Talk:Mel Lyman

Cult Leader
I disagree with the removal of Lyman from the category "Cult leaders". First of all, he was a cult leader, and his only fame is as a cult leader. To have him in category "Harmonica players" but not "Cult leaders" is misleading, as he is far more notable in the later category as the former. Second of all, there are very few sources about Lyman that don't describe him first and foremost as a cult leader. The Rolling Stone article for starters, amd any of the sources listed in the external link, including at least one book. If the assertion is being made that he isn't noted enough as a cult leader in major books and publications (which I don't think is true), then that would mean he isn't notable enough to have to have an article at all (which I think he clearly does). (Admittedly I wrote this article fairly early one and didn't cite sources for major statements, but they're all there in the external link). Herostratus 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Again... Anyway, I'm going to revert back to that version, absent any counterargument. Herostratus 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Was Mel a "religious leader"? No, he wasn't. There never was a religion "Lymanism" under that name or any other. Mel or his followers didn't write any coherent set of scriptures, there was never anything like a liturgy or any other religious practices, there was no clear-cut creed, there were no "Lymanists" outside of the few hundred Family members.
 * Was Mel neither a cult leader or a religious leader, but just another musician? Of course not, don't be silly. Mel is notable for as the leader of the Family, otherwise he would not merit an article.
 * Was Mel just the chief of a commune, the Family? He was that, but he was more than just that. I mean, look at the Kweskin quote in the article (and there are many more). (e.g. "There is no doubt in my mind that Mel is the Creator. He is the center of Creation ... He makes me feel the Spirit. He is next to God, if not God himself..." - Richie Guerin)
 * Was Mel a "cult leader"? Yes, he was, and everyone at the time understood this, and he was known as such at the time. His charismatic personality was the key element here. People were attached to him personally, in quite an extraordinary way, and believed him to be more than just another person. I'm not saying "cult leader" in a pejorative way. After all, Jesus was a cult leader at first (the religion came later, with St. Paul and the other first church fathers, and the writers of the Gospels.) If "Lymanism" had evolved into a real religion, we could in retrospect call Mel a religious leader. But it didn't, mainly because nothing that Mel wrote or said had any real staying power.


 * Looks like the whole Cult Leader category was deleted by a former administrator with a conflict of interest (jossi). Oh well, this makes WP less useful for the user once again. 24.4.132.165 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Mel is notable for as the leader of the Family, otherwise he would not merit an article." If Lyman had died immediately after leaving the Jim Kweskin Jug Band, he would have died moderately famous, and a Wikipedia article about him would still have fairly easily survived a notability challenge. Certainly founding the Fort Hill Community made him still more famous, but not hugely more famous, considering how secretive the community has been and how little access the outside world has had to it (and probably how little the outside world has ever really cared about it). No, Lyman remained only moderately famous, and in terms of fame (or infamy) the Fort Hill Community can't compare to Scientology, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the Charles Manson Family, the Unification Church, or to many other movements that have been sometimes (or often) been characterized as cults. If it's a cult, it's a not a very well known cult. TheScotch (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

i rented from the enlightened realty trust/jim kweskin
in the late 80's around twenty young idealistic punks rented two houses from the remnants of the mel lyman cult.we wrote our rent checks to the enlightened realty trust and had our day to day interactions with a burned out jim kweskin. during our stay at the compound we were only allowed communication with the male members of the landlord group as the women were shipped off in vans every day not to return until nightime. at some point in our time there we broke in to a forbidden room in our basement.this room was the darkroom and archive for the avitar magazine. more to came —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.38.44 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

cult leader
An editor has objected to the characterization of Lyman as a "cult leader". It's not clear exactly what his objection but since she's not gone to the talk page I will.

