Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Request to Archive

I agree wholeheartedly with what Hoverfish just said, and suggest everyone read the comments he just pointed to and asked for Simon Kidd to read by a very impartial and experienced editor on this subject, saying pretty much the same thing, but even better. I also at this point suggest this discussion page be archived. Usually it is customary to wait for a period of lull when a discussion is not continuously active, until some consensus is reached and harmony is reached again. However this subject has gone on for nearly a month and the space is just daunting now, on pretty much the exact same thing over and over. This is not going anywhere except to take up space, and has been discussed in the past on several occasions, which is also said above. And so I suggest that we at this time archive this discussion, and whoever likes may continue on in this vein if they insist, but at least the page is not so long. I know this is a bit out of the ordinary a request, but the situation (where the same material is hashed over and over repeatedly without any sense of consensus or tiring) is also unusual. I would suggest archiving what is above this subject heading, and keeping this request at the top of the new discussion thread. This will bring strong attention to the discussion for those who wish to follow it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive it. Its huge and unwieldy due to long repetitive posts and I suggest if the thread does continue SC and SK refer to the archive rather than re post it all again. SC SK Its been said, we heard you, please refer here HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see any point in all this discussing here. I would say archieve it, but wouldn't mind if the last topic before this request stays on for a little time. Since the issues present here (relevant and non relevant to this page) have been mentioned in other articles, it may be that some editors involved in these articles want to check here to see what has been going on with Simon Kidd and all. Hoverfish Talk 05:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@ yes keep the Last topic The Biographication of Meher Baba, its informative HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and let me explain why. The discussion is not captured in the previous section, but is really one discussion starting with Kalchuri as a source and has one interruption, Pictures. The discussion after Biographication that I began a week ago ignored the subject of biographication completely and returned to the original topic. So to archive the first half (above Pictures) and leave the second half (Biographication) misrepresents the full discussion by leaving out Nemoman's very important original remarks over Kalchuri as a source, which remain the most concise and clear list of the issues put forward to date. So I would not agree that the full discussion of Kalchuri as a source be sliced in this artificial way. I think they need to be archived together when they are archived, so that one who is sent to see the discussion sees the full discussion. Therefore I suggest we not archive at this time, until people feel the discussion is resolved. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with Dazedbythebell that the discussion both for and against the use of Kalchuri’s LM should not be archived until this matter is resolved.--Stephen Castro (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK bit early yet to archive. But a request, new points only please HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bible and Gospels and other texts as References in Jesus

Expanding on Presearch's sensible and rational argument its worthwhile to look at the Jesus page and the reference list, many of which are so called devotee texts according to SC SK. These texts in Jesus are used sensibly like LM is. Presearch said The RS discussion said "They can be used solely for the purpose of describing themselves, not third parties. LM passes this test.

Many of the authors of these works are also no doubt Christians. This does not bar them from inclusion, likewise Kalchuri is not barred. Then there's the Bible to consider, its in the reference list. I doubt very much these references will be likewise removed due to your arguments SC and SK HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I've been accused of undesirable repetition, I'm surprised to hear this point being made again. It seems that I have to repeat what I have already said more than once: it is not an author's affiliation that is significant for Wikipedia reliability, but the publisher's affiliation. That is why I keep referring to "devotee published" (as opposed to "devotee written" - of course, if something is devotee written and published, then we have even more reason to exercise caution). Yes, there are Christian publishing houses cited in the Jesus article (e.g. Paulist Press), but they have become major publishing houses with professional staff, publishing on a wide variety of topics (albeit with a Christian theme). They are also far from being the only source for the Jesus article, unlike several of the MB-related articles, which rely exclusively on LM and which are probably not even notable. The Bible is an ancient text. Even the New Testament was redacted long before modern standards of publication. The Jesus article could not rely on the Bible alone. LM is an important source for information on Meher Baba, but it is not the only such source, or even the best one (see, for example, my comparison of LM and The Glow on the subject of Azar Kayvan). LM is important, but that doesn't make it reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Doubtless scholars will critically use LM and other devotee-published texts on MB. They will also be very interested in books like Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal and Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism. But that is because they are scholars. As was pointed out in the recent discussion of self-published sources on the RS/N, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to edit as scholars, making decisions about the content. That is why Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to ensure reliability. Even though some editors are academics, and even specialists in the field that they might edit in, they are not allowed to make scholarly decisions as Wikipedia editors. Simon Kidd (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Two reasons for the post. I was not involved in a thread about Jesus and devotion texts before and I'm not going to go thru all the posts to find it. The thread is a natural follow on from what Presearch said, to me anyway.

Re publishers. You said above it is not an author's affiliation that is significant for Wikipedia reliability, but the publisher's affiliation. Good. Lets lay this to rest. With respect, You need to get with the times Simon: The ability to quickly and cost effectively 'Print on Demand' is a huge advantage to small publishers who can now operate without large overheads. What this means Simon is that publishing is now affordable and not the domain of big publishers as in the past. Hence the rise in smaller publishers outfits. Its modern, like E books. Its not a bad thing. Lifes changing rapidly. Forget big publishing houses dominating the landscape, oozing respectability. In 2008, for the first time in history, more books were self-published than those published traditionally. In 2009, 76% of all books released were self-published, while publishing houses reduced the number of books they produced.

Here's the thing: What you have done Simon is misinterpret this progress. Less than 25 % of books are from big publishing houses, and shrinking. The trend is for self and small publishing companies, to cost effectively print on demand. Then theres E books. People do these things because it progress. A new way to publish in these tough times, thats here to stay. There is no difference in reliability. Same book, same words, same author, same layout / text / pics / cover etc. Author affiliation matters not. Repeat; Same book, same words, same author, same layout / text / pics / cover etc. Wikipedia is modern and has moved with this trend. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your statements about self-publication are, to the best of my knowledge, true. I worked in bookselling and publishing for several years. I am sympathetic to self-publishers, as people here know, and I have gone to great lengths to defend self-publication on Wikipedia. Many of the points you make about self-publication have also been made by Mr Shepherd. As things stand on Wikipedia, however, such publications are not acceptable. It's not me saying that - it's the folks on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Returning to the point about literature on Jesus. Since his time, there has been a huge body of critical literature on the subject, the work of specialist scholars in diverse areas: historians, textual scholars, theologians, linguists, etc. There is no equivalent body of scholarly work on MB. Ironically, the closest thing to it so far is probably the work of Mr Shepherd, but because he's self-published he can't be used as a source here. This is also why I disagree with the points made by Nemonoman (and repeated by his supporters) above, about "factoids". It is not the place of Nemonoman or any other Wikipedia editor to assess the accuracy of individual facts in a source text. That is the work of scholars and publishers. That is why Wikipedia insists on having reliable sources, because editors are not supposed to be determining such things for themselves. Otherwise anyone could cite self-published texts and then claim that they know the facts in the texts to be true. The only thing a Wikipedia editor is required to do is to satisfy himself (or herself) of the reliability of a source, and there are criteria for that. Self-publications (which includes devotee-publications) are generally not acceptable. They do not cross the threshold of reliability, so to speak. LM is known to contain devotee interpretations and to have factual errors and inconsistencies. By the way, it's interesting to note the definition of "factoid": "A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity. The word can also be used to describe a particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context. The word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as 'an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact'." See also: "an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print". Based on my experience of it then, I would say that LM probably does contain many "factoids"! Anyway, we risk going around in circles again. You and I both have our perspectives on this. I would be happy to let neutral, non-involved editors at the RS/N decide it. Good day to you, Sir! Simon Kidd (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets not go back to Jesus. Your last remaining defence is publishers. Lets repeat what you said: it is not an author's affiliation that is significant for Wikipedia reliability, but the publisher's affiliation. I have just shown you how publishing has moved away from large publishing houses, big time. Re small publishers I'm not talking about a lone wolf or a small group, maybe like Shepard, self publishing some low budget work that achieves very low circulation that would have no chance with a big publishing house. I'm talking about a small publisher like MANifestation Inc, USA, publishing a high quality expensive book for a very large target audience all over the globe for an Indian author. And doing this NOT because there is no hope of ever getting the work published by a so called respectable publisher, but doing so for cost reasons and to maintain high printing standards. Have you seen those tomes? They are impressive. Here is a description of the publisher of LM: MANifestation Inc. from the USA, Publishes on the teachings of Meher Baba, Eastern mysticism and Eastern religion such as Vedantism and Sufism.

