Jump to content

Talk:Meher Baba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hoverfish (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 18 October 2018 (→‎Edit War: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revised edition of biography has different page count

In the last couple days the new Revised Online Edition of Meher Baba's biography, Lord Meher,[1] came online and replaced the original version. The original Online Edition had the same page count as the 1986 20 volume print edition, thus all references to it (either online or in print) are correctly stated as Kalchuri (1986). The new issue is that the new Revised Online Edition has a very different page count from the original, thus references to anything taken from it should be marked in some way to show which edition they refer to. The 1986 print edition is expensive (at 20 volumes, hard cover only) and out of print. Thus many do not have access to it. So in the future it would be fine, I think, to reference the Revised Online Edition so long as there is a clear designation for it (to differentiate it from 1986 original). I suggest a citation read Kalchuri (2013) or Kalchuri, (Revised Online Edition). Whatever is decided here ought to be the standard for any future references throughout Wikipedia (there are many other articles that refer to Kalchuri) to avoid confusion. Any suggestions how to broach it are welcome. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonble. I vote for this Kalchuri (2013) as Im lazy :). SaintAviator (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References section not a Bibliography

The reference section at the bottom of the article is a list of books that are cited within the article. It is not a bibliography of books related to Meher Baba. For a rather complete bibliography of books by and about Meher Baba (as of 2009) see this nearly exhaustive 220 page Bibliography provided by the Avatar Meher Baba Trust. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

There had been talk about changing the main picture a couple times a year, and that time is coming up. But I feel that we finally stumbled on one there now that addresses everyone's concerns. A good straight on image without that is a good blend between candid shot and studio portrait, not a profile, and rather representative of him in mid-point in his life. I'm for keeping it as the permanent picture, unless something better gets added. Right now I think it's the most appropriate of the ones in Commons. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't it time to archive some of this page? Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Archived. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discus proposed edits first please

User:Parvardigar78 clearly you edited in good faith. Its best however to discuss changes first to get consensus SaintAviator talk 23:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Babajan School

I changed a long-standing error. The school Baba established in 1924 was the Hazrat Babajan School, later called Hazrat Babajan High School. The Prem Ashram was another project that was an offshoot of the school, and had very few boys. It was from 1927-1929. It was not an educational institution, but literally an ashram for meditation and recitations where boys gained spiritual advancement through practices. The details are too long for this article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats right, Im actually reading the hard copy of LM on that section now. SaintAviator talk 22:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Saint Aviator for confirming that. I only learned this very recently. This has been in error since the origination of the article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indicated vs claimed and other edits

Grunionspawn. I always assume good faith, but please discuss edits here first. This edit by you is less graceful that what existed before when the entire Baba story is considered.

Your edit. Baba is said to have believed that his automobile accidents and the suffering that attended them were, like his silence, purposeful and brought about by his will.

Previous. Baba indicated that his automobile accidents and the suffering that attended them were, like his silence, purposeful and brought about by his will.

Baba did not 'say' (said) anything. He was silent. Indicted is the far better phrasing.

Also another of your edits again used claimed. Here is the original line. 'Baba indicated that their spiritual status was actually quite elevated'. All things considered, indicated is best I believe. SaintAviator talk 06:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that assumption SaintAviator. I assume the same of you.

The edits are "less graceful" perhaps to Baba lovers who take Baba's claims at face value. Yet more accurate. "Indicated," in the manner in which you have repeatedly used, means to specify or point out something that is objectively and observably true. I assume you do not mean "indicted," but "indicated" is also wrong. I stick by the phrasing "said to have believed" as the objective one. There is no implication that he said it himself. Better still would be to either tell us who said it or delete the magical claim (that he could cause accidents by force of will) entirely.

