Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Nice new opening

Good intro and summary by Abronkeeler--Nemonoman 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nemonoman have you been to India, specifically Baba' place? Im serious here. Where are you editing this article from? If you were in the Baba community you would know that Baba and Baba followers NEVER EVER have or do refer to Meher Baba as a Guru. Its an old word sure, its not the RIGHT word. It ghas connotations that Meher Baba was particular to avoid. Gurus can and often are manipulators of matter (what the West calls miracles) i.e. walk on water, create stuff. Rubbish. Miracles are worth NOTHING AT ALL spiritually. Oh some Gurus were very spiritual, in the old days. So your first line misses the point completely about Baba. I think this is where Wikipedia falls down. People get a hair up their arse about stuff and they dont know they know very little about it. Then take offence when it is pointed out by someone who does know. --Liam7 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nemonoman, the introduction that Abronkeeler added, was an introduction me and Cott12 had been working on in my Sandbox since 22:35, 3 December 2006 (check edit history). The reason we didn't proceed in editing, was because we were waiting for some civil cooperational atmosphere here, so we could first presnt it to the rest of you and if we got an OK, then make the edit. Normally Abronkeeler should have discussed this with me, or at the very least, mentioned something in the edit summary, to avoid copyright breach. But in this case I (and hopefully Cott12 too) don't give a damn about breaches, so long as the article keeps developing in the lines of the peer review. Anyway, thanks Abronkeeler for being bold enough to do this change here, and please, do leave a line in user talk pages if you intend to do such moves in the future. Hoverfish 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "Spiritual Master" instead of "guru", I'm all for it, except I don't know how many people who are not familiar with such matters can take "Spiritual Master" as a clear definition of something. So, although I prefer it so, let's see where and how we can define this term for them. We shouldn't forget that this article addersses any reader and not only ones familiar with such terms. Cott12 and I have been working on Perfect Master (Meher Baba), to provide a wiki-link/reference for its first mention, as per peer review. Should maybe something similar be done here? Hoverfish 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Gurus who were, as Liam7 informs us, "very spiritual, in the old days" are the very ones that MB was refering to in this passage, as presented by Bhau:

Merwan would later repeat this couplet from the Hindu Sadguru and poet Kabir, that Upasni :Maharaj had inspired:

"Both Guru and Govind stand before you;to whom should you bow?

Bow to the Guru's grace which has shown you Govind!"

Govind is God thye Absolute – Impersonal God. The Guru is God in human form– Personal God.

--Lord Meher v1 page 223

Hmmmm...God in human form -- doesn't that sound familiar??

Anyway, that was then. This is now. Thankfully for all of us Liam has set things right.

PS I think the best part about this discussion (apart from the wonderful grammar) is how so much editing is being attributed to me that has actually been done by others. "Do everything while doing nothing." Who said that?? Anyway, I'm apparently well on the way. --Nemonoman 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lao Tsu maybe, or the Dalai Lama? Wish I was good in it too... Hoverfish 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I love it. Nice work all. Chris 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One detail, Nemonoman, I realize I had squeezed paragraphs. The reason was this: Wikipedia:Lead section#Length. Also the review sais to avoid small paragraphs. It surely reads good now. Hoverfish 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) - Yes, the rearrangement is excellent. Hoverfish 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo... Kabir was a long long time back. and Bhau is not Baba. Bhau's word is not some latter day Gospel. He's fallible too. He writes in a subjective narration. I know him. Guru is also associated with Yogis. Upasni WAS King of the Yogis. (most Yogis are just nowhere on the spiritual path-Baba ...go source it yourself). Have you read Donkins clasic piece, Wayfarers? There is a plethora of God in human form souls, some are in a spiritual heirachy. Have your little snigger re Hmmmm...God in human form -- doesn't that sound familiar??

I'll be frank with you here...dont muck around with Baba. He hated hypocrisy above all else. So when people just dive in and edit without discussion, did they 1/ rebuke those who rebuked me for doing that earlier before I knew protocol? 2/ are they indeed the same poeple who did the rebuking? 3/ are they editing in the spirit of geting the best article here on wiki? or 4/ are there EGO's getting a good airing instead. Hmmmm --Liam7 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, you made the change from guru to spiritual master, and it has stayed intact. You made that change without consulting anybody. And it's perfectly within bounds for your to do so. I didn't rebuke you for doing so.

