Talk:Meher Baba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Good article Meher Baba has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page.

I've changed the phrase "communicating with an alphabetic board" to "communicating by means of an alphabet board". This is better English because a person communicates with another person and not with an inanimate object. I made some changes to this page quite some time ago now and I haven't revisited it for a while. I'll have a look at the grammar more closely over the next few days and probably make some further changes. I'm a bit of a pedant as regards grammar but I only want the article to read as well as possible and this is the reason for my editing. I'm a confirmed Baba Lover so don't get nervous, all changes will only be for the better I assure you.BBesar 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)BBesar.

Good change. It sounds pretty silly to think of him talking to his board. (-: Cott12 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] FA?

I think this entry could deserve FA status. What is your opinion about it? Kkrystian 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is really hard to reach FA and from what I understand the process can actually result in an article losing GA. It was really hard just to get GA. Cott12 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If anything, I'd be for trying for the intermediate of A status, which is a bit easier. Cott12 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I second the class A step. It's a smoother way up and involves a reviewer who may show us some possible improvements in the right direction. Hoverfish Talk 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, but I have read the archives, and I was wondering, what is going on with the article now? Has the article been submitted for FA review yet? How come nothing has happened since September?
Also, someone said a while ago (I think it was Fullstop) that Meher Baba's childhood home had been demolished in Puna. I've been to Meher Baba's home as recently as 2005 and it's very much intact; there is a well inside a courtyard with Baba's Room still intact behind it (its separate from the main house) This house is actually the house Baba lived in after 1918, but his original home is across the street, which is called pumpkin house. Here is a strange, yet accurate website that describes the locale: http://www.mindspring.com/~userview/Welcome%20Home/pune.html --Djfiles (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the article is ready for FA. Also to submit it for a new review, some "significant changes" should have been made (see here ), which is not the case. Improvements that started being discussed at one point, didn't find any agreement. Also the person who suggested the FA has been inactive for quite a while. For anyone who wishes to ask for a further peer review, I suggest class A as the next step, before an attempt for FA. Hoverfish Talk 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put links to Christian ministries on this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for links and not a place for evengelism. The article is about the person Meher Baba. Please limit to links that add some information about the subject. Sharnak (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If by any chance Mehar baba has been a subject of criticism, why the appropriate link should not be added in the article ? is it that Mehar baba article does not endorse criticism ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the Legacy Section

This is what appears.

In spite of the fact that Meher Baba died without ever publically breaking his silence as he suggested he would.

Now the following will be hard to reference but is so important in the Baba World, it needs to be there. Im putting this out here so we can all nut this out sensibly, before anything is added. This is the issue.

Eruch heard Baba making Mmmmm sounds, breaking his silence, went to look and saw Baba making sounds. Eruch kept Mum about it except to a few close ones. A few years back now a relative made Eruch divulge it more publicly before he took it to the grave. OK. It does not matter to Baba's work that Eruch kept quiet about what he heard and then saw upon investigation. The silence was broken. This is Eruchs thing to keep quiet. Why he did not reveal it is that he believed he was protecting Baba because Baba could not form a word. Which I found very baffling on first hearing this story. But that aside, Eruch led a sort of sheltered life and may not have known that if one does not use the vocal chords for some years they atrophy and one cant say words. Sounds are possible though:Of course Baba having never uttered a word for decades was always going to make a sound not a word out of those vocal cords. And thats what came out. The Word as an Hmmmmm sound. Lots of them. So me and many others believe that Baba did break his silence. Some think Eruch did us all a great disservice and was shortsighted and made a decision that was lacking insight. There is precedence for this. If you look at Mohammeds life the Mandali then fought and argued within hours and days of his death leading amoung things to the great Islamic Schism, Shia vs Sunni. These people do make errors. They are very human. I have seen Eruch make bloopers in Mandali hall. What sort of error this was, I dont know. But its a huge thing in Babas documented life, this breaking of his silence. This happened and the search for references should begin. It should be in there but the tricky part will be writing it. I propose it be put in as an alternative view. Something like just describing what Eruch revealed, what he heard then saw, Baba making sounds with his mouth, the setting, time and date etc etc. I will look around for the more. I think its late 1968. Thoughts. --Liamjones4477 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I contacted about seven key Baba page editors of the last year about the above. No comments! OK. The work as it stands is POV. No definitive reference is provided that states 100% that Baba did not break his silence before he dropped the body. On that basis I am going to delete the POV statement now. --Liamjones4477 (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy or biography details