But whatever, per WP:BRD it's up to the editor suggesting the change to make her case, and consequently I've restored the lead absent such a case being made and proven. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Also see the section "Cult Leader" (different capitalization) at the top of this talk page, where the characterization of Lyman as a cult leader is defended in more detail. Herostratus (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "cult" is a word of the English language. It has a meaning which can be looked up. The word "leader" is also a word of the English language. It also has a meaning which can be looked up. If the editor is making the point that either "cult" or "leader" are not English words, the onus would be on him to explain why there are entries for these words in most English-language dictionaries.
 * The phrase "cult leader", composed of these two words, also has meaning in the English language. It is not an idiom but simply the combination of the two words in such a way as to support this description: a person who is the leader of a cult. If the editor is making the point that "cult leader" is an idiom the onus would be on him to demonstrate that.
 * If we assume that the above points -- that "cult", "leader" and "cult leader" have common and easily accessible meanings -- the editor's objection may be that "cult leader" mischaracterizes Lyman. But this is not a valid objection, because if "cult leader" can be applied to anyone, it would be Lyman. Again, if "cult leader" has no meaning and can't be applied to anyone, that's one argument. But if it has a meaning and can ever be used, Lyman would certainly fill the bill as well as anyone else who has ever lived, I would say. And though Lyman did some other things, such as play music, these are entirely peripheral to his notability and his reason for having an article. And there's no need to imply otherwise in the lead.
 * Or maybe it's something else.
 * That is most one the bizarre rationales for anything I have see on Wikipedia. Basic WP:NPOV states Avoid stating opinions as facts The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummmm OK well I'm glad to have contributed to your experience of the unusual and grotesque, I guess.... =/ I'm not sure where the stating of opinion comes in here so I'm rather at a loss as to how to continue... I don't see any opinion offered from the editors to the effect of "Lyman was a blackguard" or "Lyman was a wise man" or anything even close to that... there are quotes to this effect (from both points of view) from people who knew Lyman, but this is allowed I think if it's not a BLP, the quotes are ref'd, the quotes cogently bear on the subject, and things are kept balanced, and... but anyway your edits aren't even to that material but rather to the lead! So.... hmmmm. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "And though Lyman did some other things, such as play music, these are entirely peripheral to his notability and his reason for having an article." Since I would not have heard of Lyman or the Fort Hill Community if Lyman hadn't been a musician first and I certainly would have heard of him anyway if hadn't founded the Fort Hill Community, I must contest this assertion. I must also agree with ResidentAnthropologist that advocating the characterization of the community as a "cult" on the basis that cult is a common English word makes for a rather peculiar argument--or at least for a straw man argument. Usually when people object to the term cult it's because the terms tends to be used disparagingly. TheScotch (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of albums where Lyman had creative control
The article states, regarding the album Jim Kweskin's America, that "This is the only recording on which Lyman had creative control". Another editor has disputed this with a note to the effect "Warner/Reprise contract with Mo Ostin was two record deal with complete artistic control on both." However, I don't think that any other album was made and released (except for Jim Kweskin's America) where Lyman produced and/or had creative control, which is what counts. I'm willing to be instructed otherwise, but is there a reference for this second album? Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the chance to discuss this a bit further with you. Checking the release dates of the albums it turns out that the first album was in fact "American Avatar: Love Comes Rolling Down" performers listed as The Lyman Family with Lisa Kindred. The actual tapes for this record were recorded in New York in 1966 at the Vanguard studios in New York.  There was quite a difference of artisitic values in the production at the time, detailed somewhat later in, among other places, in a rather dramatic and notorious article in Rolling Stone.  The differences led to a standoff which delayed the release of the record by Vanguard indefinitely.


 * The tapes of these sessions were played a couple years later for the president of Warner Brothers records, Mo Ostin. As stated by Lyman on the jacket of that record:


 * "I've been waiting to get this record released for three years and it is finally only possible now because I played the tapes for Mo Ostin a few months ago and be loved them."


 * At that point Mo Ostin signed a two record deal which included buying the tapes from Maynard Solomion at Vanguard and releasing them as "American Avatar: Love Comes Rolling Down" with liner notes and artwork supplied by The Lyman Family.  The second album, released a bit over a year later on the Warner/Reprise label was "America".  There was no interference with Mel Lyman and the Lyman Family from Warner/Reprise (or "corporate" as they would say nowadays) on either record.  They both stand on their own so, in light of this history, I have to say the prior characterization of the America album as "the only" album is incorrect.


 * I have also corrected the title on the first album.


 * Thanks for your time and the chance to set the record straight on this detail.BishopBandita (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But I don't think this is correct. American Avatar: Love Comes Rolling Down was a Lisa Kindred album. It was supposed to have been her second album, the follow up to I Like It That Way (and was to have been titled Kindred Spirit, I think). Lyman played harmonica on the album, is all. He didn't have creative control or anything close to it. He stole the master tapes (or had someone else steal them) and later -- God knows how he managed this, but I guess he could be pretty persuasive and must have had considerable chutzpah -- managed to get an entirely different record company to release them under the title American Avatar: Love Comes Rolling Down by the Lyman Family. And they were remixed, to bring his harmonica forward (and perhaps in other ways). But remixing is a very long way from having creative control. Herostratus (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned
The "Later developments, and Lyman’s death" section is written as a defense of Lyman. Furthermore, characterizing the ROLLING STONE article as a philippic is hardly neutral -- in fact, it is a perjorative, which is hardly neutral.

I feel that this article, and specifically this section, likely was written by someone who is motivated to defend Lyman.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a problem. I wrote the original article, and it was reasonably neutral I guess. I mean, you could get from it the subtext that this guy was kind of nuts, but what am I going to do? He was kind of nuts. He wasn't a monster and I suppose was an interesting person, though.