Likewise since there is no such observably true thing as "spiritual status" Baba could not have "indicated" anything about it. I do not "indicate" that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has touched me with his noodly appendage, I "claim" it. Kindly cancel the reverts. Grunionspawn (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of the automobile accident. The reference given is Lord Meher p.5241. I do not have a hard copy and evidently this page does not correspond to the revised online version. So assuming it is p.5241 of the old online version (p.4219/4220 of the new), I read that in response to Eruch's bad feelings for having been the driver during the accident, Meher Baba told him: "It has nothing to do with you. The accident had to happen and it has happened. I had told you all there would be a personal calamity. Why should you feel so sad about it?" Then in p.5242 of the old version (p.4221 revised), Meher Baba is quoted to have stated: "My accident is no accident, and it all comes to one thing: what I wanted has happened, and what I want will happen." I do not see any statement that the "accident happened purposefully and brought about by his will". Maybe we should think of fixing this statement.

About magic and belief: I can say "I wanted team A to win and it won" with no magical implications involved. I can also say "I want team B to win and it will win" again with no magical implications, even if team B ends up winning. In the second case it can be said that I had a belief that came true, but here we are not dealing with future events. In our case, it would be our guess or evaluation to state that Baba believed it, or guessed it or had the absolute certainty of it, or said it to make the driver feel better about it. According to the source, Baba is not said to have believed something, so it would be best to stick to what we have, i.e. a statement so-and-so. Hoverfish Talk 20:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have access actual quote old online copy (hard copy). Checked Page 5241. You are correct Hoverfish. '"What makes you so presumptuous to think you are the cause of my pain? Who are you?" "I was the driver", Eruch said. "It is but natural for me to feel this way." "It has nothing to do with you. The accident had to happen and it has happened. I had told you all there would be a personal calamity. Why should you feel so sad about it?". SaintAviator talk 22:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor NPOV Edits

It has been a few years since I visited this article and I must say it has been vastly improved since then. I did however note some lingering verb usage that indicated less than unbiased viewpoint. The claim that Irani "experienced visions" cannot be independently verified, and thus must be identified as a claim. In multiple places the verb "indicated" is used to describe an observation or belief by Meher Baba or his followers; since the accuracy of the observation or belief cannot be objectively verified it must again be described as "Baba is said (by ???) to have believed," "Baba claimed," "Baba stated," etc. Thank you. Grunionspawn (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussion and the edit summaries and I think that the points raised by Grunionspawn, however minor, might help the NPOV of the article.

However, I find "is said to have believed" somewhat complicated in the flow of the text, although correct in principle. Is there a simpler alternative? As for the definition of "indicated", here is what I find in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indicate : 1. To show the way to or the direction of; point out (an arrow indicating north; indicated the right road by nodding toward it). 2. To serve as a sign, symptom, or token of; signify (The cracking and booming of the ice indicate a change of temperature). 3. To suggest or demonstrate the necessity, expedience, or advisability of (The symptoms indicate immediate surgery). 4. To state or express briefly (indicated his wishes in a letter; indicating her approval with a nod). Can you please, Grunionspawn, indicate where you find the definition "to specify or point out something that is objectively and observably true" and tell whether that source has any other definitions apart from it? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that #4 above can refer to some issue that is not objectively and observably true, like one's wishes, as in the above example. Hoverfish Talk 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintAviator: I understand that "indicated" is used here to differentiate from "said", but its valid use would be "indicated by hand movements that...", or "indicated by means of his alphabet board that...". To write that Baba "indicated" that the accident was brought about by his will, would be like pointing to a fact. The verb "claimed" applies better as it stands for "to state to be true, especially when open to question" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claim), and obviously whether Baba caused the accident with his will is open to question by the general reader. "Claimed" also is "a statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth". Another alternative would be "asserted". Hoverfish Talk 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverfish, you are correct in that "indicated" does not have to refer to an objective reality. Yet the current construction of the article uses an improper use of definition #1. For definition #4 of "indicated" to apply here, the construction would properly have to be "Baba indicated his belief that," or better, "Baba indicated, through the use of alphabet board and hand signals, as interpreted by Eruch, his belief that..." Considerably less elegant than "claimed," which captures the intended meaning rather precisely I think. I am OK with "asserted," but the casual reader might take that to mean that Baba was an assertive person, or that he argued the point with others, which I don't necessarily see to be the case as despite his various insistences he doesn't seem an assertive sort of fellow. But I'm sure you know of his personality traits better than I.Grunionspawn (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I have no problem with "claimed" and since "asserted" may be taken to indicate an assertive character, I agree that it is not a good alternative. So unless a fourth party disagrees I will turn one instance I see needed to "claimed" and will modify the statement about the accident to reflect the reference given in a more direct way, avoiding any questionable statements. Hoverfish Talk 22:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you @ Hoverfish re 'differentiate from "said" up to a point. With MB all four definitions can apply at once as we know, and this article is not a shallow one anymore. It has as Grunionspawn asserted 'vastly improved'. It now has enough scope to plumb Babas depths a bit more. There is a synergy of some words used in relation to Meher Baba not talking that work well, because of the linkage between 'said' and 'talking'. Indicated is one of them. Claimed is a good descriptor also, but its use earlier by Grunionspawn didn't flow as well I thought. However his input has raised some good points. I believe we should have a mix in the lexicon, using asserted, claimed and indicated and other such words: Diversity is better, like we do by mixing the references by not relying too much on one i.e previous overuse of LM.

