Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

GA status maintained

Thanks to all whose continued efforts have maintained this article at Wikipedia's GA quality. My special appreciation to the (many) editors who had to put up with my bitching, whining, pissing and moaning during the latest review. I've just checked the history of this article and found that my initial edits go back to 2004 -- and I've seen how many good (and bad) changes went into making the article what it is today: Since 2007 especially Sharnak (in his many incarnations) changed this article from pretty good to Good. My special thanks also to Jossi and Geometry guy for their recent efforts, and my particular thanks for the way they edited the article and did not simply stand near critiquing -- restores some of my hope for WP. Finally to 72.204.46.220, who wanders through the article at all hours, tweaking here, tweaking there, thanks again. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Just found a note on a Wiki How-to page that viewing statistics are available for web pages. Here's the one for Meher Baba for June--Nemonoman (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reflecting on recent changes to the Meher Baba article

One of WP's most prolific FA writers has this opinion [1]:

..sometimes it is better to allow an old friend to die with dignity, than see them transformed into something alien, which will eventually be the result. Giano (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To which his correspondent replies:

I dont see that at all. I appreciate that blue numbers dotted around the text are ugly and invasive, but my openion is that these days they are the price to keep an article high profile and read by as many as possible. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to this article.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Persian

Note: A previous extensive discussion where this matter met a consensus resolution may be found archived here.

It is extremely misleading to the first-time average reader with no particular background in the matter to call Meher Baba 'Persian'. In all practical respects he was Indian. As I often say in my reverts: Born in India, died in India, lived in India, buried in India, parents Indian, stayed in India for his entire life. Clearly he was French.

It may be relevant that Baba called himself 'Persian' in some interviews. Relevant to what, is the question. Baba said he was the Avatar, butthis is how we report it: Not Baba was the avatar of this age but that he publicly declared in 1954 that he was the Avatar of the age.

To put a big fat quote about in the lead violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.

I have restored "Indian". I have moved the quote to a note. I have added information with citations about Baba traveling on a Persian passport, and why (and if Baba was so damned Persian, why did he FIRST apply for an INDIAN passport? Why wasn't Persian his first choice)?--Nemonoman (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree 101 % with you ! Gul-o-Khar (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He considered himself Persian -- please explain the value or relevance of this? There is a big fat Note about Iranis being of Persian descent. Another Big Fat Note about Baba's self-described life history. Baba is described as traveling on a Persian passport. This is getting more and more a case of undue emphasis. Leaving alone the ACCURACY of the statement -- I have seen MB quoted as saying he is 'a Persian subject -- what is the RELEVANCE? He also described himself as having NO nationality. Maybe we need a new page "List of Things Meher Baba Said He Was".

It appears that some other editors are in agreement that Baba should be presented as Indian. Please build a consensus on these continuing changes, or they will be reverted by me, and apparently, by others as well. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba's ethnicity was Persian but his nationality was Indian. In an encyclopedia like this it is customary to name the nationality but except in rare instances the ethnicity of a person is not considered relevant, and if so it would receive a section. But in the modern world seeing ethnicity as relevant is pretty rare. For instance, Albert Einstein is considered a German-born scientist, not a Jewish scientist or an Israeli scientist because his ancestors came from Israel. Barack Obama is an American, not an African. It is relevant that he is of African descent due to the history of repression of blacks in America. Otherwise it has no other relevance. And one would certainly not begin the lead with calling him African. As Nemonoman has said, what relevance to his life Meher Baba's ethnicity has is really unclear. And a significant argument would have to be made for it to even be included. It is one thing to have national pride about Meher Baba being of Persian descent, and another to use Wikipedia as a forum for the expression of nationalistic pride. A better option (if this is important to someone) is to create a website or free Blog in which a discussion of Meher Baba's Persian roots can be explored. I think Nemonoman is being facetious when he suggests an article about things Baba said he was.

hmm...ya think???--Nemonoman (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of reading reveals this would be an infinite list. So best to keep this article to the relevant encyclopedic facts. This is not the place for hoisting a flag -- as much as I respect Iran and all Persians. Pipaaz (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mandali

The introduction use to include a sentence like, "He traveled in the company of his mandali (close diciples)". Now the term "mandali" only appears much lower under the heading Silence, and with no explanation. Don't want to do any correcting that might get reverted by the new Perfect Article committee. Aliphanta (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit. The Perfect Article Committee is here to serve you.--Nemonoman (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I couldn't see what to do but to go back to the old version with some modifcications. This is because it was so much easier to follow as a cold reader. Here I'll try to explain some of the reasons.

