue, may be the problem. Have you considered that? I just talking straight here. You seem sincere. But Its very liberating just going for whats right and not caring what others think of you or the work, just doing your best and leaving the rest to God. Sound familiar? Its Baba and its what he said many times. Need a quote? Shouldnt do and this is one poingt about this article, Baba is like no other, if you edit from just the mind, it may get a GA, it may also not capture what Baba is about. What do you want? A GA based on falseness or a dynamic GA based on a remarkable life. Its possible. Do YOU have the will and courage to go for it?--Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

another important reply I re post here so its read.

Liam, if you will make a little effort to work with consensus, I believe many of your desired changes will be incorporated. The edits that got reverted, however, were a little rough, and not really up to the mark for a GA. I hope you'll work with us to develop and improve them to a slightly higher standard. --[[User:God speaks 153


 * Nemonoman]] (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I am a fighter first and dont apologise for that, I will respond in kind..........but I hear you Nemonoman lets have some time out and a truce and work together. Baba would like it. But bear in mind the otehrs have not spoken on such a truce yet. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

--Jones.liam (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2009 (UT

Offer withdrawn at this point as after you made the offer of working together you changed back all the edits b 4 i could reply to you. It seems working together means doing it your way.

--Jones.liam (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have come not to teach ref
Reference supplied re above discussion.

"I do not teach anything. I make the learned forget. I have come not to teach but to awaken."

Kalchuri, Bhau: "Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Meher Baba", Manifestation, Inc. 1986. p. 1487.

I think this is important

--Jones.liam (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to mention that Meher Baba has stressed the above statement. However, he has also used the word to describe what he leaves for us as well:

"No. Now I am for all," Baba replied. "This time I am the One for all, with only one teaching. What is that teaching? Love Me. No prayer, no meditation, only love me."

Kalchuri, Bhau: "Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Meher Baba", Manifestation, Inc. 1986. p. 2818.

It is also important to notice that although Meher Baba's stated intention was not to teach and not to leave teachings as such, the word "teaching" has sometimes been used, probably because of lack of any other western term to describe his message. Also please note that Ramjoo has written a book titled "The Philosphy and Teaching of Meher Baba". Hoverfish Talk 05:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New Universal Work section
as discussed i will put it here BUT since discussion is do it your way or not then I have made the changes already. Try to be impartial

Universal Work

Meher Baba stated that he worked internally all the time, [88], and that the work he does releases a tremendous force that stamps his advent, [89] on all planes of consciousness, [90]. Meher Baba asserted constantly that he left no teachings, [91]. He said "I come not to teach, Love is the only real religion. People are now tired of theories, doctrines and principles. They want the real thing, which explanations can never give", [92]. Therefore he did not preach any specific precepts or belong to any particular creed, Religion, caste, sect or dogma which he described as being hindrances in the path of Truth, [93]. "I do not teach anything. I make the learned forget. I have come not to teach but to awaken," [94]

--Jones.liam (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion vs. a list of declarations
Discussion, in Wikipedia at least, is not the same as pronouncements of what one has done, or is doing, especially when his edits contradict the objections and suggestions raised by other editors. Hoverfish Talk 06:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. "Edit warriors" often fight aggressively, game the system, stack the discussion, or exhaust other users into dropping the issue, rather than seeking constructive, encyclopedia-related consensus. Such behaviors are never acceptable. They are disruptive, harmful, and unproductive, and often lead to external intervention by other users and administrators." WP:EW Hoverfish Talk 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let them look. let them see how you have become attached to this page and think its yours. How you attempt to create division while seeming only to be doing the right thing. Answer this. If you are so hot on quality why have you sat on your hands for so long? look critically at this below from the article. Go thru it and feel the hypocrisy. This has existed for ......how long? Its full of POV, one yes one ref, special Perfect Master!!!!!cmon. I mean look at this. ...its just made up, unverifiable. If you want to be taken seriously fix up these sorts of things THEN tell me what Im doing wrong, thats why Im not respecting you much even though I am still discussing and will continue to do so, im not respecting you based on the hypocrisy. All I can say is that you have become territorial not neutral. Based on whats happened it appears You care for your ego not the article.

--Jones.liam (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect Masters and the Avatar

The Avatar, according to Meher Baba, is a special Perfect Master, the first soul to achieve God-realization. This soul, the original Perfect Master, or the "Ancient One", never ceases to incarnate. Baba says that this particular soul personifies the state of God which in Hinduism is named Vishnu and in Sufism is named Parvardigar, i.e. the sustainer or preserver state of God. According to Meher Baba the Avatar appears on Earth every 700-1400 years, and is 'brought down' into human form by the five perfect masters of the time to aid in the process of moving creation in its never ending journey toward Godhood. Baba said that in other ages this role was fulfilled by Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and lastly by Muhammad.[119]

Edit warring
Takes 2 or more. otherwise there is no war. Some friction as the gears turn is OK. But what has happened lately is based on: This emerging edit war having history. Townsend. Now Im prepared to work with others. Yet this will be difficult if people think this article cannot be better; depth, breadth, rigour, verifiability, Neutral viewpoint...etc. these are the standards. I dont claim to have all the answers and have rushed some work (inpart to beat the undo's and because of the undo's and to spite the undo's) but this article is not the best it can be. I do believe that yes. So if people resist the idea the article could be better and resist improvements I will continue to point out the hypocrisy of existing passages, the way new bits are based on the 3 wikipedia principles (i will only get better at this) and discuss edits and implement them when they are verifiable and reasonable. Hopefully with agreement. will that lead to conflict? Maybe.