I do however like asserted. IMO its entirely the correct phrase for use in relation to this article and MB at some points. We shouldn't exclude such a descriptive word because someone presumes some reader will think MB aggressive when 'asserted' is used. Such speculation is an unlimited game, dependent on mood and other factors we should leave alone. Best to use accepted definitions. Denying such descriptive words and the nuances they offer does lead to blandness in writing. However since it was bought up, the view assertive = aggressive is a common and unfortunate misnomer. From WP. Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive. And more 'a form of behaviour characterized by a confident declaration or affirmation of a statement without need of proof; this affirms the person's rights or point of view without either aggressively threatening the rights of another'. Asserted is thus a great word which fits some of Meher Babas trait, very well .i.e. confidence, making declarations, being self-assured without either aggressively threatening the rights of another. The loss of such a word is a loss for this article.

Lastly we should not also try to protect MB from the idea someone may think him aggressive or such like. I dont get that Grunionspawn. Lets just be NPOV with a good mix of words. Good writing is re writing. SaintAviator talk 22:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since my level of English is near-native, I would wait for Dazedbythebell to offer a fourth opinion before I make up my mind about "asserted". I think I did use "asserted" once in a side article and he corrected me, though I may remember wrong. To avoid repetition of the same expression where possible is good, but to use words that may add unclear connotations to phrases would be worse than repetition. It is not a matter of "protecting Meher Baba" from any "improper" implication or characterization, but a matter of protecting the status of the article. If we should describe Meher Baba as having an aggressive side, or any other side, then 1. we have to base such claim on a certain notable source which makes this claim directly (without getting into original research to come up with the statement), 2. the qualification should be essential and helpful in describing the subject, and 3. it has to be done in due weight within the overall context. Hoverfish Talk 03:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with equalizing good writing with re-writing, especially after all the gradual progress done to bring this article to its present level. I just read it from from top to bottom and I think it reads very well. I am also thankful when we get feedback or constructive criticism from users like Grunionspawn who were not so much involved in the particulars of all this work, and they see it from an independent perspective. Hoverfish Talk 03:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re re writing. Re-writing includes 'the gradual progress'. Authors talk about the struggle over a single word or phrase. So we are on the same page with that. We dont need another seismic edit.