Meher Baba (Devanagari: मेहेर बाबा) (February 25, 1894, Merwan Sheriar Irani – January 31, 1969), was an Indian mystic and spiritual master AS A COLD READER I FIND THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND. IT WAS MORE CLEAR WHEN HE WAS AN INDIAN WHO "BECAME" A MASTER, AND MORE TRUE TOO. who publicly declared in 1954 that he was the Avatar of the age.

Please tell exactly when Meher Baba became a spiritual master, or failing that, when he was not a spiritual master. While you're at it tell me how adding and late in his life (1954 at age 60) is important for the very first sentence? --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He led a normal childhood, showing no particular inclination toward spiritual matters, until age of 19, when a short contact with the Muslim holy woman Hazrat Babajan triggered a seven-year process of spiritual transformation. THIS LEFT ME HANGING WONDERING WHAT THE TRANFORMATION WAS ONE INTO. IN THE OLD VERSION IT WAS SAID IN HIS WORDS. HERE I AM LEFT HOPING TO ONE DAY GET THE SOURCE THROUGH INTERLIBRARY LOAN TO FIND OUT.

Or by continuing to read the article. Of course that would be work too. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He ::contacted other spiritual figures he called "the five perfect masters," and settled in Sakori with Upasni Maharaj before beginning his public work. THIS SENTENCE IN THE ORDER IT IS GIVEN NOW IS CONFUSING TO A READER WHO KNOWS NOTHING. THESE PERFECT MASTERS APPEAR TO BE PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE HOLY WOMAN WHO CAUSED HIM TO HAVE AN UNEXPLAINED TRANSFORMATION. THE SENTENCE ABOUT 'SETTLING' WITH A MAN NAMED UPASNI IN A PLACE CALLED SAKORI, THAT COULD BE IN CALIFORNIA FOR ALL WE KNOW SINCE THERE IS NO LINK, BEFORE BEGINNING HIS PUBLIC WORK, SOUNDS LIKE HE HAD A GAY RELATIONSHIP FOR A WHILE AS A PRIVATE BREAK BEFORE GOING PUBLIC. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

You do so love your version. I could make snide remarks about that. Fortunately, others have done so for me. See the GAR. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The name Meher Baba, meaning "Compassionate Father," was given to him by his first followers.

From 1925 to the end of his life, Meher Baba maintained silence, and communicated by means of an alphabet board or by unique hand gestures. He spent long periods in seclusion, often fasting, but would intersperse these periods with wide-ranging travels, public gatherings, and works of charity, including working with lepers, the poor, and the insane HE CALLED THEM MAD. WORKING WITH THE INSANE SOUNDS INSANE. THE ARCHAIC MADE IT CLEAR WHAT WAS MEANT FOR SOME REASON. ALSO THE ARTICLE FOR INSANITY GIVES "MADNESS" AS AN ALTERNATIVE TERM RIGHT AT THE TOP.

Yes, your version is an improvement. Why are you so Angry? --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He gathered numerous Western followers during several world tours, which he continued despite serious car accidents in the US and India.THIS SENTENCE ISN'T WORDED PROPERLY. IT STARTS OUT ABOUT "GATHERING" AND AFTER THE COMMA IS TALKING ABOUT SOME TOURS. IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE HE DID NOT STOP SIGHT SEEING THE WORLD EVEN AFTER CRASHING HIS CAR SEVERAL TIMES -- SORT OF LIKE A MADMAN ON COKE.

There are many sentences that could improved. Thank you for discussing your ideas in a vicious way. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He wrote books on metaphysics (God Speaks) SAYS BOOKS BUT LISTS ONLY ONE and on the life of the spirit THIS SOUNDS NEW AGE - AND WILL NOT BE CLEAR TO AN OBJECTIVE READER EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF SPIRIT OR SPIRITS THIS REFERS TO - SOUNDS LIKE INSIDE JARGON (Discourses).

He wrote books -- and then 2 are listed God speaks and Discourses. So is your objection that Baba only wrote one book. Or at this time, do you feel a complete list is needed? Like Beams, Life at its Best, etc?. Also, please characterize Discourses, Beams, etc., in some way that is much better than the way you completely removed. I got that description from Amazon, I think. Leaving no description at all is, of course much more helpful to "A COLD READER".--Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For several years beginning in 1949, he traveled incognito about India in what he called "The New Life." On February 10, 1954, Meher Baba declared that he was the Avatar (an incarnation of God).