I repeat. What you have done Simon is misinterpret this progress. Less than 25 % of books published today are from big publishing houses, and shrinking. The trend is for self and small publishing companies, to cost effectively print on demand. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@ SC I believe the discussion is over. Your last objection to LM was publisher affiliation. I quote you. It seems that I have to repeat what I have already said more than once: it is not an author's affiliation that is significant for Wikipedia reliability, but the publisher's affiliation. This does not apply to LM as shown above HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see, so you are now the judge, jury and executioner. By the way, I'm SK ... a different person to SC! Simon Kidd (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon in my experience you and SC have been a tag team. Your identities have become blurred due to the convoluted repeating looping talk and skipping sideways from positions made untenable. Re me being judge and jury? Yes, thats my call, I stand by it. Im one editor but I have put some time in here and Simon its how I see it: Your last objection, your last bastion of resistance, against LM use, is breached. I'm not antagonistic toward you, people come and go here, but its time to close this. Its over. For your sakes too. Its becoming silly now. I am utterly convinced that enough has been said here for other people to see LM use in the article is fair and appropriate. One plus about all this is that this will be able to be seen in the archives for as long as Wikipedia exists and it can be pointed to in future times. For that I am grateful to you both. Truly HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

SC and I are no more a tag team than you, Hoverfish, Dazedbythebell and Nemonoman. As for the discussion, it is not finished, but I won't be arguing it here any more. When I said that "I would be happy to let neutral, non-involved editors at the RS/N decide it", I meant just that. I will be posting it on the RS/N, as advised by Fifelfoo. This conversation certainly has reached an end, as far as I am concerned, but not with the vindication of your views. It is up to the Wikipedia community to decide what's an acceptable source. Last time I looked, they were not in agreement with your views about small-scale publishing. Simon Kidd (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets see what happens HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• There appears to be some confusion here re the devotionally-published texts used in the MB article, and which comprise the 80 or so references. Let me therefore reiterate:

Manifestation Inc.: “Established in 1979-80.The main publisher of long-time disciple Bhau Kalchuri's writings, including his most important works such as The Nothing And The Everything (part of Meher Baba's missing book) and the meaning of his Manifestation, titled Avatar Of The Age Meher Baba Manifesting. For the past ten years, Manifestation, Inc. has been publishing Lord Meher, a multi-volume biography of Avatar Meher Baba's life and work, written by Bhau.” Regarding LM, we are not simply talking about a book that is devotionally-published and therefore not RS, but also that the text is written by a devotee, for devotees, and originally financed by devotee benefactors. Devotees were the target audience for that expensive multi-volume work. The cost of each volume of that devotionally-published text would certainly not attract a general readership—unlike the RS texts by Purdom, Hopkinson, etc., which were written for the man in the street. LM being a “high quality expensive book” does not make it RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term. As to Manifestation Inc., yes it publishes on the life and teachings of Meher Baba, but the Eastern Mysticism and Eastern religions such as Vedanta and Sufism is surely also in connection with Meher Baba and not texts specifically about those subjects?

It also needs to be noted here that, along with Kalchuri’s LM several other texts used in current MB article come under the category of devotionally-published—these being from Sheriar Foundation (“an independent, non-profit, tax-exempt foundation formed in 1989. The purpose of Sheriar Foundation is to broaden awareness and deepen the appreciation of the spiritual values exemplified in the life and writings of Meher Baba”) and Avatar Meher Baba Foundation, Inc. , (who have published one book, Charles Haynes’ Meher Baba, the Awakener). Both are included among the “nine Meher Baba organizations” that “anyone in the world can donate directly to the Avatar Meher Baba Trust.” --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe there is confusion. For SK publishers was the issue. AFAIC thats resolved. For you its written by a devotee, for devotees, and originally financed by devotee benefactors. Re your concerns editors will look at things like the Jesus article. Lets not go over that again. If you like, take it too the next level if you must do so HumusTheCowboy (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ps sorry about text removed inadvertently when pasting HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I agree with HumuhsCowboy about the use of "devotee". It is being used similarly to the word "commies" during the cold war times. There are groups of followers, but this is their own doing. There are also many other individuals who appreciate Meher Baba's philosophy or teachings or however each one chooses to name it, and, unlike the Krishna Consciousness movement, or the various Christian churches, there is no official organization that can be taken to represent "Meher Baba devotees". The "de facto" argument may apply to some groups (which act on their own as groups), one or more of which Kevin Shepherd has happened to meet and come in conflict with, but it does not apply to many other cases who take Meher Baba's words seriously and who do not have to be characterized by whatever any group of followers does. So the word "devotee" is being applied very badly, it has often been attributed to me as well, which I resent because of my individual view of Meher Baba, groups of followers, etc, and also it should be noted that this article has nothing to do with a "devotee perspective". It is a very good biographical article written in a very NPOV way. And Lord Meher, is an excellent source of historical information.

Again I agree with HC in that SC&SK are trying to turn the article into a stub. I couldn't find a copy of Much Silence, which is claimed to be the only book properly published as RS, so I did a careful research and found the following: it is a little tiny paper back overview, written as a labor of love by a husband and wife professor couple. It just barely has a bio, and a few little excerpts from Meher Baba's discourses to give a flavor of who he was. It is an intro to Baba for a barely curious reader, with no information. For another issue, it appears to be long out of print and therefore people cannot check to verify whatever might be cited from it, and there is nothing online about it save its title, as far as I know. In short, it is a horrible source for this article, though it may contain other issues which are related to Shepherd's favorite topics.

I have also found out one more reason for which Lord Meher was not printed in a conventional publishing house. Lord Meher is printed on clay based paper (clay coated) which is supposed to make it last longer. The Sufis used this expensive archival type paper for the new God Speaks also. It yellows less and is supposed to deteriorate slower. No publisher would use this for this series. Hoverfish Talk 06:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes the quality is made to last, because many of the books will be archival. As I mentioned above, small printers now can control quality. About Much Silence, my wife knew the authors. According to her, Mehera loved that book as an introductory text for new people to Baba. I can get the book at ease, its a flowing light read, by stages in Babas life, that also describes how the authors came to Baba. It is a useful reference, by Baba followers, but holds nothing like the data LM does HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if the alternative texts from recognised publishers had corrugated paper covers and were printed on toilet paper, they would still remain RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term. LM could have a gold cover studded with diamonds and be hand-written on parchment, yet it will remain a devotionally-published text and therefore not RS. I have to disagree with the remarks about Hopkinson’s Much Silence (which was just one among several RS texts I had indicated as valid alternatives to LM). I found it a useful book and not least of all because it is a RS text. I certainly did not have to pick my way through the devotee idioms and embellishments to be found in LM. The point of the example I provided above was that: the current references in the MB article can be replaced with RS references without affecting the integrity of the article. Given the fact that the devotionally-published text[s] currently used in the MB article are not RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term, then the removal of those 80 or so references would invariably only leave the remaining option of a stub unless RS texts were used. It really is just a simple matter of reference substitution and a few minor edits. The example I provided was to prevent a stub, not create one.

Anyhow, I think we are all pleased that this matter will now move to the next level. So, unless there is something further to discuss on this page, I will sign off for now.

“Remember one thing: However much time you put in to writing or polishing an article, others will still be entitled to edit it. An article is never yours alone.… Never seek to control an article on Wikipedia” (How Wikipedia Works).