Yes feedback is good. I thought what I said about 'Assertive' made a lot of sense. SaintAviator talk 06:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Grunionspawn raised a valid enough point about a phrase that was vague, and Hoverfish was right to check the source. I also took a look. I think the new phrasing meets Grunionspawn's objection and improves the paragraph. I think SaintAviator's points are heard too, and I think this is likely as good a compromise as we can reach. I hope this can now be moved beyond. Looks good. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does look good and we can probably close this off. Perhaps next time 'asserted' can top the list of next phrases to use. SaintAviator talk 00:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I have no problem with "a personification of God in human form" to explain the word Avatar, although I would prefer the expression "manifestation of God in human form". Also changing the definite article to indefinite is fine. But the change of the next paragraph to "During this time he learned from five spiritual masters before he began teaching and instructing his own disciples in early 1922, at the age of 27" has some problems. One is grammatical. He learned what? Or if the intransitive form is meant, He learned about/of what? Then teaching and instructing are overlapping. I will change this sentence back, as it was more correct in both respects. Hoverfish Talk 23:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Aviator, I was doing a partial revert and there must have been an edit conflict between us. Hoverfish Talk 23:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh...ok SaintAviator lets talk 05:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with the indefinite vs. definite article on "Avatar" depends on the level of explanation we want to offer. If you read the article Avatar you will see that it is not clear for any reader that Avatar is one and the same always. For people who understand God as One and only this should be self-explanatory. But there are all these uses as in Avatar of Vishnu, Avatar of Shiva, Avatar of Brahma, so yes, in Baba's own words, the Avatar is always the same One, but this should need to be made clear then, hopefully not in the intro as this would put too much stress in this one point. Hoverfish Talk 23:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hoverfish and SaintAviator (who commented twice in his edit summaries) that the recent edits by 111.69.102.38 were in good faith, and that the editor meant well. But both editors are correct that the subject is highly complicated, and while these expressions sound more normal they would be entirely wrong in the context. Also the expression "personification of ____ in human form" (regardless of what you put in the blank) is a redundant sentence. Baba did say he was "the" Avatar and not "an" Avatar. SaintAviator is right that on the first page of the discussion history log at the bottom of the page this is already explained. There are 32 instances of his saying it in his published biography and it is in all biographies in those words. As it says in that discussion thread, "Whether or not he truly was is irrelavent to the article, as it is at least an encyclopedic fact that he said that he was." Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on Hoverfish's points about the definition of Avatar. This is a very hard topic for the reason that Meher Baba clearly and repetitively defined the word one way. To go into that does not fit in the lead paragraph. One will notice, however, that it is covered in the text of the article under the heading Perfect Masters and the Avatar and there is even a sub-article it links to for further detail. It cannot fit within parentheses in the lead. The words "God in human form" are there as this is one way Baba phrased its meaning, and to separate it from the various other meanings in the Hindu term article. Incidentally Meher Baba was not himself Hindu. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good lets say somewhere what THE Avatar is to differentiate between that and what pic I put on some blog. I still remember when Avatar was a rare word. Lol. SaintAviator lets talk 05:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at how clear this is. It could be the best place is to make it a whole section in the sub-article that is linked to. This will give us a place where this is discussed and referenced in some depth, and so we don't have to clutter the main article with this side-show that only now (as you mention) has become so important to everyone. Thank you James Cameron for bringing attention to this confused word. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See past discussion on Avatarhood

Please see this Apri-May 2013 discussion about Meher Baba's Declaration of Avatarhood. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jvpwiki. Please do not revert without using the discussion page and reaching consensus. This has been discussed at length in the past and a consensus was reached then. While it is often said that Meher Baba first declared his Avatarhood in 1954, it is not actually the case. There are eight instances of Baba saying he is the Avatar before 1954 in Lord Meher alone — including saying it in 1930, 1938, 1939, 1952, and three times in 1953. See for example from 1938:
"The time is near – the world is in chaos. That is why I declared publicly in the magazine article, 'I am the Avatar.'" (Lord Meher, 1986, p. 2324). Such examples are not limited to his main biography. In December 1942 Baba said, "I am the last Avatar in this present cycle of twenty-four, and therefore the greatest and most powerful." (Gift of God, by Arnavaz Dadachanji, p. 72)
Please do not edit war, and avoid this and the lengthy past discussion and consensus. Also, when you change what is said in a referenced sentence, without checking the references, it is not constructive. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unaware that this article is an ongoing group project. I also understand your point about previous declarations of Avatarhood, although the wording I proposed did not apply that 1954 was the first occasion. My only remaining points are, first, that the switch from presenting as a Perfect Master to presenting as the Avatar is incredibly significant, and if it is a gradual process rather than a single declaration, then that seems quite worth of more detail than the article seems to provide. Second, "said he was the Avatar" is a pretty lame representation of a formal declaration of that status. Said over dinner? On the way to the airport? Over toddy? I notice that the discussion above uses the term declare and declaration, and I suggest that this term is much more representative of the significance of this event. Along that line, I think "Avatar of the Age" is much more accurate than simply "Avatar" as a reflection of what Baba said about his status. Big difference, I think. Why not say "Avatar of the Age"? I don't want to slog over well-worn paths, but it doesn't seem that these points were made in the discussion you cited.