You add the phrase, "along with selected mandali" to this passage. I don't see why you hold back, as the phrase could be added to just about every reference to Baba in the article. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerned by an increasing use of LSD and other psychedelic drugs, in 1966 Meher Baba addressed their use and discredited any alleged spiritual benefits. THIS NEW WORDING IS MORE CONFUSING THAN THE OLD. BEFORE IT WAS THE "PROBLEM" OF THEIR "MISUSE" - NOW ITS JUST THEIR USE THAT BOTHERED HIM, WHICH LEAVES ONE WONDERING WHY BY DROPPING THE WORDS THAT SAID. MEHER BABA DID NOT OBJECT TO THE "USE" OF DRUGS, BUT THEIR MISUSE. FOR INSTANCE HE DID NOT OBJECT TO LSD BEING PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR FOR THE TREATMENT OF MENTAL DISEASE. - HOW IS THIS NEW WORDING THAN A CLARIFICATION OR MORE TRUE WAY OF SAYING THIS?

Well for one thing, Baba in effect DEFINED the misuse of drugs, and stated with his Divine Authority that they had no spiritual benefit -- an idea that was not typical at the time. Or are you saying that he was just parroting what everyone had been saying already?--Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite deteriorating health, he continued his "universal work," which included fasting, seclusion, and meditation, until he died on January 31, 1969. His samadhi (tomb-shrine) in Meherabad, India has become a place of international pilgrimage. THE OLD HAD AN ENDING THAT SUMMED UP A LOT. HERE IT MIGHT AS WELL HAVE SAID HE GOT SICK AND DIED.

IN ADDITION THE SECTION DROPS MENTION OF WHAT THE MANDALI ARE, WHICH MAKES HIM SOUND LIKE HE TRAVELED ALONE. AND NO LONGER DEFINES THAT WORD EITHER. THE SECTION IIS SHORTER AND HAS MORE CITATIONS, AND WHILE TRUE TO FACTS HAS WORDING THAT LEADS A PERSON WHO KNOWS NOTHING TO STILL KNOW NOTHING AND EVEN BE CONFUSED.

Well, you have fixed that by mentioning them several times without any more explanation than one 'close disciples'. But you have now given lots of prominence to a term that is not wikilinked or much explained. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I was wrong, you wikilinked mandali

Reading this cold I found it was completely unclear what the lead was talking about. I know there is a lot of group pride in this new version and I expect it will be reverted. Oh well. Aliphanta (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you expect it to be reverted, why didn't you discuss before making changes? Anyway, you have screwed it over royally, and I'll be damned if I will fix your foolishness if you decide ahead of time that I am an egotistical idiot. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame.

Anyway, Thanks! You've created a wonderful new opening for this article. Now it only USED to be a Good Article. You have ignored or contradicted most of criticisms and comments that got the Good Article designation removed in the first place. You've created a passage that violates WP:LEAD, adds lots of non-sequitors and outright errors, and is effectively unsourced.

Anyway, so long as YOU'RE happy, why should anyone else be?

PS: I don't know why -- after the complete ballsup you've made up the lead paragraph -- that what find particularly annoying is your 'once is not notable' comment. But so I find it.

First to your facts: Lord Meher states that the club AGREED they would bet, using a specific system. It only refers, however, to one such incident. You may suppose more incidents occurred. Not recorded, at least not there. Also I'm not sure that horse race betting is at all notable, but it's interesting.

But let's consider your 'once is not notable' idea: Here, then, a few other things that are 'not notable' - Leonardo Da Vinci's birth, the invention of Silly Putty, Jimmy Carter's Presidential Election, the San Francisco earthquake, JFK's assassination, D-Day, and the Big Bang.

I'm looking forward to you some day maturing, and considering that other editors have at some labor put better and more carefully worked efforts into this article. Your own efforts are of remarkably poor quality and reduce the quality of the article. I hope YOU will reconsider and revise your changes. Even if that happened once, it would be notable. Not likely, but notable.

For my part, I am done arguing with the Boobacracy. Go ahead and kill Meher Baba. Why should anyone's opinions matter but yours?--Nemonoman (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Aliphanta, I would be glad to know, how many minutes you spent on the edition of this version ? I first read your commentaries on the discussion page, was enthusiastic that somebody else was open for an even better improvement of the article, and then suddenly realised you actually made the changes !

I feel sorry for you. The changes and the way you did them are not to my liking. At all. Please reconsider your editing. Gul-o-Khar (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

People who have been considered avatars

I recognize the good intention of putting Baba in a new category "people who have been considered avatars" but it Meher Baba doesn't belong in such a list because it is misleading. Meher Baba is currently worshipped quite seriously in India, Iran, and the West by many people as "the" avatar. It would be better to create a category called "People who are worshipped as the avatar." Cott12 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The category is applicable, per sources in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you both. It's a miserable category, and I think it needs to be considered for deletion. There's a certain smug POV in the title that rankles. I can't deny, however, that some people consider MB to be 'an' avatar. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended that the category be deleted. You can comment here.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this category from the article. So long as it is a subcategory of 'Hindu religious figures' it doesn't fit the case. --nemonoman (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Brown's book