--Stephen Castro (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise Wikiquote, Stephen Castro. I didn't hear anyone claiming this article as "his" alone. I am sure that you will soon discover a lot about How Wikipedia Works. Hoverfish Talk 13:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One more statement that was lightly bypassed. I didn't say that it matters on what paper a book is printed on. I offered one more reason why a main trend publisher was not chosen. I know you noticed this but I do not like having my statements turned around to supposedly be that stupid. Hoverfish Talk 13:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters what reasons are given for self-publishing. If self-published sources are not acceptable, they are not acceptable. Everything else is beside the point. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lord Meher was not self-published. The author lived and lives in India. The publisher is incorporated in the United States. The author was paid for the copyright, and had no further involvement. The book was also worked on afterward by many editors, and is very carefully published. The idea it is a self-published book is your invention. Bhau Kalchuri did not publish Lord Meher, nor have it published through a self-publishing house. The book is a 20 volume encyclopedic recounting of facts, personal accounts by witnesses, recorded interviews, clippings, correspondences, discourses and diaries. The idea that Simon and Schuster would have published such a book, as opposed to Manifestation, Inc. in the United States that is owned by people sympathetic to Meher Baba and his followers, is absurd. There are very few followers of Meher Baba. Without this exhaustive and authoritative source, there would be no meaningful article here. A book you have mentioned like Much Silence by the Hopkinson's is a mere 232 page survey of Baba, with a short bio and some discourses, and is written in a very introductory style for a person with no prior knowledge of Baba. To say that a book like that can substitute for a Trust sponsored encyclopedic 20 volume hard bound 7000 page tome of Baba's entire life is absurd. Name calling it "self published" and all the other tricks you are doing does not change the realities about this historic original publication of Meher Baba's full life, written in India with full access to files, edited on in two continents, and published in 1986. It is the best and most reliable source in existence. And I don't think anyone but you has ever questioned this fact. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we really are going round in circles here. Early on in the discussion (23/03/12) Simon Kidd had commented:

“The question is whether Lord Meher is reliable in the Wikipedia sense of reliability. For this there is a policy and it is quite clear: for a source to be reliable, it must be published by a reliable third party. This generally rules out self-published sources, and sources published by organizations associated with the subject (there are other categories, such as blogs, but these two are the ones that I have recently been involved with). The reason for such strict adherence to the letter of this policy would appear to be that Wikipedia is largely edited by non-specialists. Therefore it has to have criteria for reliability. Sources that might very well be reliable are not necessarily reliable in this narrow Wikipedia sense. Specialist scholars may very well use self-published and devotee-published texts, but that is because they are specialists. If books subsequently written by such specialists are published by reliable third-party publishers, then those books would be reliable in the Wikipedia sense. So, even if Kalchuri were the Professor of Comparative Religion at Harvard or Cambridge, unless his books were published by a reliable third party, they would still be unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. There's nothing personal about this - it's just the way Wikipedia works, because its articles are largely edited by non-specialists. This point is worth emphasizing because feelings run high in some areas of Wikipedia: unreliable in the narrow Wikipedia sense does not mean unreliable in general.”

Though attention is being been drawn to Hopkinson’s Much Silence (doubtless due to the fact that it is a short work}, this was in fact just one RS text among several I had suggested. I would recommend that all RS texts are consulted. It simply is not so that without LM “there would be no meaningful article here.” Even after a cursory glance at the first page of the article I was able to locate alternative texts, which are RS, to replace the references to the devotionally-published texts. As to the reliability of LM, well, a few months ago I provided information to the current editor in India to correct a significant factual error found in the revised version of LM. --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, Fifelfoo treated self-published and devotee-published together, and said: "Neither are reliable for the history of new religious movements or the biography of new religious movement figures as both sequences of literature fail the self-published sources criteria: they are published by presses that are immediately involved and do not display the review required for the establishment of a secondary source". He even said that the devotional works were less reliable than Mr Shepherd's self-published books: they "do not even approach [the] threshold" of reliability. Considering Kalchuri particularly, Fladrif said on the RS/N: "Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by 'in-house' imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS". And finally, Hoverfish has even said: "material published from within an organization is considered 'Self-published' and there are some very strict limits when using it as a source". All things considered, therefore, it would seem reasonable to describe LM as self-published. It is published by an organization apparently set up primarily for the purpose of publishing Kalchuri's books, within the Meher Baba movement. It is not published by an independent, third-party press with a known reputation for fact checking. It is known to contain devotee interpretations, factual errors and internal inconsistencies. One of its editors has admitted that there are errors. Furthermore, devotee sources have been questioned before in relation to the Meher Baba group of articles, on more than one occasion. All of this has been said already, but it gets lost amid all the filibustering in the discussion. So I state it again here, at the risk of being accused of repeating myself. Simon Kidd (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@re It is not published by an independent, third-party press with a known reputation for fact checking.. Have the publishers of LM been sued? Has litigation against them been taken by an aggrieved party slandered in the absolutely huge amount of text? Since 1986 there have been no law suits. That is a strong pass for the reliability of fact checking by the publishers. Consider carefully its also online, able to be under scrutiny at any time. BTW for editors who keep signing off and I won't be arguing it here any more and Good day Siring, you keep coming back. Or are these extra comments ' last Say Syndrome'. Maybe perhaps you have doubts? I would if I were you. I have not seen an R/S discussion yet HumusTheCowboy (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

HumusCowboy is correct. The actual reliability of the broad majority of facts in Lord Meher, most importantly those used from that source in this Wikipedia, which are the least controversial, but are easily checkable since the book is online, has not actually been questioned by anyone. It is a fact that Lord Meher by Bhau Kalchur remains the most reliable and authoritative encyclopedia of facts about Meher Baba. Nothing else even comes close, in factual accuracy or closeness to original sources, or in its size and scope. Twenty volumes of unparalleled detail, 6,742 pages, hard back, out of print, but now entirely searchable online. Why do you want it to be banned as a source exactly? As the topic heading of this discussion section implies, it is like banning the Bible as a source on the life of Jesus. This is absurd! What exactly are you trying to accomplish in this holy war against a book? And is this holy war against those who paid for the book, the publisher, the author, the book's content??? What?? People have been listening to you for over a month, and now have a right to know, as HumusCowboy has pointed out. People are growing impatient. The archiving of this discussion has even now been postponed, yet there is no sign of any consensus or desire to reach one. You simply want the book (the main book on Meher Baba) scrubbed from Wikipedia, on a seeming whim. And it is now clear that you have no clear single argument that stands still. It is now clear that you recycle the same lame and meaningless phrases. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you copy and paste this discussion into a Word document, put it in Times New Roman 12 point font, double spaced, it comes to 93 pages of text. Are we writing a book here? What is it about? Is there a theme? This is growing exhausting. This is to say nothing about sock puppetry, which we have been asked to be silent on, with even Jimbo Wales interjecting. This is really troubling. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several points to be made in response to the above. First, the lengthy discussion was kept going by several editors on both sides of the argument, not by any one editor. Second, there is no mystery about the issue at hand: are devotee-published sources reliable in the Wikipedia sense of the word? Third, I am unaware of any sock puppetry. On this issue, my own record is clean and my conscience is clear. There are ways of checking for sock puppets, and I am happy for anyone to check me. As I've said before, there is an irony in accusations of sock puppetry being made by pseudonymous editors against editors who use their real names. I have nothing to hide. Finally, I have said that I will post something on the RS/N, and that is what I intend to do. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont have any issues re sock puppetry here. The issue is not what you say it is, because if it was all this talk would not have happened. You will need to find your answer SK on the RS/N page HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Simon Kidd, doubtless you will be posting the case re Lord Meher on the RS/N in due course? I certainly hope so. The editors involved in this discussion have been commendably patient. Interestingly, I recently became aware of a revised note from Kevin Shepherd’s web article The Meher Baba Movement. As that note raises an issue that is relevant to the discussion on this page, I include part of it below:

(4) See further Bhau Kalchuri, Lord Meher (Meher Prabhu): The Biography of Avatar Meher Baba (20 vols, 1986-2001). This work was composed in Hindi during 1971-3, and subsequently translated into English. The sub-title reflects the status profile insisted upon by devotees. Though I have frequently cited from the Kalchuri volumes in my own accounts, I have also recognised the flaws discernible in that presentation. Some Wikipedia editors have queried the relevance of Lord Meher, but I do not myself advocate any suppression of that work. I do not seek to emulate the barbarous suppression that devotees have exercised in my own direction. There are 26 indexed references to Bhau Kalchuri in my Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (2005).