--Jones.liam (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
When an edit that upgrades an article is reverted, when there has been discussion (i have done the most) when the work upholds the three principles of Wikipedia, when the work reverted is of a higher standard than other parts of the article, then this reverting is vandalism

I object to your vandalism sir! Your lack of discussion is uncivil!! Your input regarding what is wrong with the new expanded article is cursory, limited to rather banal throw away lines in the edit bar only. Uncivil!!!! I suspect you cannot justify your actions. You sir are by far the worst, of the undoers, by far.

--Jones.liam (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

When three editors are in agreement that your edits do not upgrade the article (at least as they have been done until now), your argument is, to say the least, mistaken. As I have said above, your writings in this talk page cannot be characterized as "discussing", especially since you disregard three editors addressing you their objections and suggesting a better way (of consensus rather) to follow. For a moment you wrote that you will indeed follow this path opened to you and you would work in cooperation with Nemonoman. next thing you did, however, was to revert his reverts. I doubt that you can cooperate here at all, so instead you keep insisting in your personal opinion and even violating the 3 Revert Rule to have your opinion prevail. Unless any of the others knows a better way, it is my opinion that an administrator should be called in to interfere. Hoverfish Talk 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway N was disingenous. I agree about an administrator. I think you all have made as many mistakes and have not got involved, and have caused many of these arguments. The difference is that the new work is an upgrade. Reread the new sections. They are verifiable, of a higher standard than the example I put above here with its mistakes. one of you is close to the three revert rule, as I am adding new bits while you just revert. About the revert rule. Two points I will ask the administrator to look at. One is simple math. I change section. U revert (1 for you) I revert (1 for me)the math says you will be the first to break the three revert rule. Next as you are tag teamimg I will ask that he or she considers you as working in a manner similiar to price fixing, a team. Why? Im sure they come across this a lot, and they will know why. What can break the deadlock? Knowledge of Baba and what constitutes an improvement in the article. Game over. In time, over time any impartial person will see that so much more can be added to this article. I welcome some one to break this tag team monoploly. I will not put this out there to other Baba people. Im giving you three a chance to look within at why you are so scared of having more of Baba's life on this page

--Jones.liam (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed work as requested in above discussion
Added secondary refs, took out a lot of these [[ as suggested by N. Changed parts to neutral as requested, took out anything close to a POV, replaced any dubious possible POV with neutral verified language to get the same point accross, all neutral statements applied verifiable, more secondary refs.... removed some original work MB quotes to lighten the new sections, all above ss per above long discussions. Did this in most new sections.

--Jones.liam (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear admin
please investigate Nemonoman's actions tonight

his editing is pure vandalism

--Jones.liam (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In Sha Allah the evil one is tiring
I think an editor who writes in his comment line things like "In Sha Allah the evil one is tiring" about a highly experienced editor such as Nemonoman, who has four barnstars and a track record of many years of civility and neutrality, is not an editor that can be worked with. So I have reverted the article to where it was before this whole debacle began. There is absolute need for intervention by an admin. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, do so, as there are so many violations that I don't know which is best to address first.Hoverfish Talk 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and asked for an admin to help. The request is on my talk page.Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An admin has left a message on Jones.liam's talk page.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All have the evil self- Meher Baba.

Its how much you feed it that decides how bad it will get. N really went for it and that is not good. See below. i have contacted admin also.

--Jones.liam (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What Nemonoman went for was the protection of this GA article. I thank him for it and I thank the administrator who placed the protection. This talk of evil self stuff is a very biased and IMO distorted view and more consideration should be given to the good side and reasons behind our actions here. Such consideration would be very helpful for a possible further cooperative work. Please also consider the value of the suggestions the administrator has left in your talk page. Hoverfish Talk 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war complaint Copy
Part of.

Yes I have many times discussed this issue with Nemonoman (he wont reply just reverts) that Meher Baba repeatedly stated that He left NO teachings so a main title called 'Teachings' is wrong on so many levels. I have given original quotes, secondary sources. He wont discuss. It is a problem. As editors we all have worked together on some issues, (see discussion) not as smooth as I would have liked, but some progress has been made re links, references, new material and the like. This 'Teachings' title problem is a sticking point with Nemonoman and is a very very similiar dispute to one a few years back (2006 archives 2 and 3) when he would not yield on the fact (now proven and changed) that the section on Townsend then was far far to big in an article on Meher Baba and made the article very unbalanced indeed. It was eventually removed with intervention by very very part time wiki editors (Baba followers, whom yes I did know) who paid a price when Nemonoman tried to stop them with a sock puppet ruling. Townsend was eventually whittled down by consensus and common sense but I think this editor holds a grudge and is territorial. I am a researcher and 30 year + follower of Meher Baba. I know that "Universal Work" is what everyone in the Baba community (I know) call MB's work, NOT "Teachings".

“I do not teach anything. I make the learned forget. I have come not to teach but to awaken." Meher Baba

Kalchuri, Bhau: "Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age. Meher Baba", Manifestation, Inc. 1986. p. 1487.

I enjoy Wikipedia but this sort of issue spoils it. This editor has an ownership issue with this webpage. Much else about the consensus process is working OK. But another complaint about Legacy may be avoided if this editor is prepared to resist new input.

--Jones.liam (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin please read
"Religions, castes, sects, dogmas and rituals are all hindrances in the path of Truth. Truth is all-pervading and infinite. I do not teach anything. I make the learned forget. I have come not to teach but to awaken."

Kachuri, B, 1986 lord Meher, vol 4 p. 1497

He left no teachings. He did do Universal Work.

5589	UNIVERSAL WORK AT GURUPRASAD

Once, while discussing a centre, Baba revealed to Shantadevi, "In your palace, I have done much work for the whole universe. It has earned Guruprasad a place of great importance."

Kachuri, B, 1986 Lord Meher, vol 16 p. 5589.

Ok. Teachings is inappropriate for a main title. 'Universal Work' or 'Work' is very appropriate. N you can pick which one.

(N I too can be evil at times, we all can, its the human condition, and you have to admit you were going off on the reverts.)