I don't think that the deletion of any mention of Rachel Brown speaks well of the objectivity of this entry. I spent many years in a Baba household of long standing (3 generations) and Rachel's book sheds light on aspects of Meher Baba's beliefs and the role they played in the life of his followers that you would not find in any other book."Semi-fictionalised" - well, she changed some names, and that could be mentioned in any description of the book. But the characters were still very recognisable. Frankly, including mention of Rachel Brown would make the entry a lot more readable and interesting, as well as more credible - right now, it is clearly by and for true believers only. I have noticed (and edited) rather catty mentions of Rachel Brown under another Wikipedia entry. Not good form, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have edited the catty Rachel Brown entries under some other identity, I'm confused. I don't see any Rachel Brown edits in your contributions. Rachel is a friend of mine, and I would be troubled by catty edits about her or her book as well. As for my concern that the book is semi-fictionalized, your comment well, she changed some names, and that could be mentioned in any description of the book. is really a concern. I know she created "composite characters", edited chronologies for dramatic affect, etc., etc. She did not, so far as I can tell, chang or fictionalize information about Meher Baba, however. If there are specific references in the book to Meher Baba relevant to the article that deserve mention as alternate viewpoints, please include them, and use a cite or reference as in other footnoted information. That is entirely reasonable. You reverted my edit that the book was not about Meher Baba per se, and that it was semi-fictionalized, and your comment above proves the case. I continue to believe that it does not belong in a list of books about Meher Baba; but to repeat my statement above, I think individual cited information relevant to the article would be entirely in keeping with WP's NPOV policy, and I would be pleased to see some. --nemonoman (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I must have been not signed in when I edited the catty entry - careless on my part. Check the edits under the Ahmednagar page and you will see what I am referring to. The "notable people" section. I have also attempted to mention Rachel's book under the "Legacy" section in this entry, and it was edited out within nanoseconds. It certainly at least as worthy of a mention in that section as the "Don't worry, be happy" song, which when it comes right down to it does not relate directly to Baba at all. Rachel's book provides a lot of insight into Baba's legacy, whether or not you agree with all of it. --Rosabibi (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't page through back to May contributions -- I took it you had just made the changes recently. As to inclusion, I think I am most editors concerned about relevance. And I still am doubtful that a book that you concede is fictional or at least semi-fictional should be included as factual in toto. As I stated, I'm more inclined to consider individual passages as relates to article topics. As to all music stuff -- YOU figure out how to tamp it down. For most drive-by editors, it's the only thing that counts. --nemonoman (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not concede that the book was fictional - I said that she had changed some names. That is generally considered fair enough - journalists do it all the time when dealing with personal stories and no-one says that the resulting article is "fiction". As for cutting the material about music - I would not favour doing that. My point is that Rachel's book is as much part of Baba's legacy as is "Tommy" and therefore if "Tommy" rates a mention on the Baba entry, then so does she.--Rosabibi (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a completely disingenuous argument that the notability of All the Fishes Come Home to Roost is on par with Tommy. If Tommy is in, then Brown's book needs to be in. Is that the argument? Where does such an argument end? Wouldn't we have to include Phyllis Ott's book too by the same exact argument? Wouldn't we have to include EVERYTHING by that argument? 72.204.47.141 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have conceded it. Rachel's book is not journalism, nor does it purport to be. There are no sources listed, no references given. There is no way to determine if any of information is true or not true. In her radio interview with Steve Klein, Rachel described how she modified events, characters, timelines, names, etc. For those reasons, I also don't believe it deserves any mention in the Ahmednagar article at all, btw, 'catty' comments or otherwise. (I thought the comment you changed had been put in mostly as a joke.) Also as regards 'Tommy', I think it passes the notability smell test: it's an album that has sold millions of copies, been turned into a movie, and then into a broadway show, with songs covered by dozens of artists and still selling well today. Even I might concede that Tommy has a greater 'legacy' impact than Rachel's little book. Of course you're welcome to your own opinion. I'll remove a non-specific reference in the Legacy section, although I continue to appeal to you to put in any specific credible references to Meher Baba that provide an alternative point of view to the 'devotionalism' you decried in the past. Of course other editors may disagree with either of these approaches, and you'll only know if you Be Bold and have go.--nemonoman (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have "had a go" at editing the Baba page in the past - as I said before, it was edited out in nanoseconds. So I stopped bothering. -Tommy - I don't have anything against Tommy as a musical and I am not arguing on the grounds of notability, but on relevance to an entry on Baba. Tommy does not really relate very directly to Meher Baba, while Rachel Brown's book does, and is certainly a part of Baba's legacy. And so if Tommy is relevant to an entry on Baba, then Rachel certainly is as well. I am arguing for including Rachel, not deleting Tommy. - The comments about RAchel on the Ahmednager page may have been intended as a joke, but they frankly are not very funny. I am surprised that someone who describes him/herself as a friend of Rachel's would consider them so. - You are not providing a NPOV by excluding Rachel's book. The fact that you do not like it is not reason enough to write it out. Rachel's book should be included on the grounds of relevance (it speaks directly about the experience of living in the Baba community that inherited his legacy), notability (it was published by a mainstream publisher and received international attention and acclaim), and diversity of opinion (it provides a persepctive that is not available elsewhere). There is practically no information about Baba that has not been written by a devotee, so Rachel's book is worthy of inclusion on those grounds alone. It does not mean that you have to include "everything", as much of the material on Baba provides very similar information.