Talk:Meher Baba/GA3

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has essentially never had a full GA review, and has also deteriorated from the time that it received the minimal scrutiny that it did. There are significant issues with the prose and with verifiability that I will list below. I'm happy to allow anyone who is interested in fixing it the time to do so, but based on a quick look, that is going to involve a very substantial rewrite. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * In addition to concerns listed below, if a notes-bibliography format is being used, the two should be linked via sfn formatting or the equivalent.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Prose

 * There are a number of issues with the prose. Enumerating all them is something I will only do if this becomes contentious, but essentially, there are issues both with clarity and with neutrality; the article verges on the hagiographic. Examples include the following:
 * "including teaching reincarnation and that the phenomenal world is an illusion." Quite an egregious sentence for the lead of a GA; implies that he taught people to reincarnate.
 * "In addition he gave practical advice for the aspirant who wishes to attain God-realization and thereby escape the wheel of births and deaths" essentially endorses his teachings in Wikipedia's voice.
 * "After that he contacted" After what? Being fond of poetry?
 * "other spiritual figures, who, along with Babajan," "Babajan" isn't someone who has been identified; also, the name sounds like an honorific.
 * "Meher Baba initiated a life-long period of self-imposed silence" In "early life", this is out of place; there's a whole section for it afterwards.


 * I have amended the text to address these issues. These comments improved the article --Nemonoman (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Quotes and Sources