I agree that an edit war is inappropriate. JCvP 00:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

In the form it was in before you changed it, as it was agreed over a year ago by those who participated in the discussion I linked to, the wording was that he "said" he was the Avatar. This is in fact true. The references (and there could be many more) if followed show that he said literally "I am the Avatar." So this wording that he said he was the Avatar was precisely right. Because that is what he said. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm yeah going with Dazedbythebell on this one Jvpwiki SaintAviator lets talk 01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I have restored the lead section as it was before the recent changes and moved one paragraph pertaining to God Speaks in the appropriate section. There is also an added and referenced text that can be added to a relevant section, but not in the lead, as we don't have any supporting text in the rest of the article and the lead should "summarize the content of the whole article". Here is the text I removed from the first paragraph of the lead:

While Meher Baba does not emphasize intellect alone as a path to perfection, in his principal publication God Speaks Meher Baba goes deeper into the subject of metaphysics than most other Indian masters. In his book Mastery of Consciousness, Allan Y. Cohen, Ph.D. writes that Meher Baba's "explanations of the creation, purpose, and evolution of the universe may be the most explicit ever written."<ref>''Mastery of Consciousness'', Allan Y. Cohen, Ph.D., Harper & Row, New York, 1977, p. 21</ref>

Please discuss any intended changes so that a consensus can be reached. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 10:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is the diff of the whole edit by Gnganing [2]. Hoverfish Talk 10:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This material about Allan Cohen on God Speaks was simply copied and pasted from the Overview section of the God Speaks article. It should not be simply repeated here since a link is given within the article and at the bottom. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the review by Evans Wentz lifted from the article about the book in its section on Reviews, does not seem to belong in a section in the main article under the heading "Teachings." The rest of that section sticks to the topic, and the review belongs in the longer article on the book itself. So I'm taking it out at that spot. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Meher Baba's flag

Meher Baba's flag is not notable enough for its own article. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree. The flag issue, although by itself a valid topic, is not important enough for the biography article. It would be trivia here. Hoverfish Talk 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Hoverfish. SaintAviator lets talk 01:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally thousands of flag articles on Wikipedia. Many of them are just as brief and obscure as the Meher Baba flag article. See these Lists of flags. If Meher Baba's flag were to be merged it should be merged with Rainbow flag. Dazedbythebell (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Category:Flags. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems notable in terms of Meher Baba's life, and as Dazedbythebell's post shows, isn't an unusual topic for a Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn 13:37 29 March, 2015 (UTC)

The flag is too trivial an issue for this biography article. In its present length, this article attempts to give a general idea of Meher Baba's life and work, and does so in a successful way. If we were to include here other issues as trivial as Baba's flag (and there are plenty), the article would become huge, unfocused, unstable and would most probably not comply with GA criteria any longer. I second Dazedbythebell's suggestion that if the flag article should be merged, the best place to do so would be the Rainbow flag. Hoverfish Talk 14:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't think a merge to Rainbow Flag is appropriate. The page mentions this page, and has a 'main article' link at the top of the section, as do almost all of the other sections of that page. So each Rainbow Flag seems to have its own page as well as being mentioned there, so the "Meher Baba's flag" article fits in that style and probably should stay as a fuller page on the topic. Randy Kryn 14:33 29 March, 2015 (UTC)
Thats a four to one consensus. Motion carried unless four more 'nays' enter the discussion to support Cpt.a.haddock. SaintAviator lets talk 23:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the consensus appears to be not to merge. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold and closing this according to consensus as an admin advised me to do. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the merge proposal banner looks like the proper move to me. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 01:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Category Ascetic