 * Yes, some editors have gone through here and made this article too much of an apologetic for Lyman, but that's to be expected when a person has followers. I have it on my list to fix up someday, but not high on the list. Lyman's dead, his followers are getting pretty old, and it's all just history now. But you're right.


 * FWIW though, it was I who used the word "phillipic" and it's probably neutrally descriptive in my opinion. It means "a strongly worded denouncement" and comes from speeches some guy in Athens (forget who) used to give about the danger posed by Phillip of Macedon (Alexander's father). Felton's piece was a strongly worded denouncement, I think it's fair to say. It was probably basically true and accurate too. I don't think "phillipic" has any connotations of being untrue. (After all, the original philippic guy was spot on, since Phillip -- and more especially his son -- did indeed pose a danger to quite a lot of people, as we've seen.) In retrospect, Felton was pretty harsh, since no Jonestown or Manson-style situation developed, and I suppose the family had some good aspects -- gave a home and some direction and structure to some otherwise drifting people, I suppose, and Felton didn't really allow for that. But we didn't know how things were going to play out, and I'm not gonna fault Felton for being alarmed. Herostratus (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Random House defines philippic as any speech or discourse of bitter denunciation, and Collins English Dictionary defines it as a bitter or impassioned speech of denunciation; invective. Whether or not that makes the term pejorative, it certainly makes it POV. TheScotch (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So? It's not a problem if it's true. There are some things that are, indeed, speeches or discourses of bitter denunciation or bitter or impassioned speeches of denunciation and/or invective. So what are you going to call them? Love letters?


 * The question is whether Felton's piece is a phillipic and whether or not any reasonable person would allow that. There are various definitions of phillipic; most dictionaries give the fairly narrow definition you describe and some indicate that phillipics can only be oral speeches, but actual usage as opposed to dictionary prescriptions is an important data point, and here's an example of the Guardian using it in the sense I did as being similar to "written piece condemning something and sounding an alarm".


 * So fine, I replaced "phillipic" with "condemnatory", which I think any reasonable person would allow is a fair description of Felton's piece. You lose the sense of Felton sort of banging the drum along the lines of "hey world wake up these people are maybe dangerous", which is a clear subtext of his article, but it's not worth fighting over. Herostratus (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: "So? It's not a problem if it's true." One man's bitter is another man's salty, sour or sweet, and chacun à son goût. Whether the article was bitter is clearly not an objective fact. Your considering it "true" doesn't make it so. (Moreover, in context phillipic was superfluous and awkwardly wedged in.)

Re: "...actual usage as opposed to dictionary prescriptions is an important data point..." In "actual usage" philippic is not merely subjective but usually pejorative as well.

Re: "So fine, I replaced "phillipic" with 'condemnatory', which I think any reasonable person would allow is a fair description of Felton's piece."

Apparently, by "any reasonable person" you mean you. Rolling Stone purports to be objective, and publishing a piece with the intention to condemn rather than report is not being objective. This means that it is not our place at Wikipedia to characterize the Rolling Stone article as "condemnatory" no matter how we may feel about it personally. TheScotch (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rolling Stone purports to be objective? Have you read Matt Taibi's stuff? Of course it's not objective. Neither is The Nation or the National Review. What about "exposé"? "An exposure or a revelation of something discreditable"; "publication of some disreputable facts"; etc.) What about "described a... dysfunctional environment"? Gonna take those out too?


 * So you're telling me that a reasonable person would read Felton's piece and say "Certainly doesn't seem to condemn them. Probably good publicity, all in all". But that's crazy. That'd be an unreasonable response to the piece. Of course Felton could have been making a lot of his stuff up, or at any rate cherry-picking the bad stuff for sensationalistic purpose, so it might have been falsely and unfairly condemnatory. But it was still condemnatory. I challenge you to find one sane reasonable person to say "Hey, this doesn't make them look bad" (as opposed to "this is false and biased", which you could probably find reasonable people to say).


 * I mean, we have to characterize the piece somehow. Just saying "There was a magazine article that a lot of people read" is not a service to the reader. It was a major piece and, I think, had a impact on the Fort Point Community going forward, and it did that because it (fairly or not) it made them look terrible to a national audience. I wouldn't want to take out "exposé" and balance "an elite 'Karma Squad' of ultra-loyalists to enforce Lyman’s discipline... and isolation rooms for disobedient Family members" with "but also showed a can-do spirit of hard work and community cohesion" although you could tease that second sentence out of the article I suppose. I wouldn't want to add that second sentence because I think that very very few people took away from the article "Wow, what a can-do bunch of fellows!".