--Rosabibi (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again - I have just checked the Ahmednager page and I was signed in when I edited the catty comments about Rachel. I don't know why it didn't show up on my page, but anyway, if you check the edits on the Ahmednager page you will see it. --Rosabibi (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the sentiment of the book that makes it impertenant to a biographical article. Even if it was a book of happy memories of growing up in Meherabad in the 80s, rather than sad memories, it would not belong in the biographical article as it is not about Meher Baba which the article is about. I agree that a sub-article about the Meher Baba movement would not be a bad idea. There is one for the Shirdi Sai Baba movement and one for the Sathya Sai Baba movement. Try making a Meher Baba movement page. I think you will be surprised how little resistance you receive to including Rachel's book in such an article. Dffiles (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is a section of this article called "legacy", and Rachel's book is very pertinent there - and my attempts to mention it were edited it out (as I raised on the discussion page at the time). --Rosabibi (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should also include Phyllis Ott's memoir "God Bade Me Welcome" where she describes her affair with Norman Mailer as well as meeting Meher Baba personally as well as living on the main Baba center in America for 40 years. It's part of Meher Baba's legacy after all. 72.204.47.141 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way about the editors of this article. However, this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for catharsis on feelings about growing up in a Baba follower family. This entry would fit well in an article about Baba followers or the Meher Baba movement, or one on the children of the followers of Meher Baba. However it does not fit in the main biographical article on Meher Baba the man, his life, death, travels, and discourses. It is not that this memoir is semi-fictionalized. It also is written by a person who has not studied Meher Baba's life carefully. The book is not about Meher Baba. The book is a memoir and the antagonist is the mother in the story. It does not shed light on the subject of this biographical article. You are encouraged to start a sub-article on the movement and include it. Including nonbiographical books in a biographical enclopedic article to "make a point" is not "good form" either. Who are these characters "recognizable" to? Please remain encyclopedic even if you don't like the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.47.141 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that the book does not shed light on the subject of the biographical article. To me, and to many others, it sheds a lot of light. And as such, it belongs in the main article, not in a sub-article (and there are a hell of a lot of sub-articles on Baba - does anyone actually read them?) And see my point above - there is a lot of material in the current article that does not relate to the subject in any significant way, except that is shows that Baba had well-known followers. The difference is that Rachel's book is not seen as reflecting positively on the Baba movement, while being associated with Pete Townshend and Bobby Mc is seen as very positive. If you are going to remove references to Rachel on the grounds of relevance, then to be consistent you need to remove references to Baba's influence on "Tommy" as well. I don't have the book to hand, but I don't think you need me to match names to characters. Mehera, Eruch, and other Baba followers both Indian and WEstern are very recognisable.--Rosabibi (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ms Brown decided to write a fictional account, clearly hoping that her roman a clef would be unlocked by Those In The Know. But she did not write an account of actual persons, one that she would stand behind. You were the one who made a Big Honking Point that the article wasn't encyclopedic. Well it is now, and using a novel as reference -- even an obvious roman a clef -- is not typical of encycopedic scholarship,--nemonoman (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a novel. It is a memoir, labelled as such and recognisable as such to those who know the characters. A roman a clef does a lot more than change the names - most memoirs change at least some of the names of those involved. See my point above about how this is quite a common practice in media as well, especially when dealing with personal stories. Excluding the book because it does not match your version of events is hardly NPOV. Even if you disagree with Rachel's book, it surely rates a mention because of the fact that it was published by a major publishing house and received international media coverage. You can't just write it out of history - or not if you are trying to produce a credible article. --Rosabibi (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as it might seem unfair Rachel Brown's memoir is only one of numerous memoirs by followers of Meher Baba that are not included in this article under the heading "Books about Meher Baba". To include favorite memoirs because of taste would not be very practical and would be the beginning of endless arguments and would turn the article into a spam site. Dffiles (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a question of selecting a memoir out of personal taste, but because it provides a perspective which is not available elsewhere. Most other books about Baba provide a very similar persepctive. An encyclopedia entry should provide a range of perspectives, which currently this entry does not do. --Rosabibi (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing the section, Books about Meher Baba, as the list seems extremely arbitrary. Perhaps it could be a list of biographies. As it is too vague a description to be fair to include some and not others. Why "A Mirage Will Never Quench Your Thirst" which says almost nothing about Meher Baba? Why Naosherwan's book and not numerous biographies? Dffiles (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why those books? Because some editors seek a place to publicize certain works. --nemonoman (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And supress others. --Rosabibi (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Now who is making the catty comments? As to whether 'a friend of Rachel' -- which for my part I believe myself to be -- would say that the Ahmednagar comments were meant as a joke: I watch Saturday Night Live and know when some flat and ill-chosen words were meant to be funny, even if they failed to be funny. I apply that skill to other areas of my life as my life as well. As to the notability of All the fishes, try starting an article on it, or on Rachel, and see if it survives speedy delete. That would be an interesting experiment. --nemonoman (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Imagine that there were a 'tell-all' memoir by a former mandali. Baba was thief, charlatan, adulterer, member of the NRA, that sort of thing. Even if dubious, it would relevant to the article. On the other hand, here's Rachel's book. Her parents moved her to India after Baba's death, and she had a bad childhood. Charmingly and wittingly told, with a viciously ironic eye. But the book isn't about Meher Baba directly -- and her comments about Baba's followers have been 'renamed to protect the innocent'...if there are any innocent. So how exactly does that book fit in this article. 'A perspective not found elsewhere"? A perspective on WHAT exatly? On Meher Baba's life? I think not. On the fictional characters 'inspired by actual accounts'? So go to the page on Eruch or Mani or whoever and write "In RB's book, Character X is based on the Real Person Y, and does Rachel ever show what a hypocrite Character X was!!". Or were her troubles with her parents and their beliefs (fictionalized) what is notable to the Meher Baba article? Or is her bad time at Ahemednagar what is notable to the Meher Baba article? It's clear you want Rachel's book shoehorned in here, probably in Bold Type with a headline. --nemonoman (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