• Second, you questioned whether I had ever been to India. And as you said If you were in the Baba community you would know that Baba and Baba followers NEVER EVER have or do refer to Meher Baba as a Guru. Its an old word sure, its not the RIGHT word. It ghas connotations that Meher Baba was particular to avoid.

I don't see what difference it makes whether I have been to India or am part of the Baba community. I think it is of some interest that Baba in fact often embraced the word Guru. I thought you might find that an item of interest as well.

• Third, you're the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  master. So I didn't just tell you that Baba often embraced the word Guru. I showed you a quote from what might be considered a reputable source. But now it turns out that Lord Meher and its author are not acceptable sources?

• Last: who are you to lecture me on hypocrisy? I have in fact been to India, where I had a talk with Eruch Jessawala about a person who I believed was being a hypocrite. He told me to assume good faith, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that that was one of the pillars of the Wikipedia. Anyway, if Eruch, no slouch he, recommends assuming good faith rather than hypocrisy, what is your personal basis for lecturing me? By what authority have you decided that I am a hypocrite, and that you have the right to lecture me? Just make the article better. Enough moral speculation.--Nemonoman 07:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: # Yes the one word change G to SM was left alone. Good. I also did discuss it on this page at the same time the change was done. It being a tiny change I agree with you, thats fair. I appreciate the lack of grief over this change. Thankyou. I am aware Baba sometimes humoured people, until they knew better. He did not ever refer to himself as a Guru but it may have been used in his presence, sure. In the early days with new, esp, western mandali, there was a lot of tolerance.

1. I agree to disagree. I believe its vital to have gone there and bowed down to the tomb. Baba has said people only come to his place in India if they are invited by him. How does that work even now after he has dropped the body? Thats a mystery. But consider this. As time progreses who can tell who has been there or not? previous life? Still once someone has bowed down and been accepted by Baba, then nothing ever is the same again, on a BIG scale. Earlier I said by invitation, I would take that to mean that you can only unload your sankaras and get 'Cleaned" if you are invited by Baba. You may turn up and bow down, but it may as well be bowing down to a rock. No spiritual benefit will transpire, unless you have earned the grace of the Master. What is cleaned? You have to experience it to understand it. But it is Mighty.
2. Im not the fact master. i just take exception to material that is too far below an acceptable threshold. I prob woundnt have bothered if there was not some interest expressed in getting this article above its current rating. Eruch and Bhua re not Baba. They are human and make mistakes. Reference them sure, but some of their stuff is opinion.
3. I didnt start the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  war. It was Hoover? I think who splashed them over some early work of mine that was no way inferior to other work. It was at least at the ame standard and I posted a note here saying references will soon follow. But no ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  were plastered all over it then someone Cott? edited the work (three lines) out completely. Ok so I became a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

master.

1. Im not lecturing you on Hypocrisy. I think it is others who are acting one way and then lying low or making allegations and then lying low or saying one thing then making big changes without discussions. If they stopped this some harmony might occur.

So maybe we can get on with it, discuss big changes, make small ones and post an explanation and work on the knotty issue of references. --Liam7 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are not refering to the 31st President of the United States, I didn't splash you with any citations needed. Instead I have explained in your talk page how to find out who did which edit. I only wish to tell you that this is the talk page of Meher Baba's article and all these personal remarks have no place here. This page may be viewed by anyone and the impression it gives is quite negative lately. Hoverfish 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Townshend again

Hi. Can we make a choice as to whether to have Pete Townhend's 1969 rock opera at the beginning or at the end of the article? Right now we sort of have a Pete Townshend sandwich. Chris 21:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes TS has made a comeback in the new edit. It was pretty clear to me that TS now has his little spot, with a link, in the Followers section. Really, truly for Baba people this TS part in the intro does not reflect how small an impact TS had in the Baba world. Its the same argument all over again, thats been decided. See previous. Lets be clear someone put this intro in without discussion and without asking the person who did a lot of the work if they could do so. It seems the work predated the votes, so it was out of step. I believe this question has been thrashed and the intro needs to reflect this. Lets try for some harmony. --Liam7 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the very first editors of this article, and at that time, as now, I believe that it is worth mentioning Tommy's popularity as a cause of interest in Meher Baba in the late 60s. I don't think Pete Townshend is worth putting at top of the article, but I do believe some mention of Tommy is justified. It was a cultural phenomenon; it was the first time that many persons discovered Baba's name; it led to the famous Rolling Stone cover article; it had worldwide influence on millions. I would guess that even today, some persons are led to the Wikipedia article because of Tommy. Not mentioning Tommy, in my view, is disingenous. I hope to have a go at adding a sentence or 2 about Baba in Tommy article, once I feel up to it: currently I can't find a mention.