 * But whatever. The word "condemnatory" itself is not important, as long as we keep in "exposé" and "described a... dysfunctional environment"? or some some rough equivilent. But you restored the tag. The tag isn't saying that the Rolling Stone piece was POV. It was, of course. The tag says that our characterization of the Rolling Stone piece, or maybe including it all, or giving it that much space, is POV.


 * So rather than just restoring the tag, help me out here. Give me an alternative passage, or some suggestions for wording. It probably is true that the passage can be improved to give a better feel for the piece and where it fits into the Lyman story. Let's work together on this. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As others have noted, this article has been hijacked by reverent insiders - "all current members still revere Lyman, as do many former members." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.21.44 (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Judy Who?
The article repeatedly references a certain "Judy" without ever (unless I'm missing something) giving her full name or identifying her or explaining her significance. (unsigned)
 * This is a subset of "The article is a mess, having been worked over by various insiders and/or people with some apparent stake in the material and nobody's been paying much attention". I'll do some work on it presently. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's been nonsense across the board. At some point someone replaced "Thus, unlike Manson's Family, Lyman's did not explode in a dramatic denouement" with "Thus it has been said that, unlike the Manson Family, Lyman’s did not explode in a dramatic denouement." This is bit like "Thus it has been said the the Austro-Hungarian Empire did not have a space program". Heh.


 * IMO it's crystal clear the Fort Point Community was a cult and that Lyman was a cult leader. The words "cult" and the term "cult leader" are simple English words with clear and established meanings and if we can't apply them to Lyman, who was clearly very charismatic and was essentially worshiped by his followers, then we might as well remove them from the dictionary. "Cult" is not in and of itself pejorative and you could describe Saint Francis as a cult leader too I guess, and describing Lyman thus would be a service to the reader.


 * But Jim Jones's article opens with "James Warren "Jim" Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was an American religious leader and community organizer" (oh well then), so if we can't get Jim Jones into that that bag then I guess this is a lost cause. Too bad, and so the reader has to read between the lines, but that's Wikipolitics for ya. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Judy" was Judy Silver, Mel's Brandeis student girlfriend who took acid against his instructions and went crazy. (per Rolling Stone article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.76.115 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
Re: "Such pronouncements were typically delivered with extreme fervor and liberal use of ALL CAPS."

The expression "ALL CAPS" is a slang abbreviation and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The expression "extreme fervor" is POV. (I could change this one sentence, but that wouldn't really solve the problem: The article as a whole is full of these sorts of solecisms . It needs a fairly extensive rewriting.) TheScotch (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It does need extensive rewriting. The article was probably better in 2008 or so and we might be better of going back to that and starting from there.


 * I don't know about "ALL CAPS". There's a link which explains it. It is kind of informal. I don't know if it's overly informal. You could replace it with "Extensive use of words and passages written in all capital letters" I suppose. I don't know if that'd be an improvement. Maybe. He certainly did use all caps a lot.


 * He did write with extreme fervor. That's not necessarily a bad thing. That's how he wrote. He did not, in general, present a laid-back kind of mellow-philosopher persona at the keyboard. Are you saying that he did? Or that there's a better way to get that across to the reader, or what? Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"kotterdale"
A series of socks have been whitewashing this article and refusing to discuss it; when challenged, they create another one lie about it. They're all named things like, , and so on. I've started checkuser-blocking them, but does anyone have any idea what's going on here? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this is happening again. Blocked again. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021
I want to submit an image for this page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mel-Lyman.jpg Kotterdale11 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Can't just take a copyrighted picture, upload it to commons and then use it in an article. The image has to have the correct licensing for us to use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021
Add this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evangelist_Mel_Lyman-RS_98_(December_23,_1971).jpg 2601:741:8000:1A80:7D18:54A3:FAD5:A701 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Still under copyright. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Picture
Can someone, for the love of God, add a picture of this guy? I've tried seven times already, and each time it gets removed for no reason. Please, I am begging you to add a picture to this page. Kotterdale11 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the reason is that we cannot use copyrighted images. You can't just search on the internet for a picture and then upload it, saying that it is licensed. Someone owns the rights to those pictures so can't use them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses tons of copyrighted images. 199.120.30.247 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please point us to each one that is not covered by WP:FAIRUSE; they will be removed. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Bloated article
This article is way too long. The man was not a major figure on the world stage. 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:903F:38D5:AE17:8888 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Doesn't have to be. As long as the subject is notable, we collect all encyclopedic information on it. At a WP:LENGTH of 23k, the page is far awy from any considerations of splitting or otherwise reducing it. Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022
Add a photo. 2601:741:8000:1A80:8542:69D3:38E1:8C9D (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.  Terasail II &#91;✉️&#93; 23:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)