Well lets see how this is settled. Whatever the result i am 100% sure Teachings is inappropriate for a main title. very much so.

This is interesting, I think Wikipedia is itself being looked at. How good is it? Can issues be resolved or is it shackeled by those who learn the rules, play the rules are are relectant to accept change. My Uncle is high in the media, I live next door to an Editor of a big newspaper. It may be time for a critque of Wikipedia. It is getting more popular, can it be better? What are its flaws.

Nothing is constant, all is changingsound familiar. MB. Seriously I did think editors of a MB page would be, well different. More agreeable to what Meher Baba did, say, do, exemplify. Well as my good old friend Mani Irani said after having to legally remove a trustee..."  " perhaps not here, thats another story. I still hope that N comes to see that Baba did do work, not teachings. Perhaps he has already but cant admit it and needs a third party to just simply tell him, No, Liam may be a bit rude, but hes correct. It so verifiable.

Perhaps not. I just saw that all the new sections have been removed, even the ones discussed. Really. if the admin people dont allow new content and three editors can gang up and block new content, then Wikipedia is seriously flawed.

Anyway guys I have the 100% satisfaction myself of knowing Baba did work as I have been shown this, and he left no teachings and the article thus is misrepresentative, very. yes you may get a technical victory here based on time and playing the rules, and the fact Wiki lets you, its a dry hollow empty thing you want, you may achieve: and the loser will be/ Three parts,  wikipedia cause it may be shown to be all its critics say,, people who read it and you, mostly you. Whether you understand karma or not it dosnt matter, Karma happens and disinformation has karma for the ???? who will read this. A lot. baba even warned against this. Its no light thing editing his web page. The disinformation now is consciously known to you editors. That counts for more. That has been my job. You have made choices, whether you brush this off lightly or not. deep down you will have a niggle..a little voice.then it will go away. thats a bad sign. Jai Baba

--Jones.liam (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On the title Teachings
First of all I have to make clear that I do not see any issue of disinformation (deliberately misleading information) as things stand. I see a title that people can understand and directly under it I see a clarification that leaves no space for misrepresenting Meher Baba as a "teacher". I have made searches for the words "teach", "teaching" and "teachings" in the online edition of Lord Meher and the online 6th edition of Discourses. In LM the word, when describing actions originating from Meher Baba, is most often used for particular acts of teaching, like concerning the Prem Ashram, or referring to particular lessons imparted to his circle of mandali. But I have also given above a quote of Meher Baba using it in a general sense: "This time I am the One for all, with only one teaching. What is that teaching? Love Me. No prayer, no meditation, only love me." It has also been used in the first chapter of the Discourses to describe the content of the book and it has been used by Ramjoo, a mandali of Meher Baba's close circle, as the title of his book. It is also used in the much visited anthology "Life Eternal"

"Teachings" may not be the ideal word for a title in the section, but it is used as merely a word that the general reader will understand, and it is followed by a simple satisfactory clarification. The only alternative word, familiar to the general reader, that I can think of is "Messages", though the use of this word (as in Adi K. Irani's book) refers to addressing gatherings and is rather specific. "Universal Work" or "Work", would need several paragraphs to properly explain its use to the general reader. I personally do not consider these words as the best choice for a title here.

In any case, please keep in mind that this article is written for all readers. For the ones that are familiar enough with Meher Baba, they know well that "I have come not to teach but to awaken". For all others this precise quote is right there, under the title. Still I am open to different opinions brought up for discussion. Hoverfish Talk 06:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's intro makes it clear that Baba's "universal work" "included fasting, seclusion, and meditation" and later also "silence" (his silence was not undertaken as a spiritual exercise but solely in connection with his universal work). This section however does not treat but a more specific part of his work. Therefore this title would not be correct to be used here, in this specific section. Hoverfish Talk 06:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, The God-Man: The Life, Journeys & Work of Meher Baba with an Interpretation of His Silence & Spiritual Teaching, C. B. Purdom, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1964. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

'''Hi all. This is Liam on another computer.''' Thats Ok isnt it D :) Yes the intro is good. But is the latter section 'teachings' conflicting with it? yes. Consistent with the intro? No. Confusing? yes overall once they work out what MB said. Yes.

I see your point too but the problem is everything post that Title Teachings is what? His teachings? It looks that way. thats not very good. That may be way there was so little there and new material is resisted. But the main point is everything after a Title 'Work' or 'Universal work', can be seen in the light of just that. part of his work. windows of his work. His enigmatic work which we cannot understand but appreciate in bites and it can make for a real good read too. Your loss really. I disagree about how Work would take a lot to explain. It would be simple. Baba has stated so many times I have come not to teach and gives clues about his work, that it is a misrepresenation to new readers to have a section called Teachings and imply he taught. the example you mention is flimsy and well desperate really. I too have researched Work and teachings. Its all in there. Perhaps an admin person will do so too, who knows, because its very clear in lord Meher. Also should I put in a complaint about Dazedbythebell and his massive revert taking out so much? D, very naughty. Seriously though you guys are hilarious. Its been fun seeing the knots you have tied yourselfs up in. I dont mean to poke fun, but seeing the material you dont wont in and how protective you are of whats in there, and the reasons you justify it with. Well its funny sad. I have had some good laughs considering who Baba is and how you fight tooth and nail to limit his message, limit his life on wikipedia. Now though Well I actually feel sorry for you guys, and do feel sympathy. Its all a bit sad and funny from this end at the same time. In the end it your loss guys. :)

Liam
 * I note that the philosopher infobox is already on the article. Maybe the section could be titled "Philosophy" or something similar? John Carter (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

reply: I dont know what the P box is but will look at it. Thankyou. Trouble is MB called philossophy something simple made complicated. :) John he is a tricky character i know its an article perhaps like no other, but just want it to not be misrepresentive. MB would not like that. --Jones.liam (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As the quotes from Meher Baba and his close ones show (see the Teaching section below) the words teaching and teachings were in common usage. Books about Meher Baba include Silent Teachings of Meher Baba and THE GOD-MAN:The life, journeys and work of Meher Baba with an interpretation of his silence and spiritual teaching written during Baba's life and with his approval (this contains an entire section entitled "Teachings"). The Meher Baba Wikiversity offers free online courses based on teachings of Meher Baba.