Though I would not agree that either you or I are here seeking to suppress the devotionally-published text Lord Meher (nor indeed are we engaged in a “holy war against those who paid for the book, the publisher, the author, [and] the book’s content,” to use Dazedbythebell’s absurd emotively-charged words), I do concede that it may appear as an attempt at suppression to readers (or devotees of Meher Baba) unfamiliar with what actually constitutes a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense of that term. All the editors on this page are of course fully aware of the very specific criteria necessary for a text to be included in a Wikipedia article. That requirement has already been sufficiently discussed and clarified on this page. The “barbarous” factor that Shepherd mentions must surely also be in reference to the manner in which some editors contest texts on the RS/N. I do not think that either you or I emulate such behaviour— as a recent observer to one such event, I was shocked by some of the ad hominem comments and adolescent behaviour evidenced. Nevertheless, reluctantly, I have had to accept that there is a clear-cut policy re what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia. One fact which tends to be overlooked is that the reliable source policy has no relevance outside of Wikipedia. If an author’s work does not fulfil the Wikipedia requirement it in no way reflects upon, or is a judgement about, an author or their work. Wikipedia editors are for the most part amateurs, not scholars; hence the necessity for specific guidelines as to what constitutes a reliable source solely for this online encyclopaedia. Again, an important issue already clarified on this page. So, it is not about suppression of a text or an author, but rather conforming to a defined and accepted policy. I, and doubtless many other editors, would much prefer a more flexible policy. But then, how is this to be administered: consensus? This usually translates as who bothers to turn up on a RS/N and how many can shout the loudest either for or against a text. That is not a policy, but a form of mob rule. Anyhow, I do sympathize with Shepherd, and indeed anyone else reading this page who feels Simon Kidd and I are attempting to suppress a text or an author. It needs to be recognized that it was an articulate and unyielding administrative ruling, supported by some editors on this page, which stated that self-published and devotionally-published texts do not constitute a reliable source for Wikipedia. Surely, what is being demonstrated here is what occurs when such an inflexible administrative ruling is taken to its logical conclusion—something for us all to think about, perhaps? --Stephen Castro (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. And I appreciate the reasonableness and conciliatory undertones. Lets just see how it pans out. BTW I'm not a Baba Lover, not a devotee, but a Sufi, who accepts MB as the Avatar who returns in many guises --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing my mind: Thoughts on Lord Meher as a Reliable Source

I feel the need to add some personal thoughts. I have been one of the main editors of the article, and I restate my personal interest in the subject: I am a "BL" -- a Baba Lover, a devotee of Meher Baba. I have tried to maintain a neutral point of view in my edits in this article, just as I have in other articles I have edited. The history of my edits and my discussions should confirm that I have tried my best to act in good faith to maintain accuracy and neutrality. Probably imperfectly -- certainly imperfectly. But I have made a point of making the article VERIFIABLE.

For this reason, I very often employed references to Lord Meher. Two reasons: First because of the richness of its information; Second because its online version provided easy reference, both for the writer (me) and for readers.

Most of the information referenced in Lord Meher is available from other sources that would probably satisfy Simon Kidd's objectivity criteria. I acknowledge his good faith in making his comments and his arguments about reliability of devotee-published texts, but I disagree about dismissing the reliability of a text solely on the basis of its publisher. I'm ready to argue the principle.

That said, I was until a few days ago ready to go the mattresses (for non-americans, means ready to have a minor war) over the reliability of Lord Meher. That has changed.

Recently the author of Lord Meher, Bhau Kalchuri, has publicly retracted his repeated assertions that he heard Meher Baba speak aloud. These assertions were no small matter to the Meher Baba community. The "Breaking of the Silence" is a major element to followers; the equivalent perhaps of Jesus' virgin birth or resurrection. For a well-known disciple to assert over many years that he had heard Baba speak immediately before Baba's death, and now to retract those assertions as false is a big deal.

He also retracted another statement of some consequence that he has made publicly on multiple occasions, and which he also included as historical in Lord Meher.

In short, I no longer trust Khalchuri. I know now that he lied about important facts, and that Lord Meher repeats at least one of those lies.

With deep deep sorrow and regret, I'm concerned to be using it as the main source for this article. Whether my reasoning is different than Mr Kidd or the same, I don't know. I just don't trust Lord Meher any more, and I don't want it to be used as source.

>>>>> IMPORTANT <<<<<< Most if not all the article's facts referenced to Lord Meher are available in other sources, and many of these sources have what Mr Kidd might regard as non-devotee publishers.

They are BOOKS, however, not searchable online. You have to actually paw through the pages to find references. Not so easy and not much fun.

It will take time to de-reference Lord Meher in favor of other sources, but I believe it needs to be done.

>>>BUT IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME.

I don't believe that any of the Lord Meher references refer to facts exclusively reported there. So the FACTS of the articles are verifiable elsewhere.

I am very busy guy in my non-wiki life, but I pledge to begin the slow process of de-referencing Lord Meher.

I think the {{Primary sources|date=March 2012}} tag adequately informs the reader of the situation in the meantime.

I humbly request that we don't start a free-for-all butchering of an article that many editors have slaved over, but rather that we give the article time to recover. Give me and other like-minded editors (I'm sure there a few others) some time to find better references for what is otherwise, I think, a pretty decent and objective, neutral article.

I think it might be appropriate to ask for a good article reassessment at this time, however, as the reliability of LM as a reference was a central issue and I was one of the main proponents. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nemonoman, if you, and any other like-minded editors, are seriously prepared to remove the Lord Meher references (and other devotionally-published text references) and instead use alternative sources from recognizable publishers, then I for one would support your proposal. I view it as a solution. As you quite rightly state, “Most if not all the article’s facts referenced to Lord Meher are available in other sources.” Non-devotee sources, in fact. In a comment posted on 8 April, I attempted to illustrate how alternative and reliable source texts can be employed to replace the references to Lord Meher without affecting the integrity of the Meher Baba article. Yes, it will take time, effort, and reading, but realistically the editing would not take that long to accomplish. Much can be achieved simply by reference substitution. I found approximately 80 references to devotionally-published texts in the article that would need to be replaced. --Stephen Castro (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are at least a few relevant reference sources, such as the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which have articles on Meher Baba. Some of them are quite substantial ones, and if nothing else can be found we have decided that articles in reference books are acceptable in general. I too would agree in general to removing material referenced to devotional material, because, honestly, the material in the article would probably carry more weight with individuals who are coming to the article out of an effort to seek some basic knowledge on the subject if it comes from independent sources. This is an important article to WikiProject Religion, and it is possible that a few editors like me working in that project might be able to help. If nothing else, if someone drops me a line offering specific material we want sources for, I can check the various databanks and other sources easily available to me for sources, and then, if required, go into the local libraries looking for information. I have the memory of a concussed flea lately though, so it would probably be a good idea to drop me a note on my talk page specifically indicating what material seeks sourcing, and maybe, after a few days, drop another note if I don't seem to have responded. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

RE LM reliability. I understand Nemonomans choice. He did much editing and has offered to do more. I respect that energy and time offering. Its more than I can offer. Perhaps it doesn't matter exactly how Bhau has been compromised, just that he was, and that it took so long to come out. Whether hes demented now or was under the influence of prescription medications back then and suffered elder abuse by over zealous devotees who can be sure. I dont know the full story, but I suspect the latter. But until and if it gets sorted, its currently a 'bad look'. As a I said above I'm not a BL but a Sufi. I have met many fine BL, some are friends, but I have never wanted any part of a devotee driven religion and have always been wary of it's emerging by another type of minority over zealous BL. This article avoids that issue and is neutral and thus worth preserving IMHO.

