User talk:Stephen Castro

Hazrat Babajan: birth/death dates
With reference to the unsigned concern expressed regarding Babajan’s actual age when she died, I trust the following may prove useful to improving the article:

Firstly, much of the accepted information about Hazrat Babajan appears to have been established solely on the authority of Meher Baba, a fact acknowledged by Dr Abdul Ghani Munsiff, who in 1939 wrote the first life-sketch of Babajan. According to Ghani, “the information gleaned from different sources is meagre, since Babajan herself was never communicative to anyone with regard to her life history. The facts of her early life and those relating to her spiritual career have all been confirmed by Hazrat Meher Baba, her chief disciple and spiritual Chargeman (Khalifa)” (Dr Abdul Ghani Munsiff: “Hazrat Babajan of Poona”, Meher Baba Journal, Vol. 1, February 1939, No. 4, p. 31).

Bhau Kalchuri, a disciple of Meher Baba, and the principal source for the current article, states that Hazrat Babajan “was born to a royal Muslim family of Baluchistan in northern India between 1790 and 1800,” and that her “physical presence on earth lasted between 130 to 141 years” (“Hazrat Babajan, the Emperor”, Meher Prabhu: Volume One & Two 1894-1925, Manifestation, Inc., pp. 5, 19). However, for those who find such ages doubtful, it should be noted that in his colourful spiritual travel book, A Search in Secret India (1934), the then freelance journalist, Paul Brunton (Raphael Hirsch), recounts that he learnt “from former Judge Khandalawalla, who has known [Hazrat Babajan] for fifty years, that her age is really about ninety-five” (p. 62). Brunton had arrived in India, November 1930, and had left several months before Babajan’s death in September 1931. Which begs the question: is the former judge’s estimate of Babajan’s age just as valid as Kalchuri’s? Neither is based on supportive documented evidence.

Kevin R D Shepherd, in his non-sectarian biography of Hazrat Babajan, observed re Brunton’s report that the Khandalawalla “episode was part of a short stay in India which was written up very journalistically as a bestseller. It was a tourist scoop, extremely superficial … that Khandalawalla had known Babajan for as long as fifty years is questionable; though it need not be doubted that he had encountered her by the time of her second visit to Bombay c. 1900” (A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan, Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications, 1986, n. 51, p.77). It should be noted that both Khandalawalla and Brunton were critical of Meher Baba, and Shepherd suggests “Khandalawalla’s conservative estimate of her age was quite conceivably influenced by his antagonism to Meher Baba and the latter’s Hindu teacher Upasni Maharaj, to whom the judge attributed his son-in-law’s financial catastrophe on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Meher Baba was amongst those who said Babajan was well over a century in years” (ibid.).

Shepherd concludes: “The general computation of her age was about 120 years, though some maintained that it was in excess of this, [Charles] Purdom cited an approximate date of 1790 for her birth, though [Dr Abdul] Ghani [Munsiff] was of the view that she was born later than this. Ghani’s estimate of her age was 125, based on general reminiscences and his own contact with her. In deference to critical tendencies which find the higher estimates indigestible, there seems every ground to believe that the subject was over a hundred by the time of her death” (A Sufi Matriarch, n. 54, pp. 77–78).

In the absence of any historical evidence, in some respects it does not matter what age Babajan was when she died; yet commonsense is surely required. Longevity is not a spiritual accomplishment, but unfortunately can easily become a superficial hagiographical embellishment. Was she 95, 100, 120, 125, 130, or 141? Perhaps it is sufficient to accept that the subject may well have been over a hundred by the time of her death. The somewhat extreme estimated dates of Kalchuri do appear doubtful and will invariably continue to raise concerns.

Despite Paul Brunton’s criticisms of Meher Baba (who, ironically, had suggested Brunton visit Babajan), his book does reveal that he was emotionally affected by his meeting with Hazrat Babajan, and afterwards, in his hotel room, he reflected: “That some deep psychological attainment really resides in the depths of her being, I am certain” (A Search in Secret India, p. 64; for a revealing analysis of Brunton’s short stay in India and the background to his observations of Meher Baba, see Kevin R D Shepherd, Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal, Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications, 1988, pp. 146–176 ).

With due respect to the more experienced editors, may I, as a new editor, propose that a ‘Further Reading’ section be added to the main article page (see below); these publications provide information about Hazrat Babajan that surely broadens our knowledge of the subject. Brunton, a journalist, did actually meet Babajan shortly before her death and gives a first-hand account (which includes an alternative estimate of her age); Ghani, a Muslim, medical doctor, and disciple of Meher Baba, had also met Babajan and wrote the first biographical sketch (which Kalchuri has drawn heavily upon); and Shepherd’s more extensive, non-sectarian, biography of Babajan (again, based on Ghani) draws together other writings on the subject and provides a needed non-devotee scholarly perspective. Has anyone any objection to this? Proposed further reading: Paul Brunton: “A Search in Secret India”, first published in 1934 by Rider & Co, London. Reprinted American paperback edition, Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1970, pp. 62–65 Dr Abdul Ghani Munsiff: “Hazrat Babajan of Poona”, Meher Baba Journal, Vol. 1, February 1939, No. 4, pp. 29–39 (http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/Book_Files/journal_1_4R.pdf) Kevin R D Shepherd: “A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan”, Anthropographia Publications, Cambridge, 1986

Stephen Castro 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Meher Baba and Paul Brunton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Toddy, Toka and Devonshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Rom Landau, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mohammed V and University of the Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Rom Landau.jpg
Hello, !

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Rom Landau.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Rom Landau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The proper way...
I saw your move to withdraw the article and I saw the move reverted. One proper way of doing this is to place at the top of the article. For more information, please read section G7 here: Speedy deletions. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 17:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish, thanks for that. --Stephen Castro (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this. Not being an administrator, I didn't know that Talk Page contributions counted so as to make G7 inapplicable. Hoverfish Talk 14:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don’t worry. The important thing is that the article is deleted as I had initially requested. It will just take a little longer. I don’t believe for one moment that there will be any objections. I can’t be bothered to point out obvious errors in some of the comments on “sourcing” made. I am not seeking to contest the deletion of the article—I proposed it. --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Meher Baba’s critics
Hello Stephen Castro. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Meher Baba’s critics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not eligible for G7 - other editors have made substantial contributions to the talk page, as well as other edits. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SmartSE, “other editors have made substantial contributions”? As far as I am aware, I am currently the major contributor to the article. Though I do of course appreciate that Simon Kidd made several constructive edits, another editor added a useful reference re Jeffery Masson, and I believe Dazedbythebell made some changes to the appearance of a section of quoted text when the article was first posted. So, there are in fact no “substantial contributions” from other editors. If I removed my own contributions you would merely have a few paragraphs and a reference or two left on the page. --Stephen Castro (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Meher Baba’s critics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meher Baba’s critics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Meher Baba’s critics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RSN Discussion of New Media Books
Discussion of your monograph as a source at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Fladrif (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)