Reply; There are sources and sources. Some are better. Some were approved directly by Baba or dictated by him. These are the best, in those you will find Work or Universal work prevails, easily over teachings. Lord Meher is one of the best secondary souces and online. Work prevails there too. Some early material came out before his declaration of Avatarhood and langauge was loose in them. After the declaration the stakes were higher to get the correct word usage right. "I have come not to teach but Awaken'. I mean can that be any clearer N? Can you find an original quote where he stresses he came to teach? No. I admire your tenacity N but this is bigger than you or me. A lot of people wrote material in the early days, but anyone close to the Baba community knows teaching is not all all common usage when talking about MB and the Mandali never used the term teaching. They lived with MB. Sources is the key to this issue that and the sheer weight of evidence for Work or Universal work over teachings. --Jones.liam (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been in the Meher Baba community for almost 40 years. There are lots of shiboleths: most take exception to any 'death' words about Baba. He "dropped his body" is very much preferred to "he died". Many take exception to the word tomb, and prefer samadhi. Some insist that dreams of Baba must be called visions. I guess every tight-knit group of this sort has its list of acceptable vocabulary. In that whole time I have never ever once heard anybody take exception to the word teachings. So this is a new one on me.

Reply: Take any group of people and this sort of thing happens. We my wife and I have been in the MB community for a long time too, she 40+ yrs. Its human what you mention, terms and things. The point re Work or Universal work verse Teachings as a main title in an important MB article is that it is so very verifiable that Work or Uinversal Work are the better, much better choices. One can as you say, one can find some refs for teachings, but they are less, older and before the Baba literature was well formed and before he stated who he was. So the stakes are higher now to have it the best choice --Jones.liam (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote WP:RNPOV: Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply; This goes both ways N --Jones.liam (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

About Jesus not dying on the cross
It is true that Meher Baba did say exactly this. But by no means did he make it a central part of his message. Quite on the contrary, by all accounts, he gave more importance in telling people of various religions to keep following their faith and made an important point that rituals by themselves are devoid of meaning in loving God. He never came up to the Christians in general and say "hey you guys, your religion is deceiving you", though in smaller circles and discussions, he did reveal the mistaken views of some religions. To limited audiences, he also spoke in a very condemning way about the "priest class" but he never made it a central part of his message. He never walked into where people practiced a religion to condemn them publicly. This article sums up the most important points of Meher Baba's life and message. Important in the way written account present it. There are anthologies (links are given at the end) where one can read about very many issues that Baba has addressed. They are not hidden, they are only a click away from the article. But by taking some of these issues at personal whim and attempting to place them as the most essential points Baba made, is equal to distorting Meher Baba's message. As for presenting as central an issue that creates a controversy with one particular religion, this is by far and wide NOT what Meher Baba ever stood for. He did make criticism but, by all known accounts, he placed cardinal importance in respecting the various faiths or ways people expressed their love for God. Changing the gravity of some of his words, verifiable though they may be, is like using his words to make one's personal point. Hoverfish Talk 10:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On the changes Nemonoman readded since the last revert
They are an example of how true progress can happen to a GA article. But it takes knowing very well what one is doing in terms of Wikipedia's rules and quality standards. One has to have enough experience to see and apply the Golden Rule between breadth and depth and to consider the overall length of the article, as well as the relative size of each of its main sections. Giant leaps ahead are possible in stubs and overly short or poor quality articles. In an article of this size and quality however, even the most experienced editor would avoid them. As far as content, I find it very well done that extra stress has been given to the contents of God Speaks. Hoverfish Talk 12:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Liam here; Heres what I will do. I wont do any edits after the protection is lifted for awhile, instead I will see what undos and reverts changes are done.

To John Carter: edit wars can be silly, as I have seen: As far as Im concerned I am 100 % satsisfied there is more than enough evidence for an impartial person to say, teachings is not the best choice as a main title. But I will not go in and change the title and inflame the situation. I will leave it up to these three editors to make the right choice, but hope they discuss it here first.

To All; I suppose Wikipedia is itself being scrutinised as to the quality of its articles. From Criticism of Wikipedia: Oliver Kamm, in an article for The Times, expressed skepticism toward Wikipedia's reliance on consensus in forming its content:[53]

And "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. "In his article, Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism (first published online by Edge: The Third Culture, 30 May 2006), computer scientist and digital theorist Jaron Lanier describes Wikipedia as a "hive mind" that is "for the most part stupid and boring," and asks, rhetorically, "why pay attention to it?" His thesis follows: "The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy".

And: "The standard of debate on Wikipedia has been called into question by persons who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up their arguments, only to have them ignored completely on the site"

And; "The Wikipedia community (people who contribute to Wikipedia) is also subject to various criticisms. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices."[92]

So lets see what happens. I wont ask my friends to enter the debate, either. One last point, remember the Townsend question. I helped get that big section toned down. N fought tooth and nail. What a fuss, and how silly the original pro townsend article looks now. Would the GA have been achieved with the Townsend unbalance still intact? I doubt it, very much".