PS: Tommy (not Townshend) is mentioned in one sentence in the intro. Townshend/Tommy gets 2 sentences near the end. This in a roughly 8000 word article seems about proportional.

PPS: Found the one mention to Meher Baba in the Tommy article.--Nemonoman 02:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tommy was a part of western culture that millions remember, sure, I remember it. Once again its not disputed there was an impact here. But its about relevance and quality. How long is a piece of string? What deserves to go in, how much and where abouts. Take Baba's book God Speaks. Read that again. If your a Baba believer this book is as Baba says THE FIRST TIME GOD has talked to us directly through a book. Thats high quality for a believer. Compare it to some millions hearing Baba's name and seeing his picture, then forgetting it some time later. Whats in conflict here with the various editors is the question of quality. How bad do people want this article to be the top rating? Waylander.one 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have checked in foreign language Wikipedias for search results of Meher Baba and apart from 4 who have an article and the Italian which gives "Kalki", all others give as "Who's Next", "Tommy", etc. Ok, so it is a notable factor. I still think that mention of Tommy (but no interpretations of the plot) and related notable facts should happen only in the section about the 1960s, where also "God in a pill" is mentioned. Hoverfish 08:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, Townshend is not even a microscopic spec compared to Baba, he is certainly no saint, and as such I believe having a large section dedicated to Townshend in this article is not appropriate. This article is about Meher Baba, not Pete Townshend. I do not understand why Pete is put on a pedastal, as if he is some minor incarnation himself. Pete is just a guy. Yes he's been influential in the West but what about other influential people in India who have spread Baba's message? Please can we keep this article focused on BABA. If someone feels it is important to have the Pete/Baba story somewhere, please place it on the "List of Baba Followers" wiki. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.203.130 (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Can someone please address my question? Can we make a choice as to whether to have Pete Townhend's 1969 rock opera at the beginning or at the end of the article? Right now we sort of have a Pete Townshend sandwich. Chris 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is more than a 'mention' of Baba on the Pete Townshend article. I have pasted the whole section below so you can see it is extensive.

==Religion==

Townshend showed no predilection for religious belief in the first years of The Who's career and few would have suspected that the violent guitar-smasher was even a closet acolyte. By the beginning of 1968, however, Townshend had begun to explore spiritual ideas. In January 1968, The Who recorded his song "Faith in Something Bigger" (Odds and Sods LP). Later that same month during a tour of Australia and New Zealand, The Small Faces' member Ronnie Lane introduced Townshend to the writings of the Indian "perfect master" Meher Baba.

Townshend swiftly absorbed all the writings of Meher Baba he could find and by April 1968, announced himself a disciple of Baba. It was at that time that Townshend, who had been searching the past two years for a basis for a rock opera, created a story inspired by the teachings of Baba and other Indian spiritualists that would ultimately become Tommy.

Tommy did more than revitalize The Who's career (which was moderately successful at this point but had plateaued), it also marked a renewal of Townshend's songwriting and his spiritual studies infused most of his work from Tommy forward. However, unlike other openly spiritual rock stars whose music became dogmatic once they discovered religion, Townshend generally soft-pedaled the religious nature of his work. This may have been because his newfound passion was not shared by his bandmates whose attitude was tolerant but who were unwilling to become the spokesmen for a particular religion. Few of the thousands of fans who packed stadiums across Europe and America to see The Who noticed the religious message in the songs; that "Bargain" and the middle section of "Behind Blue Eyes" from Who's Next and "Listening To You" from Tommy were all originally written as prayers, that "Drowned" from Quadrophenia and "Don't Let Go The Coat" from Face Dances were based on sayings by Meher Baba, that the "who are you, are you, are you" chorus from the song "Who Are You" was based on Sufi chants, or that "Let My Love Open The Door" was not a message from a lover but from God.

In interviews Townshend was more open about his beliefs, penning an article on Baba for Rolling Stone and stating that following Baba's teachings, he was opposed to the use of all psychedelic drugs, making him one of the first rock stars with counterculture credibility to turn against their use.