I disagree about dismissing the reliability of a text solely on the basis of its publisher. I'm ready to argue the principle also. However I will now support significant de referencing of LM for two reasons, but not because Wikipedia has certain guidelines that LM may or may not have satisfied,(that mattress was never tested on RS/N). Reason one: The matter of Bhau Kalchuris reputation in the Yaz Rak matter and associated matters, the Guru thing if you like. Reason 2: I asked for less LM not more, a long time ago in the archives as user No_More_Religion as I saw so much LM was being used it was unbalanced. Archive 11, Title: "Overuse of Lord Meher for references" Quote

Lord Meher (LM) is an online resource. This article is online. LM is very handy to use therefore. I'm a little concerned about this as I believe that LM overuse is adversly the quality of the article. When I visited India in the early 80's and beyond I found something wonderful. Many older Mandali were still alive. We talked of Baba and his life. The prose and flavor of Lord Meher does not represent what I found there IMHO. Bhau Kalchuri was there too but again IMHO he was a minor planet in that celestial place at that time. Older Mandali who had been with Meher Baba longer attracted large crowds.

The questions I'm asking are these. Has this article become unbalanced? Does this article need to quote more from other printed resources to get depth and breadth. Donkin, Stevens, Duce, Davy, Mani, Jessawalla and more. Has the article become Bhau centric? Yes LM is a tome and Bhau is very intellectual...but.... LM is only a part of the picture ....yet is it assuming too large a part. No-More-Religion (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Later I said this: Having said that, you have all done a good job here I dont want to come across as critical. In part Im saying these things because I am disturbed by Bhaus net chats and his devotees and the guru like look of the thing. This has made me re appraise LM somewhat No-More-Religion (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Later I said this: I have this peristent hunch that in time people will be wanting to peel back the LM stuff to find what really went on.

later I said this: I know its controversial but too much Bhau is even too much for Bhau. LM may have become a burden. The question remains (if Im right) who will do it? Perhaps we could start with one or two No-More-Religion (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember thinking then, I dont have the time to take on this fight. Now Nemonman you want it all gone !

Until LM is beaten in RS/N why not consider LM as one book amoung many others and used appropriately. Yes it was convenient, but it was over used. The article will be OK, it will just take some time and effort to replace all the too many LM refs, and I'm sure we can all respect that. I offer some assistance in this task, as I'm not too far from a huge collection of books about and by MB at Avatars Abode. In this early new phase of the LM reality check I urge a bit of caution, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For some key facts and figures, dates etc LM could still be useful in a hand full of references as its a rich source of such hard to find data that IS NOT tainted by the authors subjective views. And I suspect many other books used to replace LM will have the same RS/N issues SK raised and in that archive 11, Nemonoman says just that. Quote.

To get the article to GA status was hard, as finding sources that experienced editors accepted as reliable wasn't easy. LM, God-Man and Meher Baba, the Awakener made the grade. Read archived discussion pages for the details. Purdom is cited nearly as often as LM. One demand of GA editors was to provide a balanced POV, and one nice thing about Kalchuri's books is they are very complete and thorough and contain notes of criticism and concern missing in other books about Meher Baba. In any case, the article isn't supposed to have a point of view, Kalchuri's or anybody's, and I'm darned if I can see any influence of Kalchuri's POV or his interpretation of events in this article, any more than I can find Purdom's or Hayne's or Time Magazine's for that matter. I'm no big fan of Kalchuri's books ar his public speaking, but I'm grateful that he assembled LM, thus providing a pretty complete compendium of th essential source materials about MB.

There is absolutely no place in this article, or in Wikipedia, for interpretation, agendas, or Original Thinking of any kind. Since your comments, I've read and reread the article looking for "Bhauist" interpretations or "Bhau-only" facts. There may be a log in my eye, but I'll be damned if I see anything. On other controversial articles I've worked on, it has become necessary to provide two independent references for each fact in order to smooth the ruffled feathers of the main editors. I think it would be no problem to double-reference every fact in the article. No problem but a pain in the ass.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I still agree with that view of Nemonomans in terms of limited LM use. However the article may end up a stub if the LM RS/N fight is conceded because the other refs will fall too. I suggest we just use all refs appropriately and in a balanced manner but cut back LM heavily to create the depth and breadth of a well thought out article that gets 1 million hits plus a year. If people are not going to be hypocrites all new material must meet the Reliable ref standard in the manner we argued LM did. Final point, since when does an authors life mistakes, errors of judgement / medical condition render all previous written work void? Hemmingway, Gore Vidal, Shakespeare, Churchill come to mind. I distrust polarity swinging, often its a reaction. Kalchuri is a man. Man ers. Sufis never placed Mandali above the man state. Its a trap. One editor left previously due to the yaz rak episode. If anyone held Kalchuri in a high place, I sympathise. Hes just a man like us. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A few notes from Nemonoman (me) in response:

since when does an authors life mistakes ... render all previous written work void? Since never. Personally I will continue to enjoy the detailed information in Lord Meher. But knowing that Khauchuri has embedded at least one falsehood in the text makes it difficult to defend as an independent reliable source.

And since I want to support: ...a well thought out article that gets 1 million hits plus a year I feel compelled to work with my fellow editors to assure that we have sources independent of Lord Meher.

I'm concerned that: ...the article may end up a stub if the LM RS/N fight is conceded -- because, right now, if every LM-referenced fact in the article is removed by an aggressive editor, that's the prospect. For this reason, I ask for patience as I (and others I hope) begin to double-source the facts.

My hope is to keep the present "good article" more or less intact, and find better references, rather than to butcher hell out of it. I hope that we can build a consensus for this approach.

I think we should find a consensus about whether to replace LM refrences or double-source, as LM online continues to be an easy-access resource for internet users. I have not yet reached a personal view on this, and would be glad for comments.

HumusTheCowboy writes: I distrust polarity swinging... Me too. I thought about this for weeks before reaching my personal conclusions. It appears that others have reached similar conclusions through different paths. This isn't polarity swinging, IMO, but reassessment in the light of additional information, made with concern for our readers. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I place my confidence in Nemonoman's proposal because I have seen his very good work in articles (like in GA Taj Mahal) and I have full confidence in his grasp of Wikipedia rules and proceedings. This article is indeed a Good Article in its present form and I will protect it as such. On the issue of substituting the references vs. double-sourcing I am for the second, as in all my work in Wikipedia, I place the reader's ability to easily verify what he finds written as a priority. Though not as a substitute for a better source, I would link to a source available on the net and if (and where) needed add a warning about its reliability. If in this case, for the preservation of the GA quality, there is some negative issue with double-sourcing, I am ready to reconsider it. Hoverfish Talk 18:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Nemonoman thanks for the thoughtful reply. We are essentially on the same page, I now see. Re double-source. (DS)I support this. This is the best option, and I see you mentioned this last year in archive 11: Double sourcing neatly solves some conundrums including public ref access vs reliability, it achieves a balanced approach with its breadth of authors (which I like) and it will remove any taint, real or perceived, about LM being overused which undermines SK's objections.