--Jones.liam (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and also like Nemonoman's re-additions. I only reverted as far as I did prior to them because the number of changes overwhelmed me and I couldn't make heads or tails. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dazedbythebell thanks for that explanation. "changes overwhelmed me and I couldn't make heads or tails" Yes there were a lot of changes. I agree they could be less fast. I work in a busy environment and brought in some of that 'busy', and that can be a good thing. Two issues need dealing with, this Teachings title issue and general editing. Bear in mind I have followed Policy. I quote from wikipedia Policies and guidelines; 'Generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on the article talk pages". Now I did this, made changes, I discussed later when these additions were reverted. I even discussed before which is not required. However there was a LACK of discussion and more reverting. The more I read on policies and guildelines the more I see the problems mentioned in criticisms of Wikipedia apply here, to you three. There is no rule in policies or guidelines that says 'stop the consensus process when an editor is experiencing "changes overwhelmed me and I couldn't make heads or tails". That cannot be known by me until you say so, and even then its not really another editors problem. All is saw is reverts and no talking. And I have to say Dazedbythebell I have had the most problems with your very very large reverts. And if I reverted the other night so did N.

The only point I can be be really pulled up on is being uncivil. I have given that thought becuase its not like me and I do acknowledge that I was uncivil. After reading criticisms of Wikipedia I can see why I became uncivil. That plus the history of resistance to getting P Townsend down to GA stanndard limits, with the same protaganist, Nemonoman did not help.

I have to say that the critisisms of wikipedia (mentioned above) do apply here to you three editors. And I say this is a discussion mode, not out of spite, and for John Carter or anyone to see, to read. However from now on I will not be uncivil but have to say that you three editors may benefit from reading the Criticisms of wikipedia and policies and guidelines, again. Or even the main page, from which i took this "How can I contribute? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better" Nuf said

--Jones.liam (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Teaching
Lord Meher Volume 7, Page 2654
 * ...the Master dictated his message, The Seven Realities of Meher Baba's teaching. It stated: Meher Baba's teaching gives no importance to creed, dogma, ...

Lord Meher Volume 8, Page 2818
 * ...Baba replied. "This time I am the One for all, with only one teaching. What is that teaching? Love Me. No prayer, no meditation, only ...

Lord Meher Volume 5, Page 1805
 * ...Baba's photograph was taken especially for Ramjoo's new book, The Philosophy and teaching of Meher Baba...

Lord Meher Volume 16, Page 5486
 * ...Man's inability to live God's words makes the Avatar's teaching a mockery. Instead of practicing the compassion he taught, man has waged ...

Lord Meher Volume 5, Page 1547
 * ...You will find in my teachings and activities both renunciation and involvement in the world and its affairs – sports and asceticism, ...

Lord Meher Volume 5, Page 1776
 * ...agreed that it was time for the world at large to be enlightened about Meher Baba, his teachings and work..

Lord Meher Volume 19, Page 6426
 * ...Steve Simon told them more about Meher Baba and what he had learned of his teachings...

Lord Meher Volume 14, Page 5036
 * ...those who met Baba in 1952 do not need any 'ism'; just to read and study Baba's own teachings." Ivy replied..

Lord Meher Volume 4, Page 1164
 * ...It will also be the best medium for spreading your teachings throughout the world." Baba liked the idea and permitted him ...

Lord Meher Volume 5, Page 1546
 * ...during the course of general conversation, Baba explained some of the aspects of his teachings and workings...

Lord Meher Volume 12, Page 4336
 * ...Baba replied, "I bless her. But to be true to my teachings before all, ...

Lord Meher Volume 16, Page 5604
 * ...it is helpful for my lovers to come together and think and talk about me, to discuss my teachings and messages...

Lord Meher Volume 3, Page 1131
 * ...it shows that my instructions, discourses and teachings have had no effect upon you....

Work vs teach(ings) search
N I like this one best. As a Baba follower i thought it would help you get the idea about what his work is, its 24 down the page.

It is absolutely impossible for an ordinary man to understand my work. With my universal mind, I work on an unlimited scale for the universe; to understand what I do is not within the bounds of human intellect. I always work for the universe and not for myself. Why would I need to work for myself? I do my work through various mediums. With that object in mind, I visit places, see different sights, or go to plays, films, and do a hundred and one other things. But I don't enjoy movies or plays as you do, I make them the medium of my inner spiritual work. My every breath does this work constantly, while outwardly you find me doing nothing special. You cannot grasp the internal mystery. I have to do great work for the welfare of humanity – it is my universal duty. Times are critical and due to certain crises, my responsibility has increased in proportion to the circumstances and prevailing conditions. I am the Emperor of the spiritual kingdom and every second receive inner reports and messages from my agents in every corner of the world. Because of the troublesome times we are facing, I am inwardly receiving only distressing reports, such as the conflict between China and Japan. Such news pours in every moment from various parts of the world and I have to issue inner instructions to my agents.

'''Kalchuri, B. 1986. 'Lord Meher' Search for teach'''

1/ He asked Baba directly, "You have come to teach people in America? But you do not speak. How can you teach with this board? How foolish! Who gave you this silly idea?" Baba spelled out in reply, "I have come not to teach, but to awaken." In reply, the man laughed loudly, mocking Baba. Baba's eyes flashed, gesturing to the group, "Fool that he is, he laughs at this now, but I will show him. Poor, ignorant soul. I pity him!" p 1462

2/ Baba's words created a serious atmosphere in the hall. Thereafter, Eruch read Meher Baba's Universal Message: I have come not to teach but to awaken. Understand therefore that I lay down no precepts. p 5486

3/ Chapter title: COME NOT TO TEACH V 4. p 1497

4/ Baba smiled and answered, "If it were otherwise, it would not be Truth! Truth is but one, the same and eternal. However, I have not come to teach it, but to give it."