- I have considered starting a wikipedia article on Rachel - there are wikipedia articles on writers whose work has attracted far less attention. The reason I did not start such an article is that I didn't want to provide those who do not like her work with a public forum to give a free kick (as is happening here, but at least it is in a pretty obscure corner). - If Rachel's work is as fictional and as defamatory as you claim, it is interesting that no-one has taken legal action. - I don't say that her book should be in bold type with a headline, and I did not attempt to do that. Some time ago, I attempted to include a brief mention, alongside the stuff about Tommy and the Don't Worry Be Happy song. And as I said, it was deleted right away. I am thinking that I will re-submit a similar mention, and if it is deleted, or becomes the target of someone's rather flat attempt at "humour", we will need to take this to arbitration. If the Baba entry was only about events during his lifetime, then you might have a case regarding the relevance issue (although I would still say that her reflections on Baba's life are worthy of mention because they provide a perspective from a non-devotee). But the "legacy" section is a very clear place in which Rachel's book rates a mention.--Rosabibi (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a free country. I've told you my opinion, and I'm not alone, apparently, in questioning the notability of the book to be part of this article in the way you describe above. I've mentioned several ways that I believe it would easily achieve a consensus for inclusion. You seem to be determined not only to include the book, but to include it precisely in the manner you want. Remember that there are many steps before you get to arbitration, and if you show no desire to compromise or persuade to get to consensus, it unlikely that your case would even be considered for arbitration. But apparently, we'll see. I reject outright your contention that any persons were defamed in Rachel's book. I don't doubt her honesty. Her mom is getting used to what Rachel said about her, from she (mom) tells me, and her dad is OK with it (a friend tells me). As to the mandali who Rachel cloaked with false names and composite characters, even if they had a shot a winning a defamation case -- what are they going to do -- sue? In the US? On an annual income of of like Rs 6000? You say you are 3rd generation in BL family. OK, so life sucks. Maybe Rachel's book touched a chord in you. OK. If you need to make this your battleground to express your hurt, please go ahead. But this is still an article about Meher Baba, not a group therapy session. Consider your motives. --nemonoman (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not say that Rachel defamed anyone. But the remarks here, accusing her of making up nasty and dishonest stories about the Baba community - well, if she had really done that, it would be grounds for legal action. And yet no-one has sued. Ok, lawyers cost money, but I think if her book was really so damaging, someone would have come through. I am glad to see that you now say that you don't question Rachel's honesty, but that is not really consistent with your previous comments. As for myself, I am not nursing any particular hurt as a result of living in a Baba household - that just gives me the background information. And I actually think that Rachel's book is basically rather affectionate, particularly towards the mandali.--Rosabibi (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never said the RB's book defames anyone and I don't know where you get the idea. I don't doubt Rachel's honesty. Her story has been fictionalized. Your mention that it describes the mandali and that one can figure out quite easily who is being described -- and that is apparent to those in the know. But if you DON'T know, it's not a useful tool for finding out information about the mandali. Names changed, events compressed, etc. That is fictionalizing, a perfectly acceptable practice for Rachel. It is not dishonest, it is creative. It also provides a nice buffer to avoid directly offending those being depicted -- what Oliver North called 'plausible deniability'. ("0h, that! I wasn't talking about you! I just made that part up!!") By the same token, however, there is no specific way to know just how broad Rachel's creativity extends, and which events are real vs fictionalized. So to point to it as a source of useful information about MB's legacy seems a doubtful enterprise. So one might point to it as a creative work from a -- a what? A child of BLs who isn't one? Does that deserve special mention in the section about Meher Baba's Legacy? --nemonoman (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is going around in circles. Rather than continue this back-and forth, I suggest that we all take a couple of days to think. I would suggest for your part that you might like to do some reflecting about what constitutes a memoir. For example, Paul Theroux's memoir of VS Naipaul contains a description of a party in which some characters are re-named, another character is wearing different clothes to the outfit that she actually wore, and Theroux has blended incidents from several events into the one party. Theroux is known to have made these changes, but his book is still considered a memoir - not a novel. And Rachel's book, too, is a memoir. "Memoirs" are understood to be one person's individual experiences and allowances are made for editorial clarity. So long as her book is described as a memoir (rather than as a textbook or a scholarly work), wikipedia readers will know that it is just one person's perspective. I am going to come back to this in a couple of days, and include a brief mention of "all the fishes" as a book that provides one person's insight into the Baba scene. The "legacy" section talks about how the Baba community has developed since his death, so it is perfectly appropriate to include it at that point. Now I have to go back to my "real" job for awhile. Talk again soon.--Rosabibi (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