 * The article relies far too heavily on sources connected to Meher Baba. By a rough count, nearly 90 of the 130 citations are to sources that have a close connection to Meher Baba. There may be more; These are only counting Kalchuri, Purdom, Awakener magazine, and Meher Baba himself. While non-independent sources aren't verboten, relying on them so heavily is a problem for verifiability and neutrality.
 * Neutrality may be an issue. We did the verifiability debate at great length in earlier GARs. You might enjoy having a look at those. The sources, even those particularly favorable to MB fall entirely within the guidelines of WP:V--Nemonoman (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read through those GARs before starting this one. They don't count for too much in my book, because a) the prose has changed significantly, and b) Wikipedia conventions have changed significantly. We are far more demanding with respect to sourcing now then we were in the "good old days" more than a decade ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article overuses quotes, and specifically overuses affiliated sources to discuss Meher Baba's teachings. If there's one area in which independent sources are likely to be found, it is in such analysis; we should make use of them. A quick search uncovered several scholarly sources and at least one book that are quite independent, AFAICS (this is the book).
 * FYI, the author is a Baba Follower--Nemonoman (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that? In any case; the fact remains that we need independent sources. If this isn't one, others need to be found. The substance of an article, and particularly the pieces that are analyzing his teachings, cannot be based on writings that have a close connection to their subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shepherd lives a few miles away from me. We are acquaintances, not friends. He was a helpful source about Mogul-period Islam for my historical novels, which have been translated into 8 languages...which is fortunate because in English they sold a total of about 11 copies.--Nemonoman (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If he is just a generic believer, and not an immediate disciple, then he's still far superior as a source than many of those already in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , not seeing 'bout how he is a superior source. The press is very-likely the house-press of Shepherd (in that, it had not published anyone else), who has no relevant qualifications and has not been published by any minimally reputable press ..... &#x222F; WBG converse 16:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked a bit closer, he isn't great. That said, he is at least an independent SPS, rather than a closely affiliated SPS. So... Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The article overuses quotes,
 * In general I agree, but since this is YOUR GAR because you don't like what you saw, and since you provided clear and apt descriptions of needed corrections to style and grammar above, may I ask for your guidance here? Please give me a clue as to how many quotes are acceptable before crossing the line into overuse. Also please identify specific quotes that seem extraneous.
 * In general, quotes should only be used when a paraphrasing wouldn't convey the same meaning. For instance, the first large quote has a few sentences that would be difficult to paraphrase. The last three, on the other hand, could be dropped entirely without much loss. If you're using blockquotes, I'd say not more than a couple; and maybe a handful more brief ones. If they're quotes from independent sources, a few more would be okay; but quoting isn't a substitute for writing prose, and that seems to have happened in a few places here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and specifically overuses affiliated sources to discuss Meher Baba's teachings.If there's one area in which independent sources are likely to be found, it is in such analysis; we should make use of them.
 * No one agrees with this more heartily than me. In my experience however, practically every independent source that can be found has already been included. Meher Baba is quoted fairly extensively on the web, but there are few scholarly critiques or analyses by non-Baba affiliated persons.
 * See below.
 * A quick search uncovered several scholarly sources
 * I should very much like to see any useful sources.
 * Well, there's this, cited in the article, but only used for a half-sentence; this, also cited, also for a very brief fragment; this, not cited at all, AFAICS; this, which isn't cited; this, which isn't cited. And this is just from the first two pages of google scholar, and from clicking through to a couple of bibliographies. If I can find these, in about ten minutes, there's certainly more. A good place to look would be encyclopedias of religion; another good place would be to see what these sources cite, and to follow any relevant links. There's also a Britannica entry that has only been used once. These are the sources the article needs to be built from; non-independent sources should be used to fill in the gaps, where they are used at all. I understand that scholarly sources are harder to get hold of, but WP:RX is a good place to look (I can help out myself with a couple of these, TWL gives me Project MUSE). More generally, the lack of good source material can never be a reason to promote an article using sub-par sources to GA. There are topics that genuinely lack any substantive independent coverage beyond the bare bones; and those articles will never make it to the GA level. It isn't possible to write a GA about every topic, and the state of the sourcing is usually a major determining factor. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's this, this and this, this.....
 * This is an interesting read, as to the broader locus of the capacity of sociologists to objectively interpret and critique any new religious cult, with which they sympathize. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Among other reliable sources I see This, this, this (questionable; need to read), Purdom's works, this, this ....... &#x222F; WBG converse 08:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  and at least one book that are quite independent,
 * Like I said, t there are few scholarly critiques or analyses by non-Baba affiliated persons.--Nemonoman (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. There are quite a few; I've listed five above, together with the encyclopedia britannica entry. here is another from NYT, and one more from Time Magazine. I don't have access to old newspaper databases, but there are others who do; these will certainly yield more sources, probably including some longer profiles. I'm not going to do all the searching, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * & I'm impressed by your sources, thanks very much. I think WBG told me that he could access JSTOR. If you can help with access I would appreciate. I don't speak Dutch or Italian, but if there are online versions, of those books, I'd appreciate help. Some (e.g., the one on the Hari Krishnas) look like they might have some passing ref to Meher Baba -- is including something like that really going to change your opinions about this article in toto? --Nemonoman (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , email me. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , email me. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall
Overall, this clearly does not match up to the GA standards. I'm willing to keep this on hold for a week to see if anyone is interested in rescuing it. If they are, I am happy to give them more time as needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * have you out of courtesy contacted even one of the main authors of this article? Just asking. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because it's generally a safe assumption that an editor who has contributed substantially to a page has watchlisted it. Posting to the talk page is quite sufficient. Besides, I've explicitly offered to give interested editors as much time as they ask for. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope (a) that you won't mind that I point this out to some of principal editors. I for one edit very occasionally these days and rarely even log in. I was doing some research on Second Temple Judaism and logged in to fix a spelling error, and happened to see the AFD for Silence Day. I completely missed the first one. Also I don't every follow my watchlist. I think the other editors may be in similar mode. Also (b) I personally agree that a GAR of this article is warranted, but not for the reasons you state, and I don't have the energy to start my own GAR war or completely rewrite to my satisfaction. But I'm a big believer in making WP as good as it can be. I know this subject, you have reasonable opinions; let's work together and make things better.
 * Once the Silence Day AFD is settled -- god I hate those debates -- I will try to look in on weekends to see progress. If you don't mind slow and steady, I'd be glad if we can improve this article to Keep GA standards. One reason I got into the GA process was that it helped to deal with the constant problem of reverting blanking and vandalism done by -- well let's just say "aggressive non-cultists." --Nemonoman (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contact whomever you please; this isn't a community GAR, and therefore there are no canvassing concerns, so long as it's clear that people are being invited to fix the article and not to badger the reviewer (which has happened, elsewhere). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you been able to find the time to work on this? I'm happy to keep this open for a reasonable, specific, period of time; but keeping it open indefinitely is rather pointless. Also, I don't think much purpose is served by my reviewing the prose before the source problems have been fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I first saw this GAR 1 week ago exactly and have done some work on your points. As I have a life, and am facing numerous time constraints after a short lull, I would very much appreciate at least 21 days to deal with your concerns, many of which I feel are valid and deserve some effort. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, three weeks it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been three weeks; have you been able to make any progress? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the absence of further respose, 24 days from the request for 3 extra weeks and a full month after the review was opened, I am closing this as delisted. Future GA nominations should take the feedback here into account. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments regarding sources
It's been seven years since I raised the issue of reliability of sources in this article, a discussion that now forms part of Archives 12 and 13. It wasn't my intention to have any of those sources removed, but rather to draw attention to a double standard in evidence. The cause of the double standard was a bias against the author referred to by Vanamonde above (Kevin Shepherd), a bias originating in events outside Wikipedia but affecting several of the regular editors of the Meher Baba group of articles. These editors, who were all 'partisans' of the Meher Baba 'movement' (for want of a better term) had been influenced by misinformation about Shepherd that had become entrenched, in the US in particular. It was probably compounded by Shepherd's criticism of some of the revered authority figures in the 'movement', although not of Meher Baba himself.