Baba pointed to the metal plaque on the wall, which Eruch read out, "I have come not to teach but to awaken." p 6223

5/ Chapter title: NOT COME NOT TO TEACH V 4. p 734

6/ These were to be his last words to anyone outside of his circle, and this message was the meaning of his divine mission to the world. "I have come not to teach, but to awaken!" v 2 p 736

7/ Baba's silence had begun to immerse man's mind in deep contemplation. Our Age would remember the message he once spoke: "I have not come to teach, but to awaken." p 741

8/ Our Age declared, "Meher Baba, truly you did not come to teach, but to awaken, and this Word of words that you have dedicated to the world will gradually penetrate its heart and awaken it to your Truth!" p 6741

In '''Don Stevens Listen Humanity – Word Search for ‘teachings’ One match, brief, vague. '''

In '''Don Stevens Listen Humanity word Search for ‘Work’. many many hits I can list many more, here are a few. '''

9/ "My work for you does not consist in your going around beating a big drum for me. Love needs no propaganda. You need love yourself in order to propagate love among others. To spread my love among the people, you have to make them understand me as you understand me. For that you have to bring them to love me as you love me, and that means you have to cause them to feel my love as you feel it. The best way is to show others by your own example how much you love me. '''"The world is too full of preachers and teachers. Never forget that I have not come to teach, and I need no preachers.''' P71

10/ In about 1922 the property had been acquired for Baba's work, and the mandali had constructed the present two-room dormitory atop the old reservoir in 1938. pp. 59 - 60 ,

11/ "Those who live for me and my work, contact me gradually, become intimately connected with me, dedicate their all to me and become my dependents. From time to time, individually or collectively, with me or in accordance with my instructions, they carry out various activities connected with my work. Pp 62 61

12/ Every heart that loves me continues, regardless of the presence or absence of institutions, to remain my ashram for my work. P 62

13/ "When I first set foot in Meherabad over thirty-two years ago I had nothing, but in the course of my subsequent activities here and elsewhere, over a crore (ten million) of rupees must have been spent for my work. P 62

14/ But I have never obtained money through any such thing as the miracles which the yogis occasionally perform. It is only money offered with love that I accept and disburse for my work. P 65

15/"In order to carry out some important work which I must do, I have a plan p 66 "All those who contribute whatever they can really spare towards the various provisions I choose to make for the one year, will thereby participate with me in the work I have in mind for that year. P 66

16/ There was a hush of deep feeling, powerfully generated, which hung over the group. No one wished to break the enchantment of this momentary glimpse into the hidden workings of God and His relation to His creature, man. Without a word, everyone filed out behind Baba and the mandali and gathered around the blue car waiting at the foot of the high stone stairs. P 69

17/ "Therefore I do not merely want crowds to be attracted towards me. I want really sincere souls. I do not necessarily wait for them to come to me. I often go to them. I can—and do—do my own work. You can—and should—share it too. P 71

'''Summary In Don Stevens Listen Humanity many more re work such. One only re teaching'''

In Kalchuri B, 1986 lord Meher word search for the 'Work' Many many relevant hits. here are a few

18/ "I want work, and work must be done one hundred percent honestly or stopped. Remember, I can work all alone.

"I have been doing my work all alone eternally – since eternity!" Baba concluded. p 4343

19/ Once, while discussing a centre, Baba revealed to Shantadevi, "In your palace, I have done much work for the whole universe. It has earned Guruprasad a place of great importance." p 5589

20/ Chapter title p. 5637   UNIVERSAL WORK

21/ Kaikobad interjected, "Baba's work is unspeakable and it is intolerable for me. Today, I informed Baba that I was unable to help him for more than half an hour." p 5637

22/ Baba continued at length: Until the end of October is the time for my Universal work. Whatever work was done at Poona is nothing compared to what I am doing now. Although the mandali cannot understand this work, I tell you the work has its own importance. See how it tires me. p 5637

23/ Chapter Title p 1458  UNIVERSAL MIND AT WORK

24/ It is absolutely impossible for an ordinary man to understand my work. With my universal mind, I work on an unlimited scale for the universe; to understand what I do is not within the bounds of human intellect. I always work for the universe and not for myself. Why would I need to work for myself? I do my work through various mediums. With that object in mind, I visit places, see different sights, or go to plays, films, and do a hundred and one other things. But I don't enjoy movies or plays as you do, I make them the medium of my inner spiritual work. My every breath does this work constantly, while outwardly you find me doing nothing special. You cannot grasp the internal mystery. I have to do great work for the welfare of humanity – it is my universal duty. Times are critical and due to certain crises, my responsibility has increased in proportion to the circumstances and prevailing conditions. I am the Emperor of the spiritual kingdom and every second receive inner reports and messages from my agents in every corner of the world. Because of the troublesome times we are facing, I am inwardly receiving only distressing reports, such as the conflict between China and Japan. Such news pours in every moment from various parts of the world and I have to issue inner instructions to my agents. p 1458

25/ You cannot see this outwardly, as I simultaneously manage an infinite number of things inwardly unknown to anyone. However, the effect of my work does appear outwardly. For example, you may find me suddenly and quite abruptly in a bad mood. One moment I may look happy in a jolly mood; the very next, you may find me serious, irritable and morose. All this depends on the reports I receive, and I have to plan my work according to them. Or suppose I am quite happily having tea, and at that moment I am inwardly informed that someone in India is passing through a great crisis. At that time, I send out a message in reply on how to cope with or remedy the situation. And while doing that, my mood will change so that I will appear absent from my present surroundings. p 1458

These hits are more relevant, more numerous and stronger in purpose and show Work or Universal Work is a BETTER choice on so many levels than Teachings for a main title in the Meher Baba article