BTW I make no apologies for my strategos mindset: We bundle all these extra books to be used with LM in the DS solution, under one defence, for any possible future RS/N challenge e.g. a SK publisher challenge to take out LM: Our Motivation? Any successful attack on LM in RS/N will flow onto the other refs used for double referencing and lead to a stub. (Im still suspicious re this threat). Using this method we will thus have a unified approach that will sustain the article supported by an long established improving article and all the arguments we used to defend LM above and in the archives. It may not come to that, the DS solution could well satisfy any previous LM objections --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There should in fact be no need for double-sourcing if one is using a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense) in the first place. The addition of a non-reliable source does not validate the use of reliable source text in any way whatsoever. The LM reference is therefore superfluous. I would suggest the removal of LM and similar devotionally-published texts references entirely. By all means have a Further Information section in the article that list books, or online references, that could prove useful to readers. That way one is not suppressing alternative texts (such as those by Kalchuri and Shepherd) that do not fulfil Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in the article. --Stephen Castro (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is LM and the DS refs both will not satisfy your objections. LM going will be the thin end of the wedge. If you object to LM take it to the RS/N board as previously discussed. BTW Kalchuri's LM and Shepherd's books are two different animals entirely. In size alone its elephant vs some very small mammal. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing also is that Wikipedia, even via this Talk page, keeps on being used to advertise Shepherd as a writer and to state his views, and the thing is that the continued interference of SC and SK in this article at least, including the demand to remove LM, is part of "making a point" against the decision concerning Shepherd in the RS/N. We have spent enough time dealing with this issue here. Please stop. Hoverfish Talk 11:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not just talking about two authors here, but rather all the authors whose works are not deemed as RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term, i.e. those associated with the devotionally-published texts used in the MB article that will need to be removed. According to Simon Kidd in his posting made to this Talk page on 13 April: “Speaking on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, Fifeloo treated self-published and devotee-published together, and said ‘Neither are reliable for the history of new religious movements or the biography of new religious movement figures as both sequences of literature fail the self-published sources criteria: they are published by presses that are immediately involved and do not display the review required for the establishment of a secondary source.’ “He even said that the devotional works … ‘do not even approach [the] threshold’ of reliability.” Yes, let the case re devotionally-published texts be posted on the RS/N. --Stephen Castro (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

RE "making a point". I hadn't read this before, but that is what is going on here with SC & SK. Shepherd and his issues are his own issues. Please stop "making a point" here. Take it to the RS/N and and in the meantime please stop disrupting this page and our time. You have had your say, many times. Thank you. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts on references: The duty of the editors

I find the notion that some 'non-devotee' publisher would have a more comprehensive basis for decision-making absolutely ludicrous and indefensible. What criteria would a non-devotee publisher have for fact-checking? For establishing true neutrality? A non-devotee publisher would perhaps be more skeptical of claims of holiness, etc. But the article does not make these claims.

I know exactly what would happen if I presented my publisher (St Martins) with a Meher Baba manuscript...they would judge it and edit it based solely on marketability, not truth or objectivity. If they wanted to fact-check (a doubtful notion!), would they head down to the Union Seminary library with a stack of index cards, a thermos of coffee and a sandwich? Let's be realistic: they'd read the Wikipedia article. If even that.

There are a very finite number of sources for facts about Meher Baba, and whether those sourced facts appear in devotee or non-devotee published books makes no difference to their truth.

I'm reconsidering the single-sourcing of Lord Meher for one reason and one reason only -- because Khauchuri has admitted to stating as fact there something that he knew was not true. That admission is key, in my opinion. It concerned an incident where he was the central player, where he reported that Baba had written a prayer that he now says that he, not Baba, had authored. That incident is not referenced in this article, because it is not notable. But my knowledge that Khauchuri knowingly added that incident makes me concerned that he may have added other items as well when he knew that no one alive could dispute his claims.

But when Khauchuri references a published discourse or a newspaper article, or a public incident viewed by many persons, I believe him. As do others in this thread who say -- let's use a different reference. By reading this thread, it's clear that everyone believes that the facts included in the article are true -- and that if an article-fact can be found in Lord Meher, it must be possible to find the same fact referenced elsewhere.

The facts in this article are well-known to the BL community -- some editors have had first-hand accounts from persons involved. I'd love to include my own notes on some of these accounts, but this would be Original Research, as we all know, and not acceptable. But every Lord Meher reference in the article points to well-documented facts that can be double-, triple-, or even quadruple-referenced if need be.

My concern is that I want to assure our readers that our facts can be trusted even if Lord Meher now has proven to contain some very small proportion of questionable details.

The non-devotee publisher criteria is big red herring. I'm sure that we can even find a non-devotee publisher-reviewed source that describes the very incident that Khauchuri now admits he lied about. Because I know additional information about that incident, as an editor I could not accept its inclusion in Wikipedia, regardless of the so-called 'reliability' of the publisher.

In the end, we editors represent the final and most important reviewers of the reliability of the facts we choose to include in this article, just as we represent the final and most important determiners of the notability of the facts about our subject. That is a very great challenge which I take seriously.

This article is without doubt the main information source about Meher Baba in the world today. It's my intent therefore to make it pristine and incontrovertible. A lofty and impossible goal, but one worth attempting. And in my view this must be done item by item, fact by fact, and source by source, in keeping with Wikipedia principles, but without reliance a the notion that 'non-devotee' publisher provides better accuracy. Rather to establish a verifiability bar for this article that can only be satisfied by cross-referencing and double-sourcing, and by including in the article only facts that allow for this sort of verifiability. I have been an editor in two other articles that had to establish similar criteria because of controversial subject matter, so I know that there is precedent for establishing this sort of editorial consensus. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thats how I see it too. I'm with you in this endeavour. RE red herring = devotee publisher, coundn't agree more. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the end, the use of devotee-published material may represent the best, truest, and most verifiable source of some notable facts worthy of inclusion, even though the use of those sources may cause the article to fail GA criteria, or require the inclusion of reliable-sources tag as it now has. My dedication is to the truth of the facts in the article. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I made the Bible thread above. What I don't understand is the devotion to Shepherd by SK SC. Odd. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I have no issue with you defending the devotionally-published sources used in the MB article, but . . .

No, amateur editors certainly do not “represent the final and most important reviewers of the reliability of the facts we choose to include in this article, just as we represent the final and most important determiners of the notability of the facts about a subject.” Nor should amateur editors on Wikipedia presume such a position. That is why independent scholarship and review are so absolutely necessary—they act as a check preventing amateur editors on Wikipedia from assuming an inflated opinion of their abilities and editorial remit. The article which you describe as “without doubt the main information about Meher Baba in the world today” is in actual fact little more than an introductory booklet; albeit a useful introduction to Meher Baba for a general audience. --Stephen Castro (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

SC your missing the bigger picture. Quotes from help page.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. ( = amateurs)

Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: ::researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. ( = amateurs)

Even Shepherd could have a go. BTW why doesn't he? The bigger picture also includes numbers. Who doesn't go online and look up stuff in Wiki? Google search frequently puts Wiki near or on the top. I just did it then with Meher Baba. MB Wiki was first choice. Nemonoman is right. SC you have two choices. Get on board or have at the RS/N re your and SK's well canvassed objections. Unless you have TOTALLY new and ORIGINAL points, do one of the two choices please. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Castro:

• We editors do decide what's reliable and what's notable. Who else does? Is there some Grand Star Chamber of Final Editorial Authority I've not yet encountered? That might help to put an end to some of the seemingly endless discussions on article talk pages.

As a very simple example, it took many weeks of discussion and consensus building to say in the lede "Indian" rather than "Iranian." There are entirely reliable sources for both descriptions, and neither is 100% true or 100% false. Editors have argued for which description was the more notable.

Who made the "final" decisions on reliability and notability? We "amateur" editors who spent time -- actually a lot of time -- reviewing the information, comparing notes, discussing it, building a case, seeking consensus. In my view, this nitpicking, frustrating attention to even minute details is the reason this article is good.