My argument was straightforward enough: if Shepherd was considered to be an unreliable source, then so should most of the sources used in this group of articles; if the other sources were considered reliable, then so was Shepherd. This was based entirely on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My contention was that according to the policies and guidelines, the sources should stand together or fall together. I recognised that there was a case to be made for the inclusion of Kalchuri and the other sources, but there was also a case to be made for the inclusion of Shepherd. The partisan editors, however, opted for a generous interpretation of policies and guidelines in relation to their preferred sources, while supporting an ungenerous application of the same policies and guidelines that had been made in the case of Shepherd.

I'm not going to repeat the case I made for including Shepherd in 2012, but I would like to draw attention to changed circumstances that are relevant to the discussion here. First, Shepherd’s last three books (one on Hazrat Babajan and two on Shirdi Sai Baba) have been published by a reputable third-party publisher (http://sterlingpublishers.in). This means that he can no longer be classed simply as a self-published author, and it is worth reminding that even his self-published books were positively cited by academics, including two academic biographers of Shirdi Sai Baba. Second, I have uploaded my own reviews of two of these Sterling books to my Academia page (https://uwa.academia.edu/SimonKidd). Academia analytics reveal that these reviews receive regular and serious attention from academics in various parts of the world, including the US, Europe, and India.

Shepherd himself doesn't seem concerned with whether he is represented on Wikipedia. He is, however, clearly concerned with accuracy of reporting and with countering misinformation. To that end he has supplied a lot of information online about the causes of the above-mentioned bias. Most recently he has added a new section to a pre-existing article about Meher Baba, which is a statement of his position in relation to the events of 2012 and since. The following four paragraphs mention the discussion above:


 * 'The Wikipedia misrepresentation has continued. In September 2019, an administrative critical reassessment of the Meher Baba article noted the existence of an independent and relevant source not mentioned in the article. This source was Iranian Liberal. The disclosure met with a very deceptive response from the reappearing editor Nemonoman, long noted for his User page template: “This user believes Meher Baba was Indian.” In 2013, his User page informed: "I have been a follower of Meher Baba for many years" (Wikipedia Sectarian Strategies). Six years later, now identifying himself as a novelist, Nemonoman stated: “The author [Kevin Shepherd] is a Baba Follower” (Meher Baba talkpage, 17/09/2019). The administrator Vanamonde duly queried this assertion, urging that independent sources were needed. The approach of Vanamonde seems very reasonable to me.