Notwishstanding some of the above comments, there are in fact some problems with the lead. Pardon the pun but it is a little "mis-leading." Here are a few problems I see:

1. "He contacted other spiritual figures he called the five perfect masters" gives the impression that these others were the 5 perfect masters but that Babajan was a Muslim holy woman.
2. Baba didn't actually 'settle' with Upasni Maharaj. Rather he came and went at intervals and continued to live in Pune where he did many other things during those years.
3. "With his mandali, he spent long periods in seclusion, often fasting..." gives the impression that they all maintained seclusion and fasted together.
4. The second half after the word "mad" is choppy and hurried. The paragraph seems to have no natural starting or end point. It is unclear. An example is the sentence about the 40s in which it sounds like all he did for 10 years in the 40s was go around India incognito in The New Life. The sentence tries to sum up a decade and winds up being unintentionally misleading about that whole decade of his life. Perhaps a few better written and more general statements would serve better to describe Baba's life.
5. The part about automobile accidents does unfortunately give the false impression that Baba had a habit of driving fast and dangerously - or had a fascination with driving. If this is important to include, somehow it ought to be made clear that he was a passenger and not in a race. While the words are technically accurate, they are phrased in a way that is misleading to a reader as the comments above have pointed out previously.
6. What is said in the comments above about Baba's stand on drugs also needs to be addressed and not just replaced. Meher Baba was not opposed to the "use" of drugs, but to the misuse of certain drugs. I'm not quite sure why the writer insists on taking out any references to 'misuse" and the like and wants to say "use." Meher Baba actually said the use of LSD for certain medicinal purposes under the supervision of a doctor was reasonable. So this is misleading. Baba was not opposed to drug use, but to drug abuse.
7. There is an odd looking ]] near the top of the last paragraph of the lead.

I hope someone will address these issues. Cott12 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at a couple of changes. The others will require an editor of greater skill. There used to be a guy -- Cott14 or something -- he might try. --nemonoman (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

These points are reasonable and I would support corrections based on these seven points if the edits were first discussed specifically here, for tweaking e.g. I seem to remember Baba qualifying the use of drugs with 'prescription drugs' being OK. Prescription signifies someone prescribed them, as opposed to drugs used that are not prescribed. We dont need to be pedantic but lets face it, Baba was opposed to drug use for so called spiritual or recreational use, (its clear to me anyway) so I for one think Baba was opposed to the use of drugs like E , Meth, Ice etc and it may be even reasonable to list some drugs for younger viewers and those old enough who should know better. --Liamjones4477 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GAR undone

A short while ago, 99.254.70.9 (talk) edited the talk page here with an incomplete GAR template. This was the first and only edit by 99.254.70.9 (talk). The template was not filled out correctly to actually initiate a GAR, and was placed inside the existing GA template so as to cause (apparently) unintended formatting problems. Since 99.254.70.9 (talk) didn't mention any specific or general concerns on the talk page, and since the article is for the most part unchanged since its GAR 54 days ago, and since the template was entered in an incomplete and incorrect way, I undid the edit.