--Jones.liam (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I read your points, the more I see that you don't consider the material that is presently under the title Teachings. You consider a totally different content. This present material is NOT best described as Universal Work. That Meher Baba did Universal Work is one broad issue. That Meher Baba left "Teachings" or "Written-expositions-of-what-he-wanted-to-convey-to-humanity", is another by far more specific issue. Here, in this section, as it stands, we are covering the latter. So by you stating that you will keep changing the title to Universal Work, you are obviously trying to open the scope for all the many and various additions that you have tried to add. However, as you have observed, "we 3 editors" plus any administrator called for help are going to protect this article from becoming an anthology of various issues. So if you really still intend to fight as you state above, you will be starting again an edit war. No one would like this and no one would enjoy to see you lose it again nor conceivably to see you blocked from this article. Hoverfish Talk 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me where I have said recently, post John carters intervention and post what i said i would do and even before that, "So by you stating that you will keep changing the title to Universal Work,". I cant see that Hoverfish. Please be civil without false accusations. They are counterproductive and inflamatory. I think you miss the point. Its simple. He specifically avoided saying he left teachings and what is left falls under Universal Work, which is all else. Its case closed for anyone who is impartial. Its not if the Criticisms O\of wikipedia apply to those not impartial. I see you did not address those concerns. --58.106.179.139 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Too late now, but just for the record, I apologize: I misread your statement and came to this conclusion. I The page got too complicated to follow and it is only now I had time to go back and re-read you statement. Sorry for this. Hoverfish Talk 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with introducing a larger section on MB's Universal Work. The topic gets very little attention in the current article. The problem I have is with renaming the "Teachings" section the 2 ways you have done. To call the Teachings section "He left no teachings, and then following with a large number of summaries of Baba's teaching seems backassward to me. Particularly so when you proceeded to include a number of additional topics to that section.

Good. Yes I was going to write another article all together with 2 other editors on Universal work. That may spur you to get in first. I really dont mind. Some great quotes have been generated in this discussuion that could be used. It should not be this hard to get progress though. It does need a rework, IMO. --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the section consists entirely of topics on which Meher Baba provided written and spoken discourses, such as "Metaphysics,' "Evolution and Involution," "Reincarnation" and so on, I believe that the section must have a title that suggests its content. In general such topics fall under titles such as "Teachings" or as JohnCarter suggests "Philosophy", or similar generally accepted and appropriate descriptive categorizations.

yes. MB really did not like philosophy that is documented, so something, big, all encompassing, broad, well referenced, words he used, what? --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These topics about which Baba discoursed at length and with great care are a part, I believe, of his work, and certainly not the whole of it. Meher Baba used the term Universal Work and I believe more often, "my work", to describe some larger effort, actions taken by the Avatar on behalf of all humanity. He regularly enjoined people to focus not on his teachings but that greater effort. I believe that you rightly tried to begin to push the article to address that larger work. I adapted and incorporated some of your recent changes to support this view, and I would have done more but the page was blocked.

OK good I agree. It is something like you say, to describe some larger effort, actions taken by the Avatar on behalf of all humanity. Honestly people its not teachings, thats lame, the best I can come up with is Universal Work, My work, work, something like that, even Legacy is better than teachings --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So three points. First: I'd very much like to see a new section of comparable quality on Universal Work. I want to stress the need for SECONDARY SOURCES, however -- what authors SAY about MB's universal work. According to Wikipedia policies, primary sources -- that is Quotes from MB -- are NOT acceptable as the source of this information. You may not like that restriction, and I certainly don't, but them's the rules. If we don't play by the rules, we open up this article for lots of hostile editing, as has happened in the past. Properly developing and editing such a section would be a good thing, IMO.

Agreed --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Second point: I am not going to develop a Universal Work section myself, although I'd be pleased to work with someone who has the resources to do it. Baba's Universal Work, like the New Life, is for me a mystical topic that expands in scope even as I consider it; it is something I meditate on, not something I feel that I can describe in concrete terms and certainly not encyclopedic terms. Maybe you can wrap your head around it and if so, I encourage you to have a go.

Yes, its big and neeeds to be done right. Thats why I thought an alternative is a separate article, linked called Meher Baba's Universal Work. Pros, no Ga grief for this article, if its done in this articles discussion pages sandbox we can all input over time. --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Third point: We Wikipedia editors agree, overtly or tacitly, to work together and reach consensus. You have made changes to this article that have improved it. As editors, we agree to accept the Bold changes of other editors as a means of improving the overall work. As human beings, we piss and moan when this happens, but after the whining stops, we get back to work and embrace good change. You have made changes that have not improved the article as well. This is also part of Being Bold. Some of what we do Boldly is going to fail. But your fellow editors, and mine, have agreed to work together and by consensus to make sense of Bold efforts.

Agreed. Baba would be happy --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When you follow every addition you make with discussion about how brilliant it is, how everyone's previous work is stupid but yours is smart, etc., you create a barrier that makes consensus difficult. When you regard any change to your work as vandalism, and go so far as to initiate multiple "Edit Warring/3RR" cases, or to make personal attacks on me and other editors, you make consensus-building frankly impossible.

As explained I was uncivil for a reason. The rules will be followed, by me, (civility etd) and hopefully the spirit of the best of Wikipedia will prevail too (anti wiki crit) --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So I invite you to Be Bold gently, and to feign respect for your colleagues (even if you don't have any). I invite you to be ready to accept that every Bold idea of yours may not be accepted by others. I invite you accept that a work built by consensus and committee will never be perfect or even great, but that it can be reasonably good. This article is viewed by tens of thousands of people every month. It is probably the single greatest distributor of information about Meher Baba. That the article is accepted as a "Good Article" means that it is now also included in certain websites, CDs, etc., of WP good articles. So there is ample reason to keep its quality high in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards.