 * 'The dissimulating Nemonoman then falsely asserted: “Shepherd lives a few miles away from me. We are acquaintances, not friends” (Meher Baba talkpage, 17/09/2019). The pseudonymous front man for Dazedbythebell evidently believed his ruse would serve to disqualify the "Iranian" book, which he is effectively presenting as a devotee contribution. That book, declaredly non-sectarian, has been suppressed for ten years by the devotee manipulators on Wikipedia. The preface states that I "do not choose to propagandise in any way for the [Meher Baba] movement" (Iranian Liberal, p. 5). Another editor now asserted that I had “not been published by any minimally reputable press” (Meher Baba talkpage, 21/09/2019).


 * 'These lies and accusations invite repudiation. I am not a Baba Follower. I am NOT a devotee or Baba lover. I am a critic of the Meher Baba movement, with an angle on the figurehead seeking to ascertain context and history. I do not live in the same territory as the Follower editor attempting to place me in the same category as himself. I am not any kind of acquaintance of the misleading Wikipedia entity Nemonoman. In the last few years, three of my books have been published by a reputable and long-term Indian publisher in New Delhi (well known from China to Turkey and beyond). Sterling are desiring to know why they have been downgraded by Wikipedia bias. Over the past ten years, many observers have seen that, in relation to the Meher Baba article, the Wikipedia phrase Neutral Point of View is a Total Fiction. Abuse of living authors is beyond tolerance. Wikipedia talkpages (and User pages) can deride and misrepresent living authors without any due citation from their books or websites. Legal recourse may be more appropriate than this pseudonymous convenience.


 * 'In 2012, the User page of Dazedbythebell referred to me contemptuously as Sam Shepherd (05/01/2012). Sam is an American slang term often used in a demeaning context. Some say that this designation is too evocative of the perjorative sambo, strongly associated with the American class system. Living authors should not be identified on Wikipedia by the wrong name conveying slang opprobrium.'

The new section in question is here: https://www.citizenphilosophy.net/Meher_Baba_an_Irani_Mystic.html#Independence

Simon Kidd (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking Shepherd's piece; I need to read that. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography on Meher Baba

 * - Of debatable reliability; published by a non-reputed press and author has no relevant academic qualification or repute but the work is cited in, other works of S. Srinivas, and
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.
 * No book from their in-house-presses have been mentioned, FWIW.

&#x222F; WBG converse 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have used a number of these excellent sources, to which I wanted to add the following, which dedicates a chapter to Meher Baba's cosmology:
 * Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Academic citations of Kevin Shepherd
Thank you for that list, WBG. You may not be aware, but in 2010, DGG, a specialist in bibliographic matters, modified his initial critical surface assessment when he investigated Shepherd’s books and websites, subsequently stating that Shepherd’s books were in an ‘intermediate’ category, neither academic nor popular, but ‘considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article’. The context was the ‘Upasni Maharaj’ article, but DGG was referring to the positive comments of Dr Marianne Warren, in her own biography of Shirdi Sai, on Shepherd’s Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori. The full discussion is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG/Archive_37_Feb._2010#Simon_Kidd_&_Kevin_Shepherd

All of Shepherd’s books are annotated. His Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (which covers Shirdi Sai Baba, Upasni Maharaj, and Meher Baba) has 162 pages of text plus 106 pages of serious annotations. His standpoint is reflected in his statement: ‘The ethnographic, sociological, and mystical material contained in Meher Baba’s case history can be studied without becoming a dogmatic spokesman for or against’ (Investigating, page 139). Shepherd often provides information that only specialist scholars are in any position to judge. This is why I supported him against deletion on Wikipedia in 2009.

The following list of citations is not exhaustive, but indicative of serious academic interest in Shepherd.