• This "introductory booklet" has been viewed by several million people -- do you think some other source of information is more accessed?
• I admit I am an amateur on this subject. Do you even know of any Meher Baba professionals -- I mean certified experts who make a living expounding on the subject? If so, can you invite them to take over the editing of this article? (You know, I can in fact think of one both certified and making a living expounding...Khauchuri. But I don't think he's a wiki-editor.) --Nemonoman (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Amateur editors on Wikipedia"? I think you are completely out of contact with the reality of Wikipedia. If you do not like Wikipedia, you do not have to be any part of it. "Independent scholarship" (which is what Kevin Shepherd claims about himself)? Are you the independent scholar who has appointed himself "as a check preventing amateur editors on Wikipedia from assuming an inflated opinion of their abilities and editorial remit"? I saw the essay that you expected Wikipedia to publish for you. And it was so badly written that even your very dear administrator DGG found it had terrible problems. And now you talk about the overinflated opinion of Nemonoman as an editor here? Can you please bring this up elsewhere? This page is solely meant for developing the article, not for lambasting Wikipedia for being what it is or for doubting the proven abilities of others, and certainly not for claiming to be a scholar. Whatever your true or imagined qualifications in everyday life, they are absolutely irrelevant here. I know Nemonoman to be a good Wikipedian and until now I have seen no such indication about your abilities. Hoverfish Talk 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, well, I did touch a sore spot. The duty of editors? Surely, looking at the bigger picture would enable editors to view the Meher Baba article far more objectively and their role as an editor more humbly. All that is required here is that RS texts (in the Wikipedia sense of that term) are used in the article—which is certainly achievable. What has been demonstrated on this Talk page since the issue was first raised in March of this year is the resistance of a group of editors to even attempt to use RS texts in preference to the devotionally-published texts currently in use. As I had already stated above, there are approximately 80 references to devotionally-published texts used in the article. Just out of a whim, last month, and within in an hour, I was able locate ten alternative references that were RS texts which could be used as a substitute without affecting the integrity of the article. Realistically, the whole article could be edited within a couple months to comply with the Wikipedia requirement. What has your little group done but rant and rave all this time? I note that even Nemonoman winced slightly at the thought of having to actually read some books—far more easy perhaps to type a keyword in the online Lord Meher, and hey presto, a section, or in some instances to be found on Wikipedia, almost a whole article ready to cut and paste with minimal editorial effort involved. Well, lads, I don’t wish to be part of the cosy group of guardians that represent the Meher Baba article. Along with another editor, following Nemonoman’s initial plea for assistance, I was prepared to locate RS texts to replace the devotionally-published texts in question. I did not view that as being engaged in some heroic task as a “Baba Lover” that would involve time, effort, and reading, but merely as cutting my teeth as an editor on Wikipedia. To edit the Meher Baba article is no big deal. By the way, the offer of assistance from the other editor was something to be grateful for. Yes, the Meher Baba article needs to be based on facts, but those facts first and foremost need to come from RS texts. This case will doubtless be going to the RS/N very soon now. Whatever the outcome, I for one will be glad to be free of this situation. I’m not a devotee, but as Meher Baba is said to have once communicated: “Things that are real are always given and received in silence.” There is certainly nothing real to be encountered on this Talk page —just noise, pretensions, egotism, posturing, and arguments. Enough said—time for silence. --Stephen Castro (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So I suppose I'm supposed to think that (a) You're a really great guy for saying that you were prepared to locate other sources and (b) now it's partially my fault that you decided NOT to help in this endeavor because you've been somehow offended by my noisy, egotistical posturing and arguments?

Have you heard of seagull syndrome? A seagull flies in, makes a big squawk, shits all over everything and then flies away. This talk page has seen a fair number of seagulls in its time.

On the other hand, perhaps you know the story of the Little Red Hen? "Who will help me grind the flour?" said the Little Red Hen "Not I" said the cat. etc. "Then I will do it myself," said the Little Red Hen.

I have told you my intent, and I will follow through.

Please make sure you invite me to your little RS party. I'd like to make a few salient points.

Also thank you for taking my remarks out of context and posting them on your blog. That takes brass. Perhaps you'll discover I have a little brass myself. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The only sore spot I see is that the theory of a movement begun by Sai Baba of Shirdi which included Babajan, Upasni Maharaj, Meher Baba, and Sathya Sai Baba will have to find its way to fame the proper way. Lousy "group of guardians" indeed. Hoverfish Talk 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SC for setting up a humourous situation, I needed a laugh :) --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-re-re-reading WP:V

From Wikipedia:Verifiability

"It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged."

My question: What statements referenced to Lord Meher in this article are likely to be challenged?

Maybe we can start by simply removing those citations altogether.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. The alleged movement by Sai Baba et al mentioned by Hoverfish above seems to be the primary point of contention. However, if anyone does see any others, it might be a good idea to list them all here, so that editors can attempt to find sources for them. Also, I think some people should note that RS is not necessarily the sole requirement. WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and other policies and guidelines apply as well. While I am happy to see one editor was willing to spend a single hour to provide other sources, I wonder whether the time it required to type out his little speech above took, and whether that time might have been better spent looking for more sources. I only hope that this talk page will be free of the situation of the "pretensions, egotism, posturing, and arguments," including the post that quote came from. Like I said earlier, I think it makes sense to list the statements sourced to the arguable source here, then we can look to see if we can find other sources for them. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@John Carter & Nemonoman. When I read this article for the first time in 2006, I was truly glad to find one place in the internet where a biography of Meher Baba was written in a neutral tone, centered on undisputed and essential facts about his life (in "due weight"), and especially devoid of ANY devotional material or overtones. Ever since the article has improved, has been reviewed and recognized as a GA. There have been few times when some users tried to include dubious statements, subjective views and even fringe material, but the article has remained clear of them. A couple of these cases have been mentioned here lately as editors who have questioned the reliability of the sources. I do not think this was the case. They wanted their material included and did some fuss about it, is how I see it. Also, we have the well known case of Hdtnkrwll on the issue of Meher Baba having broken his silence during his last years. I think what we have ended up including in this article about it is fair and enough, not because I think it has any due weight in Baba's biography, but because it deals with one controversial issue that has arisen about Meher Baba's life by some of his followers that could mean something significant to some, if true. Beyond this I find no other point in the present version of this article that has ever been questioned or that could come to be questioned in the future. Hoverfish Talk 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your (sane) comments, John. Thanks for your summary, Hoverfish.

Here's a thesis: Resolved that if a fact is NOT challenged or likely to be challenged it doesn't matter if Lord Meher is cited as a reference for the fact regardless of its status as devotee published or its so-called reliability. Who wants to take sides debating that. I really don't know where I stand on the matter yet. Thoughts, anyone?--Nemonoman (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well LM for me is OK for some things, I'm not a fan of Bhau's and lately even worse than that, but the book has a lot of facts. If I hear any more 'devotee published' discussions here I'm going to bite myself then scream. Seriously I now dislike Shepherd a lot and I never even met him, I dont also want to hear his name or Fifelo, and they might be nice guys, but its been done to death. Enough. Its a working thesis at least. Lets do it. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The only question I can foresee is whether something that is only there meets WP:WEIGHT requirements, not RS requirements. Having said that, the proposal works for me. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Devotee Literature and New Religious Movements

About Devotee Literature and New Religious Movements (NRMs) -- particularly non-domestic New Religious Movements.

Consider this: It is entirely likely that there are very large and very notable new religious movements that have no 'non-devotee'-published sources. Particularly true of Non-US/Non-English Speaking movements.

The Meher Baba movement in India, for example, has probably got more than a half-million active adherents. The Shirdi Sai Baba movement has multiple millions these days. This suggests that their objective of devotion -- pick a Baba, I don't care -- is certainly Notable Enough for Wikipedia inclusion.

Right now, I'm absolutely certain that there are non-english-speaking academics publishing on these movements. Non-english sources are out-of-play for Wikipedia. Same with foreign-language periodicals.

Wikipedians interested in NRMs are stuck waiting for the first and second world to notice, I guess.

Unless and until English-speaking academics begin to publish peer-reviewed articles, however, and unless and until some Commercial Publisher thinks there's a enough a market to justify a print run of 8-10000 copies, the ONLY source material on the such a movement is likely to be devotee-written and devotee published. And when the academics or for-profit authors get around to writing, it will be these sources -- the only firsthand narratives -- to which they will turn.

So if Dr So-and-so PHD says: Meher Baba was born in 1895 (because he looked it up Lord Meher), we can treat that as Reliable? But not if we find the same fact in Lord Meher all by ourselves?