His stardom quickly made him the world's most-notable follower of Meher Baba. Having just missed out on meeting his avatar with Baba's death January 31, 1969 (ironically, work on Tommy kept him from making the pilgrimage), Townshend made several trips to visit Baba's tomb in India as well as becoming a frequent visitor to the Meher Baba Spiritual Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. At home he recorded and released his most overtly spiritual songs on records assembled, pressed and sold by Baba organizations. When these records became widely bootlegged, Townshend put together a selection of the tracks for release as the solo album Who Came First. One of the songs from that album, "Parvardigar," a Baba prayer set to music by Townshend, would gradually be accepted as a hymn by the Baba movement. In 1976 he opened the Oceanic Centre in London, using it as a haven for English Baba followers and Americans making a pilgrimage to Baba's tomb as well as a place for small concerts (one such in 1979 was released on CD in 2001 as Pete Townshend & Raphael Rudd—The Oceanic Concerts) and a repository for films made of Baba.

Townshend became a lower-profile member after 1982 having felt that his just-ended two-year indulgence in cocaine and heroin had made him a poor candidate to be a spokesman. Nevertheless his discipleship remains an ever-present element of his career and a key to those looking for the meaning and background to his work.

Previous section by Cott12. - If the only two choices are at the top or at the bottom, then I say at the bottom. Hoverfish 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. Chris 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom in the followers section, AS AGREED in all the previous discussions. He is just one guy this TS in a sea of Baba people...its not his article! Honestly in the world of Baba folowers, likers, lovers, watchers, whatever, TS is just one guy. There are many many people Baba praised, who lead explemary lives, often quiet. Baba talked about the hollowness of fame. Its harder to just live a normal life and carry out ones responsibilities. Baba kept silent and did not seek fame. This article is about Baba. I still think Ts with one line and a link at the bottom is more than fair. Look, recently Townsend (TS) in this site had such a big space in the folowers section, but even earlier a big slice in the intro. Baba does not need TS in his intro. No offence to the earlier people who wrote it, but its not right.--Liam7 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tommy or Townshend?

Not mentioning Tommy, right from the start, would be like not mentioning the Beatles in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article.

If not for Tommy, I and several of my friends would never have heard of Baba. Some became devotees. So I am predisposed to see Tommy as important, because it was important to me.

I don't understand why mentioning Tommy is equated with fawning over Townshend. Tommy is an big element, IMO, but Townshend has relevance in this article only as its composer/author.

I don't think that any encyclopedia entry should evangelize, and I caution against that. Baba was a significant historical figure, having influenced many people during and after his life. The entry should be encyclopedia.

But Meher Baba had only modest fame, even in India, during most of his lifetime. This is not much different than many great spiritual figures. (Sai Baba of Shirdi, for example, was practically unknown during his life and after his death, until a biography 30 years later brought him fame.)

Baba became a cultural phenomenon throughout the world following release of Tommy. He was another celebrity guru. I mean no disrespect by saying this: I am talking about the reaction of the public, not saying that MB's motivation was to become a celebrity guru.

So I am strong with mentioning Tommy. Whether Townshend shows, in this article, is distinctly unimportant, IMO.--Nemonoman 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So would you place this information at the top or at the bottom of the article? Right now it is in the lead and in the close. Chris 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Per suggestion in Wikipedia:Lead section "A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead". And this means it should be mentioned somewhat more expanded in a relevant (sub)section. I admit there is one detail that favors the lead section, and this is that the distributable Wikipedia Version 1.0 will only include lead sections, so a lead section should summarize the contents so it can stand on its own. Since stress is given in the lead sentence on the 1960s, it should then be mentioned in this part of the article. I said I prefer it at the bottom, if it's the only mention, but if it stays in the lead, I believe the bottom mention should move to the sixties. Hoverfish 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems of it as currently stated in the lead, if this is where it winds up, is an unintentional allusion caused by the particular grammar. Taking out a piece to show the grammar allusion: "Meher Baba's message spread worldwide, particularly during the 1960's, with the release of Tommy." This implies, due to the placement of commas, that 'Meher Baba's message spread worldwide with the release of Tommy. This is further intensified by the juxtaposition of sentences, i.e. following this sentence with "Meher Baba's samadhi in Meherabad has become a place of pilgrimage." Thus the sentence grammar and arrangement of the paragraph could inadvertently lead to misunderstanding that Tommy made Baba's samadhi a place of pilgrimege. This could not be so since most of the anual vistors to Baba's samadhi are Indians at Amartithi. Chris 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the offending sentence to reflect the grammar critique.--Nemonoman 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: A strong point in favour of not having TS in the intro is that we have already decided by vote, to limit the TS content in the body of the article. Therefore without a body, no need appears for the mention in the intro.