I will copy this note to 99.254.70.9 (talk) . In good faith, I have guessed that your GAR was not what you intended here. If by reverting your edit I have misunderstood your intention, I ask you to re-enter the GAR request. Please as a courtesy and as a help to your fellow editors then also provide some background on the talk page about why you believe the article requires reassessment. You will also need to complete the GAR request by following the instructions on the GAR template you created. This involves creating GAR pages for the Reassessment. If you need help doing any of these tasks, feel free to message me. You can also copy this: {{helpme}} on your talk page, and someone will try to assist you.--nemonoman (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba related entries

There is large number of Meher Baba related entries, several of which frankly do not seem notable enough for inclusion and/or include no sources which provide a NPOV. I therefore tagged these entries with a "notablity" tag. This tag was removed (incidently by a user active on this and other Meher Baba related pages) rather than the question being discussed or the entries concerned being improved. I will take the next step to have this question submitted to further arbitration. I intend to seek other examples where wikipedia could be better edited. The fact that I have begun with one catagorey is not evidence of bias. I have left intact many other entried connected with Meher Baba. The pages that I tagged were all themselves poor entries of various types. Several of them were closely based on the webpages of the centres concerned and had no npov sources. Others were in my opinion not noteworthy in themselves and should be considered for merging with the main entry on Meher Baba. Meher Baba himself is worthy of a Wikipedia entry but he is not a major enough figure to justify so many subentries - especially when some of them seem basically to be advertisements for various places to stay and all include no outside (ie, non-Baba) sources. The notability tag allows users to improve the entries concerned. It is not appropriate to remove the tag without further discussion rather than to improve the entries concerned - if indeed they should be improved rather than merged/deleted. -- Editwondergirl (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that this topic is relevant to this article page. Your entry above duplicates an entry on your talk page, where I believe it belongs.

In 15 minutes on 0ct 10 you added notablity tags to 11 articles:

1. 19:30, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Meher Pilgrim Center ‎ (notability tag)
2. 19:29, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Meher Mount ‎ (notability tag)
3. 19:28, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) God-realization (Meher Baba) ‎ (notability tag)
4. 19:27, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Meher Baba's flag ‎ (notability tag)
5. 19:26, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Silence Day ‎ (notability tag)
6. 19:25, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Dhuni (Meher Baba) ‎ (notability tag)
7. 19:19, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Prayer of Repentance ‎ (notability tag)
8. 19:18, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Seven Names of God Prayer ‎ (notability tag)
9. 19:18, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Beloved God Prayer ‎ (notability tag)
10. 19:16, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Meher Baba's missing book ‎ (notability tag)
11. 19:15, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) God in a Pill? ‎ (notability tag)

These tags were your first and only contributions to Wikipedia. You did not include reasons, or invite discussions on the article talk pages.

One week later, user 72.204.47.141 removed these tags, and discussed his reasons on your talk page. I concurred there with his actions. On your page, I also included this follow-up:

You make reasonable points, but your history suggests a different story:

• All notability tags inserted with no discussion on the article talk page
• all tagged in a matter of minutes
• all re: Meher Baba
• no other edits except for these tags.

Go ahead, ask for arbitration. I'll assume good faith and think you were really driven by Good Intent. Even so, your actions were extreme and POV -- no different than any drive-by, agenda driven editor.

I only saw this tag on one page that I follow; if I had seen your whole history, I would have done just what 72.204.47.141 did. Please ask for arbitration if you feel the need. I'll point out that since you have not followed the reasonable and typical steps of justifying each tag on each page, and then allowing for consensus to build, your arb request will probably not be well received. --nemonoman (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do NOT continue discussion here. The proper place for discussion is the talk pages of the tagged articles, or your user page. --nemonoman (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

- I am happy to continue the main part of this discussion on my own page. However, I assume that those reading this page would be interested in conversations involving other pages relating to Meher Baba, and would appreciate having such a conversation drawn to their attention. It would otherwise be likely to escape their notice. --Editwondergirl (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have listed this topic for discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Meher_Baba_related_entries. Readers of this page might be interested in taking part. --Editwondergirl (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)