Rachel Brown The lines about Rachel Brown's book have been deleted with the comment that they are not enclyclopedic data about the person Meher Baba (or words to that effect). That is why they are included under the section about Legacy. Her book is certainly as much a part of his legacy as is the music of Pete Townshend.--Rosabibi (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Obedience

Baba's instructions to followers and his insistence on obedience are very much a part of his legacy, since those instructions are adhered to, to the letter, by many of the followers concerned. Devoted followers of Baba have said that when he "dropped his body", among their feelings were disappointment that now he would never recind those instructions. I was about to reference to line about geographic confinement (with regard to Mansari), but it has now been removed. I am not about to engage in edit wars, but I would ask you to restore those lines, because the entry as it stands does not give a complete overview. Sorry I forgot to sign.--Rosabibi (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not an encyclopedia article

Quoting from Meher Baba's followers does not represent independent sources. This article needs quotes from national magazines, books, important newspapers, etc. And preferably from points of view from religions at variance with the views of Meher Baba. Wikipedia is not a place for self-advertising, and this hugely long article is mostly that.

The unsubstantiated, peacock terms number in the dozens. This is contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines.

The very long quote in section Silence is a violation of copyright. You may not quote so extensively, editor, just because you view yourself and the quote as in support of the subject. This is a serious charge. Either the editors must fix this (preferably by limiting the quote to a couple sentences), or I will mark this article in violation of copyright, which will cause it to be entirely deleted.

24.130.14.170 (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and I hope you will continue to raise issues here for active, named editors to review and incorporate. I acknowledge that your concerns are reasonable, and well stated. I am not sure that they are entirely valid. For example, your claim of copyright violation is rather doubtful. You could look it up.
If you have knowledge of relevant sources NOT being used, please bring these to our attention. I personally would love to see addtional sources from non-followers. Problem being that so often scholars who encounter the subject Meher Baba become followers, and thereby reduce their 'objective' credibility.