Another point is that Townsend is NOT a 'significant argument' and therefore requires that it is not in the introduction.

What makes the Townsend content NOT a significant argument? Only those who have felt TS personally relevant in their lives as a subjective experience, belive TS is significant enough to be a key point. In ALL the literature on and about Baba Townsend is NOT significant IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT BABA. I have completed a full literature review over the years and the Townsend content is NOT SIGNIFICANT. Those who believe it is, need to take the big picture view, not the small I view.

I had hoped it woundnt come to this, but this discussion has reignited like a bushfire. So. It may be that there are only two types of people who know the best edit choices. 1/ those who follow Baba and have immersed themselves in all the material and 2/ non Baba people who have access to a wide range of printed material and first hand accounts of old Baba followers and have absorbed the atmosphere of at leat one of his three manin sites of pilgrimage. In short dedicated biogrphers who have the ability to mostly remove ther opinions.

What we may have here in this discussion is that non Baba people are basing their opinions on little or no actual contact with a Baba library, old Baba people, or actual experinces on a Baba place.

Instead it appears they use only web material, (which has a nasty habit of re-referencing itself in a loop). This underprepared situation as a basis for editing the Baba article creates situations like this with TS content where perspective is lacking. I repeat Townsend does not belong in the Intro based on a full literature review. I would ask all those who disagree to carry out their own full literture review. At least forty books, including all of those written by Baba and at least ten written by others with his editing approval and the rest by authors covering the time Townsend was around the scene.--Liam7 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing says that one needs to be a follower of a person to edit the article about the person. If you don't like my edits, make them better.--Nemonoman 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Nemonoman. I think it reads much better since your fix. Chris 15:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nemonoman I believe Liam is working up to fixing the edits, but unlike some previous changes made by other editors he is explaining his position first. Sounds very reasonable too. If you re read his words you can see he is not saying what you said he said. He is saying edit, sure, but know what you are taliking about and have the grace to accept that some changes may be needed and Not revert these changes when made Trojan.Hector 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hector I seem to remember your log in was the other way around! No matter. Your right however, about Liams point. Edit sure whoever you are, but give way if someone else knows better. Simple. I woundnt try to edit say, a physics page, Id look like a fool jumping in there. Same for any topic, some know more some less. Lifes like that. I would like to see more Baba people have an input. Where are they? Waylander.one 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the history of the Meher Baba article and you will see that I was one of its original editors. My reorganization and enlargement of the article last year (see before and after) sort of set the framework which later editors have followed and adapted. I am very pleased by how others have improved my initial efforts. If you compare that version to the current version here, you'll find that in spite of an excellent expansion of the article, most of my organization remains, and a significant number of my original edits.

I don't know precisely where I got the reputation for being an idiot, or for editing in an irresponsible or uncommunicative fashion. Just look at this talk page, for example, where I have discussed a number of different edits.--Nemonoman 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think your an idiot. Overall your work has been good. Lets keep discussing edits Liam7 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Xmas all. Keep the edits real. Goodbye for now. --Waylander.one 04:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-declared messiahs

Someone removed the recent addition of Category:Self-declared messiahs. This categorization is reasonable, and adds value. Why was it removed? Unless there is a good reason for the reversion, I will restore it. --Nemonoman 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes its reasonable. Baba said (paraphrasing here)if you are the highest of the high then you are beholden to say so. Put it back Nemonoman. --203.221.54.191 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Logged in now. Liam7 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor who placed the Category:Self-declared messiahs on this article. The category appeared in a working list of categories to be populated. In reviewing this article, I felt that Meher Baba qualified. I believe that the category itself adds value, and that his addition was both qualified and a valuable addition to the category. CRKingston 00:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The person who keeps removing this category seems to think Baba never self-declared. See the section Highest of the High:

...Baba proclaims his Avatarhood...--Nemonoman 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, was there any Avatar (or Mesiah) who wasn't self-proclaimed? There were always Perfect Masters or Saints who also proclaimed it, but I don't think anyone would know better and have more authority than the Avatar Himself to proclaim it. Others tried to proclaim Krisnamurti as the Mesiah, but he declined. I think however that this category is a pleonasm, but have no opinion on including it or not. Hoverfish Talk 18:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you try to put Jesus in Cateogry Self-declared messiahs don't be surprised what happens. It will be instantly removed as it has been in the past. This is because, while Jesus is considered to have proclaimed his own divinity, it is additionally argued that the appearance of the magi at his birth and the words of John the Baptist corroborated this before he did, thus he is not listed as a "self-declared" messiah. Yet Jesus does appear in the List of messiah claimants along with Meher Baba. In the case of Meher Baba it says in the first paragraph of the main article that Sai Baba declared Baba in his own terminology before Baba did also later, much in the manner of Jesus. This puts Meher Baba in a different class from Jim Jones and David Korish, Sun Myung Moon and others who populate the category in question. All those in that category attain all their authority from their own declarations without corroboration or parampara. Please examine who is in this cateogory and who is not and ask yourself why. Also, I see no sign that the editors on this site are the "emotional bunch" that some would propagate and find this a bit insulting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CRKingston&diff=prev&oldid=96565932 There is more than one contributor to this site that can think. Abronkeeler 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel emotional about it and also not an insult. If the category contains only "false Mesiahs" (in whose opinion?), it is misleading. I find it however inconsistent with what is written in the article. Of course for people not familiar with Meher Baba, who is Sai Baba after all? He is however another human person. Hoverfish Talk 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Abronkeeler, you seem to be the one who put Jesus in the category [1] so I don't know how genuine you are being. However, I do think there is something strange about a category called "Self-declared messiahs." What is the intent of it? The terminology seems, as Hoverfish said, to be a kind of pleonasm. Doing some sleuthing, I found a mirror site of how the cateogry evolved. It was originally a subcategory of Category:People noted for being in rare medical or psychological categories [2] (now deleted), which was in turn a subcategory of Category:Famous patients [3] (also now deleted). Its original caption read, "Self-declared messiahs are people who, for some reason, have declared themselves as representatives of the divine. Some have collected small following, others have remained largely alone" [4] and it had a template request to be populated. CRKingston then went and did the work of populating it very nicely. But it is interesting that it began as a mental disorder, but after the other categories that it was a subcategory of were deleted it stood out as slightly out of place. So this makes me think that, aside from its original intent as a category with people with messiah complexes, it doesn't make much sense. Not long ago George Bush famously said "I am the president; I am the decider." So should there be a category for "Self-declared presidents?" Such a term as "self-declared leader of a nation" would imply something very different than leaders who agree they're leaders. (-: Either they are or they aren't, but the add-on "self-declared" seems wordy unless its making an extra point. That's why pleonasm seems the right word for the category. Personally I'm for leaving Meher Baba out of this category. The category seems to be a relic of a misconceived idea that got abandoned. Cott12 Talk 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

About the cosmology section

Season's Greetings everyone. I feel we should discuss now about the peer-review point on Cosmology. My opinion is it should become somewhat more concise in this article. It's all in full detail under God Speaks and we connect to it as Main Article. Hoverfish Talk 13:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It was mentioned in the peer review for sure. I'll include that section below:

• I think you could create a sub-article about Baba's csmology and make a summary of it in this article. The cosmology section is quite long and could stand as an article itself.

Chris 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Cosmology" is not the right word. People look for other things under such a title. I think the title should be "God Speaks", connect to main article as does now "cosmology". Then "Evolution and Involution" and "Sanskaras" could follow as own sections. "Sanskaras" is very nicely writen. "Evolution and Involution" could do with some shortening. Hoverfish Talk 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics is by far better than cosmology. I think we are getting very close to request GA! Does it have to go first GA and then FA, or can we request directly class FA? Hoverfish Talk 13:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready to present too. Every suggestion on the peer-review seems to have been addressed. What do these initials GA FA stand for? I can't find the page. Can you give a link? Chris 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Good articles Wikipedia:Featured articles Wikipedia:Article development (changed my sig) Cott12 Talk 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Submitted an application for GA status at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Candidates#Philosophy and religion. Remove and apply for FA if you like. Cott12 Talk 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