====Citations of The Resurrection of Philosophy (1989), Meaning in Anthropos: Anthropography as an Interdisciplinary Science of Culture (1991), and Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals: An Investigation of Perennial Philosophy, Cults, Occultism, Psychotherapy, and Postmodernism (2004)====


 * Kidd, Simon (2022). ‘The Philosothon: Philosophy as performance’, Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 9:2, 41–77; cited on page 63.
 * https://jps.bham.ac.uk/articles/abstract/160

Citations of Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal (1988)

 * Kerkhove, Raymond (2002). ‘Authority and Egolessness in the Emergence and Impact of Meher Baba (1894–1969)’, a dissertation presented to The School, of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the area of the Study of New Religious Movements at the  University of Queensland, Brisbane, 31 July 2002.
 * Kerkhove, Raymond (2003). ‘Multi-faith Invisibility – The Case of Meher Baba (1894–1969)’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of AASR (Australian Association for Study of Religions), Griffith University (Brisbane), July 2003.
 * Mukherjee, Sumita (2017). ‘Indian Messiah: The Attraction of Meher Baba to British Audiences in the 1930s’, Journal of Religious History, 41:2, 215–34; cited on page 224.
 * Srinivas, Smriti (2008). In the Presence of Sai Baba: Body, City, and Memory in a Global Religious Movement (Leiden: Brill); cited on page 42, note 16. See Shepherd’s web article ‘Shirdi Sai Baba and the Sai Baba Movement’, notes 62 and 63.
 * Warren, Marianne (1999, revised 2004). Unravelling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (New Delhi: Sterling); cited on page 128, note 40, of 1999 edn.

Citations of Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori (1986)

 * Elison, William (2014). ‘Sai Baba of Bombay – A Saint, His Icon, and the Urban Geography of Darshan’, History of Religions, 54: 2, ‘Indian Gurus’ special issue (November 2014), 151–87; cited on page 155, note 5.
 * Kerkhove, Raymond (2002). ‘Authority and Egolessness in the Emergence and Impact of Meher Baba (1894–1969)’, a dissertation presented to The School, of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the area of the Study of New Religious Movements at the  University of Queensland, Brisbane, 31 July 2002.
 * Loar, Jonathan (2018). ‘From Neither/Nor to Both/And: Reconfiguring the Life and Legacy of Shirdi Sai Baba in Hagiography’, International Journal of Hindu Studies 22, 475–96; cited on pages 476 note 2 (refers to Shepherd as one of three ‘Western scholars’, along with Rigopoulos and Warren), 477, 478, 491 text and note 20.
 * McLain, Karline (2016). The Afterlife of Sai Baba: Competing Visions of a Global Saint (Seattle: University of Washington Press); cited on page 233 note 3.
 * Rigopoulos, Antonio (1993). The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (State University of New York Press); see page xxvii for a now famous approving remark: ‘a ground-breaking work’.
 * Shinde, Kiran A. and Andrea Marion Pinkney (2013). ‘Shirdi in Transition: Guru Devotion, Urbanisation and Regional Pluralism in India’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 36:4, 554–70; cited on page 555 note 4.
 * Srinivas, Smriti (1999). ‘The Brahmin and the Fakir: Suburban Religiosity in the Cult of Shirdi Sai Baba’, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 14:2, 245–61; cited on pages 246, 247, and 259 notes 2 and 4.
 * Srinivas, Tulasi (2010). Winged Faith: Rethinking Globalisation and Religious Pluralism Through the Sathya Sai Movement (Columbia University Press); cited on page 354 note 24.
 * Warren, Marianne (1999, revised 2004). Unravelling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (New Delhi: Sterling); see page 15 for a review that is now well known among scholars of Hinduism and Sufism, because Shepherd closely anticipated the contentions of Dr Warren herself.
 * Zelliot, Eleanor (1987). ‘Four Radical Saints’ in Religion and Society in Maharashtra (Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for South Asian Studies). Awaiting exact citation(s).
 * Zelliot, Eleanor and Maxine Berntsen, eds (1988). The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press); cited in ‘Selected Bibliography on Religion in Maharashtra’, page 360.