Quite a statment1 I invite you to Be Bold gently, look thats what its about, respect and co operation, I accept and agree of course. It should be good, i am a fan of Wikipedia, use it a lot, now lets edit --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To conclude my 3rd point: I'm for calling the Teachings section "Teachings". --Nemonoman (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Universal work" is like many unique terms Baba used. I would hate to see a section for each term. In the past, such terms have had their own sub-article if they were critical to understanding other quotes in the article. It seems to me that Baba meant nearly all his work was universal. In fact Liam quotes something like that above. So what would be excluded from such a section would imply it was not universal. Aren't many of the sections, such as the New Life and Mast Work universal work? Are they to be moved to the new section? I'm opposed to such a section. In Lord Meher I count 117 uses of "universal work" but also 85 instances of "inner work." Would we need a section for every phrase Baba used to describe his actions? Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I too have serious reservations about a section called "Universal work". That strikes me as possibly falling within WP:JARGON, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to make a section title something which has to be explained to the general reader within that section. "Universal work" is a phrase which I don't think has any immediately discernible meaning to the general reader, as opposed to the specialist, and we should always remember that we write our articles for the general reader. I think the same attention to the uninformed reader should be given to the section on "teachings" or whatever, so that someone who doesn't know anything about the subject can quickly grasp the intended content of a given section. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Replies above in text.--Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with Nemonoman above "First: I'd very much like to see a new section of comparable quality on Universal Work. I want to stress the need for SECONDARY SOURCES, however -- what authors SAY about MB's universal work."

I had reservations to about a title of 'Universal Work', until I read those quotes. now i dont. Its not perfect but until someone suggest another, its the best IIMO. Its all a matter of how the paragraph below it is written from secondary sources. --Jones.liam (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Until someone suggests another? How about "Teachings"? Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking for possible jargon in Teachings
On John Carter's suggestion I tried reading the article as a totally uninformed reader. One point I found (and there may be several more) is in the phrase "each soul pursues conscious divinity by evolving: that is, experiencing form in seven "kingdoms" — stone/metal, vegetable, worm, fish, bird, animal, and human." I would wonder what "evolving & experiencing form" is. I wouldn't have a clue so I would feel that this is some "initiate" talk from which I am left out. I think correcting such points might elevate the article. "Form" in God Speaks context is hard to understand, let alone explain it to the uninformed reader. Can we go about it in a simpler way? Or explain "form" before we start using it?? Hoverfish Talk 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also here: the soul becomes subject to reincarnation, the "involuntary process of association and disassociation of consciousness". The explanation given needs further explaining. Hoverfish Talk 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This following probably should not be in but as editors such background may help us decide what is in and also help be respectful of the article and how we choose the language. This article deals with life at its deepest levels as this reminder points out: According to discussions in Mandali hall each souls ultimate Destiny (home) is a bit different, and is predetermined at the exit from the fires of Raj. Fate is the Souls journey, twists and turns on the way to its specific Destiny are decided by choices made in life and previous life (karma / reincarnation). Some souls dont go all the way (power knowledge bliss) some go to mukti (bliss only) some as angels dont get blasted far initially and dont enter the gross realm either. --Jones.liam (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the title of the section, I think either Teachings or Philosophy are both fine. I think the titles of sections should be based, as per the recent points maken, not on Baba's jargon but on what communicates to the most general readership what the section is about. For instance, there is a chapter in Meher Baba's discourses, probably put there in the 30's or 40's, "The Travail of the New World Order" even though I don't think Baba ever used such words anywhere - definitely not in the discourse that follows. I guess it was chosen to draw in readers or was thought to be catchy. ... On Hoverfish's points, it's tough to avoid Baba's jargon altogether. The term "form" doesn't have any clear replacement. It is a jargon term, just as Plato used the term in his own specialized sense. In the article on Plato's theory of forms it explains that in English, 'form' has its usual meaning "the outward "form" or appearance of something" but that Plato means to include this as well as his own notions. I don't think Baba meant species in this case, I think his use was loosely Platonic. It's extremely hard to see how to replace it or even define it within the article. shape? body? The other quote Hoverfish points out "involuntary process of association and disassociation of consciousness" appears to be a quote by Charles Purdom who is trying to explain Baba's metaphysics. So it appears to be a stab at giving some 3rd party sources... as opposed to either quoting the primary source again or taking a stab at original research. So that one's hard to fix too. You either put in Purdom's awful writing to be NPOV, or you make it clear and get accused of too much OR. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Liam, it would be better if you sign in and sign your comments. It would also be better if you would comment in the traditional fashion, as a single comment, rather than scattering your comments into other comments, forcing others to have to reread all that has been written. It also makes the discussion page difficult for others entering to follow. I also have a generally hard time understanding what you're saying. Try to speak in clear linear sentences. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They are signed. I remember that you get overwhelmed, so I am prepared to do this, even though the convention of in text replies is modern and has some advantages. --Jones.liam (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal Ethics
The article is good, at times very good. carefully written. But just one thing is wrong, I cant abide a main section entitled teachings when Meher Baba's Universal message says 'I have Come not to teach but to awaken' and one either comes to this view as an impartial observer after sifting thru the evidence or understands it as a Baba follower. Either way, in fact both ways I cant do it, its not right, if it stays well I will go. I wont go on more about it, its all been said. If you cant see, dont think its an issue, then, well I dont want to be involved, the article is too flawed by this. Is it personal? yes and no. Meher Baba is personal of course, and I have had a very personal experiece in relation to this showing whats clear. I have tried, and think I have done enough, to present the case, but I know its wrong to keep it there as it is. I wont go on about editors not being Baba followers either, because that should not matter. You either understand or not as a Baba lover Or understand at research level impartiality. Either will do. When neither is present, it is unacceptable when talking about Meher Baba to have to argue this point with others, beyond pointing out what I have. Personal Ethics dictates I will not be involved with an article that says, implies or misrepresents that Meher Baba 'did' teachings. --Jones.liam (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

temporary problem with Banner Shell
Due to some ongoing changes in the Banner Shell template there was an error with how the WP India template displayed. It has been changed position as a temporary remedy, please don't revert. Hoverfish Talk 15:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)