This article has been reviewed thoroughly as both GA and FA. Many of your concerns were directly addressed and fixed to reviewer's satisfaction. Your specific criticisms were not brought up by any of these reviewers.
It is not a perfect article, but it is not a 'magazine' article by any means.
Accordingly I have removed your "magazine" tag, which appears to be a stretch. You might have entered your concerns here first before including that banner, with its rather snarky tone.
If you are going to make a big fat statement of inadequate or biased editing (i.e, the 'magazine' tag) I suggest that you first discuss your concerns here, and ONLY if you are unable to reach resolution, then add your tag. Also, for a statement like that, it would be courtesy to edit with a username rather than an IP address only. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is a litany of cliches that spritual fringe groups apply to themselves to appear attractive. Unsurprisingly, the cliches mostly lack foundation in independent, third-party sources. The fact that there has been a Wiki review of some sort is fine. However, it's unlikely that the reviewers have any deep knowledge of fringe spiritual groups in Ojai, or the methods they employ to appear legitimate.
Ok, I now understand that your concern is not with the 'encyclopedic' or 'magazinic' quality of the article, but rather that is an attempt of a 'fringe spiritual group' to 'appear legitimate'...something you apparently understand, and others, apparently, don't.
So rather than being cagy -- or devious -- about your concern, why not come right in edit out the 'cliches' and 'methods' employed to 'appear legitimate'.
Perhaps you meant to use a 'biased' tag. Or a 'disputed' tag. These tags would at least avoid an appearance of hypocriscy. The one you chose, and your comments, both the originals and the answers to mine, show an archness and a lack of openess.
PS, Baba went through Ojai once or twice; nothing much related to the man is located there other than a few followers, and I mean a very few.--Nemonoman (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The comment about copyright violation, however, is less a matter of opinion. There are two very long passages from copyrighted material. Even if the person who owned this material is responsible for putting it on the Wiki page, it still violates the law regarding copyright. (Unless those sources are in the public domain.) This is not a matter, as with so much of rest of this self-serving article, of trangressing "Wiki guidelines", it's a violation of international law.
If you are the owner of this work, then put it in the public domain, and quote freely. If you are not, then you are violating the owner's property rights.
24.130.14.170 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As regards copyright, your interpretation is at great variance from most interpretations of copyvio, and in particular to the use of quotes in Wikipedia (or in any scholarly work, for that matter).--Nemonoman (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is wrong. Here is Wiki's policy, for example on quoting GFDL material:
"The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright
"The edit summary box can hold one line of 200 characters" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_summary
The quotations in question are 1501 characters and 772 characters.
Understand that this is a violation of international law, quite apart from Wikipedia standards.
24.130.18.0 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This applies to GFDL licensed material. Shamak (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that attempt to include relevant information from a non "devotional' angle were deleted immediately and no response given to my comment (see above). Rachel Brown's book gives valuable insights into Meher Baba's legacy - that is, unless one is determined to claim that this legacy is unquestionably entirely positive. It is not very plausible to say that anyone who studies Meher Baba from non-devotional viewpoint ends up becoming a believer when contributions from non-devotees are deleted entirely without appropriate discussion.--Rosabibi (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I don't think you understand Wikipedia copyright poliicy. Quotes are acceptable when short in proportion to the original work. This article has two quotes. Gertrude Stein has eleven. Maybe you should get that one deleted. Shamak (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand copyright law very well. There are three options:
* Trim the long passages to a couple sentences each.
* I will remove the quotes entirely.
* I will mark the entire article as a copyright violation.
24.130.18.0 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear 24.130.18.0 , The long passage already is exactly two sentences. Perhaps you haven't read it carefully.
"This New Life is endless, and even after my physical death it will be kept alive by those who live the life of complete renunciation of falsehood, lies, hatred, anger, greed and lust; and who, to accomplish all this, do no lustful actions, do no harm to anyone, do no backbiting, do not seek material possessions or power, who accept no homage, neither covet honor nor shun disgrace, and fear no one and nothing; by those who rely wholly and solely on God, and who love God purely for the sake of loving; who believe in the lovers of God and in the reality of Manifestation, and yet do not expect any spiritual or material reward; who do not let go the hand of Truth, and who, without being upset by calamities, bravely and wholeheartedly face all hardships with one hundred percent cheerfulness, and give no importance to caste, creed and religious ceremonies. This New Life will live by itself eternally, even if there is no one to live it."
Also it is very strange to hear the "options" read off by an unregistered user. Shamak (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "unregistered". I prefer facts to personalities. What is under discussion is international copyright law, and Wiki policy.
Presuming you are not the only editor responsible, I will wait a reasonable period before changing the article.
I must ask, do you honestly imagine you are an exponent of a man who, as quoted, is opposed to "falsehood, lies, hated, anger"??????
24.130.18.0 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"Decolonization is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact owe their originality to the sort of substantification which results from and is nourished by the situation in the colonies. Their first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together — that is to say the exploitation of the native by the settler — was carried on by dint of a great array of bayonets and cannons… The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and blood-stained knives which emanate from it. For if the last shall be first, this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between the two protagonists. That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace (too quickly, some say) the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence.."
Here's one from the Wikipedia article on Gertrude Stein:
"She said she did not have any plans for the summer. No one was interested in this thing in whether she had any plans for the summer. That is not the complete history of this thing, some were interested in this thing in her not having any plans for the summer..... Some who were not interested in her not having made plans for the summer were interested in her not having made plans for the following winter. She had not made plans for the summer and she had not made plans for the following winter.... There was then coming to be the end of the summer and she was then not answering anything when any one asked her what were her plans for the winter."
Shamak (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
'"* I will mark the entire article as a copyright violation."'
May I recommend this course of action? You appear to both unaware of the facts and unable to accept our viewpoint that you're wrong. Mark it and see what others say...Clearly the present editors are simply attempting to 'appear legitimate', perhaps others who don't wish to appear legitimate will agree with you. Personally I am comfortable that the article is within guidelines.
As to your other proposed changes, I would probably revert them.
I sincerely thank you for discussing your changes first. This is right action and right attitude.--Nemonoman (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Nemonoman. You're quite right, this is a discussion, and that's what we're here for.
We can agree that people have strong opinions about Meher Baba. To do justice for the good things someone says, it's important to uphold them in a way that is socially acceptable. If I had one central criticism, it is that the tone of this article is not impartial. This is not due to the opinions Meher Baba, but to writers who do not present a balanced view of his accomplishments. As it stands, it very much does read like a magazine article with a partial point of view.
I identified the copyright violations, because they illustrate in a quantifiable way how the article oversteps itself in its enthusiasm. I'm chosing this to alert the writers in a specific way that the tone of the article is not entirely a credit to Meher Baba's teachings. Phrases such as "personally approved", "close circle and followers" and "literally thousands" are marketing language. Those selections can be debated at any length. However, copyright violations can be more easily quantified, and so in some sense are more useful.
The argument that Shamak presents about quotation length is specious. The fact that another article violates copyright law does not mean that this article can do so. Editors are not required to change similar problems in every Wiki article simultaneously. Shamak, I agree that some of the quotes in the Gertrude Stein article are a little too long. However, note that the longest Gertrude Stein quotation is 50% of the size of the long quote in this article. I.e., this article grossly exceeds allowable quotation length.
Instead of being combative in support of a man who's beliefs concerned truth, love and honesty, it would be more constructive to present him in an understated way, rather than one that seeked to push the bounds of propriety.
24.130.15.94 (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring quotes

Tommytocker removed the 2 quotes. I'm restoring. Let's discuss before pulling, please.