Citations of A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan (1986)

 * Aftab, Tahera (2008). Inscribing South Asian Muslim Women: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Guide (Leiden: Brill); see entry 525.
 * Green, Nile (2009). Islam and the Army in Colonial India: Sepoy Religion and the Service of Empire (Cambridge University Press); cited on page 186 note 148.
 * Kerkhove, Raymond (2002). ‘Authority and Egolessness in the Emergence and Impact of Meher Baba (1894–1969)’, a dissertation presented to The School, of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the area of the Study of New Religious Movements at the  University of Queensland, Brisbane, 31 July 2002.
 * Kerkhove, Raymond (2003). ‘Multi-faith Invisibility – The Case of Meher Baba (1894–1969)’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of AASR (Australian Association for Study of Religions), Griffith University (Brisbane), July 2003.

Credentials for academics citing Shepherd

 * Professor Tahera Aftab
 * https://karachi.academia.edu/TaheraAftab


 * Dr Maxine Berntsen
 * https://pssphaltan.org/peopledetail.php?peopleid=4f51c2989289c


 * Associate Professor William Elison
 * https://www.religion.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/william-elison


 * Professor Nile Green
 * https://history.ucla.edu/faculty/nile-green
 * https://www.gf.org/fellows/all-fellows/nile-green


 * Dr Raymond Kerkhove
 * https://uniqld.academia.edu/raykerkhove
 * https://qldhistorians.org.au/consultants-register/business-directory/870/ray-kerkhove


 * Simon Kidd
 * https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/persons/simon-kidd


 * Jonathan Loar, PhD candidate at Emory University in the Graduate Division of Religion’s ‘West and South Asian Religions’ course
 * http://jonathanloar.com


 * Professor Karline McLain
 * https://www.bucknell.edu/fac-staff/karline-mclain
 * https://bucknell.academia.edu/KarlineMcLain


 * Dr Sumita Mukherjee
 * https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/persons/sumita-mukherjee(eb18700a-8193-4d4e-9e8c-7d364dac5f0c).html


 * Associate Professor Andrea Marion Pinkney
 * https://www.mcgill.ca/religiousstudies/andrea-pinkney
 * https://mcgill.academia.edu/AndreaMarionPinkney


 * Professor Antonio Rigopoulos
 * https://www.unive.it/data/people/5592164
 * https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Rigopoulos


 * Dr Kiran Shinde
 * https://scholars.latrobe.edu.au/display/kshinde
 * https://latrobe.academia.edu/KiranShinde


 * Professor Smriti Srinivas
 * https://anthropology.ucdavis.edu/people/smriti


 * Associate Professor Tulasi Srinivas
 * https://emerson.academia.edu/TulasiSrinivas
 * https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/people/tulasi-srinivas


 * Dr Marianne Warren (d. 2004)
 * Professor Eleanor Zelliot (d. 2016)
 * https://www.carleton.edu/history/faculty/in-memoriam/zelliot

Simon Kidd (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are putting this much effort into advocating for Shepherd as a source is throwing up red flags for me. Nemenomon, or someone, needs to rewrite the article with independent sources. Shepherd is a possible source. There are others. These arguments are good to have if someone starts challenging the use of Shepherd, but arguing that we shouldn't use independent sources isn't going to fly, because this is an individual review and I am firm on that point. So give this a rest. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Vanamonde. I'm not sure where I gave the impression that I was arguing that independent sources shouldn't be used. I am certainly not arguing that. My only concern is to make available some relevant information, especially given the history of partisan editing of articles relating to Meher Baba. I have stayed away from these articles for seven years, and have no intention of returning as an editor. I am satisfied that I have done my best to supply accurate information for future editors, should the issue of Shepherd as a source be raised. That may not happen again, if the partisan editors either cease editing altogether or at least refrain from allowing their biases to interfere with their editing. I have also commented on the Upasni Maharaj talk page, with a link back to here. I don't think I have anything else to say, so perhaps your red flags will disappear now! Simon Kidd (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)