FA is featured, which means the article gets presented in the Main page for a day. But if we get GA we have more chances. Let's hope and wait now. Thanks for archiving the talk page, I had delay problems with my slow system here. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

I went ahead and archived the first part of this page as per Wikipedia's suggestions on discussion page length. See top of page for archive link. Cott12 Talk 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's interested

The Meher Baba Dutch language article just achieved FA status. You can see the star on the top right of that article designating this. Much gratitude to the hard work and perseverance of Frankly speaking. Cott12 Talk 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GA

I see no reason not to pass this article for GA status. It meets all requirements. Passed. Da54 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian Spiritual Master?

I take issue with the opening sentence: "Meher Baba, born Merwan Sheriar Irani (February 25, 1894 – January 31, 1969), was an Indian spiritual master." What are the exact requirements to be considered a spiritual master?! I think a far more appropriate term for him would be a spiritual teacher, guru, or spiritual leader. 'Spiritual master', especially in the first sentence, gives an implied sense of authority to a man who does not have such authority. This article is clearly heavily policed by devoted followers of this guru. Algabal 10:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The change from "guru" to "spiritual master" was made by Liam7 who's 4 sockpuppets have all since been permanently blocked by administrators. See his change here: [5]. I took the liberty of reverting it to the way it was before. Cott12 Talk 14:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FA!

Time to submit this article for Featured Article status. As somebody once said -- It's a Slam Dunk! Cott12, do you want to do the submission? If not, I'll do it. --Nemonoman 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From my side, I'm all for FA! Hoverfish Talk 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone besides me would do the application submission. I'll do my best to be available to help respond to criticism and constructive suggestions to hopefully see it through. It might be good to point out that the Dutch version has been a Featured Article for about a year.http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba. It might also be helpful to point out that this article received one Wikiproject Biography peer review on December 1, 2006, and that these excellent points were all carefully addressed. Cott12 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

please convert this article to use harvard citation first. Like this. Also, the lede is much too long. It has to be snappier: Who was Meher Baba (1 sentence), and what is he notabable for (another sentence). The present lede is too detailed, if it cannot be integrated into the text itself, it should be placed in an "Introduction" section. Also, there is too much inter-connectivity between the individual top-level sections (too many!) and the article has to be read top-to-bottom to see how things are connected. I personally think the article should be rearranged with three top-level sections: a) Biography, b) Teachings/Ideology, c) Legacy. I feel it would be more encyclopedic that way, but like I said, this is my personal opinion.

-- Fullstop 15:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ps: Minor issue: the "(mandali)" in the lede needs to be changed to "(see mandali)." In the present context, it sort-of appears as if "mandali" literally meant 'disciples' rather than the 'circle' a few words earlier. Alternatively, lose the parenthesis and say: "... his close disciples - his mandali - etc ..."

pps: Another minor issue: does the name "Meher Baba" ever appear in Persian? Or is this OR? (perhaps to promote the idea that MB is somehow connected to Iran?). Even though my edits are primarily Iran-related, I find the nationalism ala "of Persian descent" in the first sentence (of all places) extraordinarily pathetic. Meher Baba's contributions to humanity are his own, not those of his ancestors. Or is this a harbinger of "Jesus Christ, of Jewish descent ..." sillyness?

ppps: I have a picture somewhere of Zoroastrian charity housing that looks exactly like the one MB grew up in. Its not the same building (which has been torn down and I wasn't in Poona when they did it), but its about two blocks away from where MB's childhood home was. Would it be relevant/not OR?

About the lead section, please note in Wikipedia:Lead section: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Hoverfish Talk 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific about "concise", "overview", "establishing context", "important points" and "explain why ... notable" that you do not understand? -- Fullstop 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead used to be very brief, until we had the article peer reviewed. The first point of the reviewer was to extend the lead, which is what we did. I think the size is not too long. Some FA's have a much longer lead (see Charles Darwin for one). Most are about this size. Lengthwise I'd keep it as it is. Hoverfish Talk 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I take back the Darwin example, as the length is the same :) Hoverfish Talk 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

uhhh! Now I get what you're trying to say. No, length is not the issue. Whats important is that one can quickly "grasp" why the article exists in the first place. For example, the lede section of the Darwin article does precisely what it should: it is a concise overview of Darwin's accomplishments. It does not begin with his childhood and how he became a naturalist. He goes straight to evolution, which is precisely why anyone would want to read an article on Darwin. It then quickly summarizes the seminal voyage on the Beagle and how Darwin came to make his conclusions.