Is the question copyvio? If so, there's no reason to remove the quotes (Pace, 24.130.15.94).

Is the question whether the quotes add value? If so, let's the hell get rid of quote number 1! Meher Baba could be oblique, to say the least, as quote 1 shows.

The New Life quote seems significant to the article in many ways, and trying to paraphrase or parse it would only be harmful to understanding.

Quote 2 (New Life) is good juju, and only 2 sentences -- hard to see copyvio there, and very hard to subsititute to get equal value. As to its length, it's well within bounds based on my understanding of fair use. I have been a technical editor for some years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the concept. I have until 2 days ago ever heard of a 100 word limit in anybody's rulebook. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By the way:

I'm not at all sure that the New Life quote of Meher Baba's is copyrighted. I certainly have never heard so. Books authored by Baba have been copyrighted, as have books about him. Not that quote, however, which so far as I can find has not been registered as copyrighted.

Referencing a copyrighted book that contains the quote does not matter. A scholar quoting Hamlet in a copyrighted paper does not thereby suddenly acquire ownership and royalty rights.

Until someone can prove that has registered copyrights to quotes, ANY copyvio point is moot. He may claim to be 'eternal' but I think you'll agree, 24.130.15.94, that Meher Baba is not at this point capable of releasing anything into the public domain in a formal way, is he? So that demand seems spurious.

24.130.15.94, what makes you think those quotes are under copyright? --Nemonoman (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I still think quote 1 can be dropped.

Can we agree then to at least remove quote 1, regardless of copyright issue which can be discussed separately. I think it is really long, confusing, and I am not sure what it adds to the article. Would make more sense perhaps in its original full-length context. I'm for removing it and discussing the rest separately. I personally agree the copyright issue is a non-issue. Quoting is part of proper technical and informational writing. But whatever people want is fine. Tommytocker (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not revert an edit removing quote 1.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An argument from a Sock Puppet

Some "one" has left the following on my talk page:

Copyright terms as left by Meher Baba in his last will and testament

Meher Baba specifically left copyright of "sayings" and "messages" in Trust except where otherwise specified http://www.ambppct.org/trust/docs/Will%20and%20Testament.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherbabalastwilltestament (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That information is of interest, but not entirely germaine to the case of a charge of copy violation. There is no clear evidence that a copyright to the New Life quote is perfected by this document. Will someone produce the specific title or registration of this quote. It PURPORTS to be one of Meher Baba's, and I believe it is. But what I believe, as 24.130.15.94 rightly points out, is a matter of BIAS, not OBJECTIVE proof. So I'll stand by assertion while I wait for someone to produce clear evidence that the quote in question is registered and protected by some legally binding copyright that prevents it from being used here.

Which is worse, an IP address, or a one time made up identity? Whose agenda is at work here? Since 24.130.15.94 seems to think that the article is full of "unsubstantiated, peacock terms" and other puffery (my word to summarize), it seems odd that what is being recommended is not the editing out of THAT, but rather editing out the basic substance of the piece. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use

All the above is tangential however. Wikipedia Fair Use Guidlines state:

Text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

I think it's pretty clear that 2 sentences are a brief quotation in practically anyone's book -- except maybe 24.130.15.94's.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Safka

I've removed the section about Melanie Safka because, as it was written, it's really problematic. While it's true Melanie was a follower of Meher Baba for a short time and did wear a Baba pin at one time, there never was a Baba pin that had the expression "Don't Worry, Be Happy" written on it. The pin she had simply was a photo of Meher Baba. Also, currently there is no clear way to verify the mention of her in the October 1969 issue of Hit Parader Magazine, which was a paraphrase and not a quote. If you can find the actual date and actual quote it would help. Sorry. Tommytocker (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquotes

The excerpt below on Wikipedia policy is from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. Tommytocker (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Block quotations
A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes). Block quotes can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags, or {{quotation}} or {{quote}} can be used. Note: The current version of Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not render multiple paragraphs inside a <blockquote> simply by spacing the paragraphs apart with blank lines. A workaround is to enclose each of the block-quoted paragraphs in its own <p>...</p> element.

[edit] Lead

The lead seems a bit too long. Perhaps re-looking at the guidance provided at WP:LEAD may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Unless there are specific objections, I will merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) into this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I specifically object -- please see the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) talk page for details.--Nemonoman (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)