In other words, if we stipulate that no devotee-published sources may be used, regardless of their apparent objectivity or factual quality: Wikipedia will NEVER write in depth about a new religious movement -- at least not until it becomes an Old Religious Movement.

Further, since the most likely way to get attention for your academic paper or commercial book is to be controversial, the early writings from non-devotees are most likely be created by disgruntled or agenda-laden non-devotees, not some sort of reasonably disinterested source. John Carter was part of the Reliable Sources controversy with the 2 by 2s article, and practically all the 'reliable' non-devotee sources smelled a lot like tell-all, tabloid journalism.

Anyway: I think we need to find a more pragmatic method for establishing a reliability threshold for sources on NRMs. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think magazine and newspaper articles, many of which are available on databanks, would qualify. Also, in general, sources which are used by other reference works are considered reliable as well. The 2005 Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones includes in its bibliography some works by Baba, and also C. B. Purdom's The God-Man, which it says is the most reliable biography, as well as William Donkins' The Wayfarers, for Baba's work with various groups, and Kitty L. Davy's Love Alone Prevails: A Story of Life with Meher Baba. I tend to think that very few people would question our use of sources which are included in the bibliographies of highly-respected reference works like the ER> John Carter (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John for the mentioning the inclusion of Davy. It's the only book published after 1964. Works on MBs later life are few and far between.

Is it possible to copy and paste the ER bibliography somehow? If it would violate copyright to post here, maybe email it to me? Weaverville NC's library tends more to The Great Big Book of Religions Illustrated rather than more academic volumes. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The bibliography isn't much, I'm afraid. Purdom's The God-Man says (Myrtle Beach, S.C., 1971), Donkins' The Wayfarers (San Francisco, 1969), and Davy's "intimate look at life with Meher Baba" (Myrtle Beach, S.C., 1981). WorldCat on its website lists some sites that hold the books, and I think I might be able to get ahold of Purdom's book. Otherwise, there are the various journal articles as well. And one can always go for interlibrary loan, but that costs money. I do have JSTOR and I can try to pull up any articles I find there. And, of course, the ER itself doesn't contain a lot of information, only seven paragraphs, but it also qualifies as an RS, as would any other such encyclopedia type sources. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly The Great Big Book of Religions Illustrated doesn't even have a picture of Meher Baba.

• Purdom's The God Man is online here.
• The Wayfarers is online (in six parts, and a big map). The links to the various parts can be found here.
• Haynes' Meher Baba, the Awakener has been mentioned for academic purity as a RS. Online here.
• A very complete bibliography of publications about Meher Baba can be found here.
• I think I saw a suggestion that Jean Adriel's Avatar was an acceptable source. Online version is in 3 parts: links found here.
• Don Stevens' Listen Humanity was originally published by Harper, making it an RS, I would suppose: Online verion here.
• At some point, The Awakener journal was discussed, someplace, and described as a RS. Online here.

--Nemonoman (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

All reasonable sources. Also, feel free to drop me an e-mail with your own e-mail address, and I can send you the various articles I can pull up off of the various databanks I can access. Between all those sources, I think we should be able to maybe even get this to FA. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work Nemonoman above. I dont want to start another thread and disrupt this one but I dont want to tack this reply way up the page either. Consider this a PS to your Kalchuri liar statement. I feel I have to say this because you were so honest. I have researched this and I agree with you on Kalchuri not being fully trustworthy. Not just demented. On the plus side Kalchuri is only one of 6 editors of LM and this article has none of his views in it plus LM online is being reworked as we speak. I am going to replace / duplicate LM in the manner being done here on three other articles I work on. Bill Le Page. Avatar's Abode and Francis Brabrazon. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Damn -- Where's the "Like" button??--Nemonoman (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth and death date format problem

The recent change to the arrangement of the birth and death dates have created some kind of odd code confusion I can't figure out. Every time I try to fix it it moves the Urdu text in place of what I write. I have no problem with the recent change in date format, only wish someone with more computer skill could fix the odd snag. It looks like this: Urdu: مہر بابا), (25 February 1894. The 24 should go right before February and the paranetheses surround the translation terms that come before, excluding date. I might keep trying to fix it on my sandbox but so far am getting nowhere. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All attempts lead to the same garble. I see Devangari script as an option under special characters but not Urdu. Perhaps it was copy pasted from somewhere, and thus causes some odd problem. To me I am not sure why the Urdu is necessary. But if someone does strongly, they do what they like if they know how to put it back properly without disrupting the date. Either this or the date format has to go back as it was. I have no opinion on it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I had the same problem some time ago when someone formatted the date and I had to revert, but then they scan for such changes and it will happen over and over, so yes, removing the Urdu seems the best way out at the moment. Hoverfish Talk 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm for that then. Besides, it seems a bit odd to use Urdu but not other languages for his name. His own native languages were Dari and Gujarati I believe. Leave it with just Devangari and then this issue won't rise again and again. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Material available on Highbeam Research

I counted about 80 or 90 pieces available on the above databank that at least mention Meher Baba. Some of them seem to only barely mention him, or are related to other topics which peripherally relate to Meher Baba. Anyway, if anyone wants copies of them, they are free to drop me an e-mail, so that I know their addresses, and I will forward to them what is there. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Devangari

I have been wondering why Baba's name is given in Devangari. It did not originate in Hindi. Baba's principle language was not Hindi, and he went to English schools and published in English. Meher Baba was't a Hindu. What benefit then does this bring the English Wikipedia article? What is it meaning to convey and to whom? I looked up Mahatma Gahdhi and his name isn't given in Devangari, yet he was in fact Hindu. I propose it be removed, unless someone knows an important reason I didn't know about. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it as there appeared to be no objection. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

'Like' --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Media online.

I have trouble with International Film Archive and website dedicated to the conservation of all the film of Meher Baba as a media link. Watching the videos seem more to be about the archival work, and are quite blurry. Does this really contribute to seeing how Baba looks on film? I am fine if others like it, but it seems a bit like explaining the work projects more than showing films or media. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, on full screen its blurry and the sound is muffled. On its default setting its very small. There is no between afaik. Bit of a messy page too, but I mean thats just an opinion. Its possible to move around easily enough. I have fast broadband, a great PC and do a lot of multi media so its not me. You tube on Baba is of good quality most of the time. What do you suggest Dazed? --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the removed link. I also had problems with it. However, "YouTube on Baba" is a very broad issue. There are creative works by many people featuring footage of original films. The two YouTube links we currently have include one historical film, with no commentary added and one overview of his life and teachings, as close to neutral point of view as I would expect to find in Wikipedia. There is an additional biography/film on meherfilmworks.org, i.e. God in Human Form which is not NPOV. For this reason I think we should determine the limit of media inclusion. Hoverfish Talk 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, since Hoverfish brings up the topic of biography, I think it is best to stick to films that contribute to biographical information, rather than simply devotional or slowed down images meant seemingly for those that worship Baba. Right now I think the ones there have biographical content that's about as neutral as you can find at this point. The deleted site did not, that I could find easily anyway. It was of the other sort and stenciled with a logo, perhaps to protect it or advertise the archival work. So if a limit is determined I would suggest it having to do with neutrality (as much as it is possible) and biographical information, as well as the quality that Cowboy confirms was poor in the deleted one. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

re 'best to stick to films that contribute to biographical information, rather than simply devotional or slowed down images meant seemingly for those that worship Baba'. I Totally agree. You Tube is such a broad brush, if something is selected it must be archival Neutral and non devotional non POV blah blah as much as can be --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Convey vs. Confer

The word "convey" in "LSD and other psychedelic drugs . . . did not convey real benefits" is right. The change to "confer" is wrong.

con·vey:

1. To take or carry from one place to another; transport.
2. To serve as a medium of transmission for; transmit:

confer:

1. grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right): moves were made to confer an honorary degree on her.
2. have discussions; exchange opinions: the officials were conferring with allies.

Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent call BTW HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC) BTW I changed my user name from either of these HumusCowboy|HumusTheCowboy to this Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)