If the lede section of Meher Baba article would do precisely that, then all would be well. But it doesn't. Note how I captured the idea of the lede of the Darwin article in a few sentences? Thats simply not possible to do with the Meher Baba article. Doesn't matter though, comparison with the Darwin article is not constructive to this article.

--

So lets be constructive.

Step 1. You start by telling me what it is that Meher Baba is notable for. You can be as long or short as necessary, whats important is that you give me the basic facts that ought' to be common knowledge. If it helps, you can pretend your audience is a child and you are telling a bedside story. Like "Meher Baba was a wise man who gave the world many wonderful ideas. For example, he teaches us ..." (alternatively, if you're familiar with the term "inverted triangle", you can pretend you're writing an "obituary" for a newspaper.)

Step 2. I'll work on it from the (adult) reader's point of view (and as if I knew nothing about Meher Baba) and pass it back.

Step 3. Then we'll see what crucial details are missed. Voila! thats it, a new lede section.

-- Fullstop 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ps: reminder to people following this: there are other issues I mentioned in my initial post that ought to be addressed as well.

Lead Attempt:

Meher Baba, born Merwan Sheriar Irani (February 25, 1894 – January 31, 1969), was an Indian guru who achieved international noteriety for his essays on spirituality, and for his claim that he was [[Avatar|god in human form]. Despite a vow of silence, he travelled extensively, gathering many followers who tried to live accoring to his most famous admonition: "Don't Worry, Be Happy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemonoman (talk • contribs) 13:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

great start!

perhaps better:

... received international attention for his essays on spirituality, and for his claim that he was an avatar, that is, a divine aspect in human form

or alternatively:

... achieved fame for ... essays ..., and notoriety for ... claim ...

aside from this and minor spelling issues, a great lead. Any other suggestions? -- Fullstop 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting more feeback and different opinions

How about waiting just a bit to get more feedback first? There is nothing very unusual about the lead section or organization of this article for an article within the category 'spiritual teacher.' Consider the article for Jiddu Krishnamurti. Also the current article and its lead were written in response to an impartial peer review from the Wikiproject Biography department. Also, if it is a slam dunk for FA, then why not apply and see what comments are given from the general community before any major changes are made. Also, the suggestion made by Hoverfish of application for A status as an interum step seems a reasonable one to discuss. Cott12 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has come up to GA after we did considerable work. Let's not go back to class B, please. I think we should first hear from a peer reviewer about getting it to class A, before we attempt any radical changes. If we hear that the lead needs to become shorter, then let's all work for it. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

@Cott, I'm just as impartial as the WP Biography guys. :) Re: your comparison to Krishnamurti (which has no rating) and compare its layout (2 top level sections) to the organization here. Note also that MB lead section does not tell me what he actually accomplished, or rather why those accomplishments are noteworthy. Compare this with the first sentence of Km: "... was a well-known writer and speaker on fundamental philosophical and spiritual subjects, such as the purpose of meditation, human relationships, and how to enact positive change in global society." Bang! Bang! Bang!

Material wise, the MB article is much better because it distills his teachings for the reader, while the Km article too often requires the reader to extract information from (and only from) direct quotations.

@Hover: I don't think the lead needs to become shorter (or longer), I think it needs to become precise. As in "Give me what I should know about MB in a few sentences."

If you guys want, I can break down the lead into individual sentences (or sentence groups when related to one another) and we can then together see what is and what is not actually relevant to what he is famous for. I think you'll find a) that there are few sentence groups, most statements being independent of the others around it; b) the lead section does not provide a coherent picture of MB; c) that the words supposedly describing his interests, i.e "Religion", "Metaphysics", "Aesthetics", "Ethics", do not appear in the lead section, as also do not "Philosophy" or "Teachings" or "Writings" (or related terms). His teachings are not mentioned with a single word!

-- Fullstop 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, if this article is going to be submitted for A or FA status on Wikipedia, then do that. Then see what impartial members of the Wikipedia community have to say about its current form before making radical changes -- taking those impartial views from the community into account once they are gathered. That's all I'm saying. Cott12 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)