I removed the category ascetic that was added July 12, 2015. While Meher Baba often fasted and was frugal and not married, he was not an ascetic, which implies one who undergoes austerities and has no possessions in order to train to achieve some state. Meher Baba ate healthy food, lived in a house, had normal furnishings, wore clean clothing, etc. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sufism Cat

I reverted the Sufism Category. His book God Speaks was published by Sufism Reoriented, Inc. which is an American non-Islamic organization. However, Meher Baba was not a member of Sufism Reoriented. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree removing category Sufism, because Meher Baba's teachings contain Sufi elements only in a syncretic way, often compared with Hinduist or western mystic concepts. Hoverfish Talk 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both. SaintAviator lets talk 04:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links to quotes, messages

For those who wish to add external links to various websites with messages and quotes (anthologies) of Baba's, there are several reasons that it is preferable to stick with the current official Meher Baba Trust source.

  1. All quotes, pamphlets, and books by Meher Baba on the Trust website are copyrighted there. The Trust owns the copyright of all Baba's writing, including small quotes. "Copyright © 2003-2011 Avatar Meher Baba Perpetual Public Charitable Trust, Ahmednagar, India. All quotes of Meher Baba copyright ©Avatar Meher Baba Perpetual Public Charitable Trust, unless otherwise indicated."
  2. There are many unofficial anthologies online, yet they are less complete, unverified, and not copyrighted by those sites. So choosing other sites that dupicate information without clear cause violates Wikipedia policy about Spam. This is often not intentional. "Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia." [3]
  3. There is already a link to Wikiquote, on the right, under External Links.
Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Center in Myrtle Beach, not North Myrtle Beach

The Meher Center is in the 29572 zip code, which is Myrtle Beach, not North Myrtle Beach. See boundary of North Myrtle Beach. Although it is not technically in the city limits of Myrtle Beach, it is nonetheless in the Myrtle Beach postal zone. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removal of photo

I have reviwed the photo of the Poona residence that was removed and I agree with its removal. The photo of the illuminated porch of the Poona residence of Baba is not indicative of anything worth including in such a short biography article. The link to the Commons photos should be enough for this and similar photos. Hoverfish Talk 21:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations on over a dozen Meher Baba pages

In case regular page watchers here are not aware of it Winged Blades of Godric has just put up over a dozen Baba-related pages for deletion (and I'd ask him to please put up a clear detailed listing here of all the pages he's nominated). I've discovered many of them, and I've never seen such a wide-scale attempt to WikiGut a topic here than this. The language used on talk pages and in the nominations themselves show a clear bias against the topic, insult the topics, and I would hope provide a basis for asking an admin to remove all of these nominations. Since the nominations and language use such biased language I am forced to have to say I am not a member of any Baba group, do not know anyone who is, and have no opinion about the topic other than to note that Wikipedia has a good collection of these pages. If this editor succeeds (and note that these are flat-out deletion nominations, not merges to the main article) much information about Baba's associates, family, prayers, holidays, etc. will be lost from Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nominations

A large number of articles, connected with the issue, have been put forward by me for deletion and/or redirection. Editors are welcome to participate in the AfDs and opine their views.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 15:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please list them individually so editors have some sense of both the scope of your deletion requests and where to find them all. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early on 8 May, Avatar Meher Baba Trust was first blanked and redirected to Meher Baba. Few hours later User:Dazedbythebell reverted this. I noticed the interaction almost immediately and briefly tried to reason with the nominator, thinking that the blanking had been improper, which I learned was not. After this an avalanch of deletion nominations on Baba related articles started. First another editor nominated the Trust article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar Meher Baba Trust and then Winged Blades of Godric nominated the following articles:

I am not aware if further related nominations have taken place. Hoverfish Talk 18:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hoverfish. Several of these have now been relisted for new or further comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the editors who participate in these discussions are inclined to acknowledge how the issue of lack of sources in these articles is a case of systemic bias. Their only argument is "sources" and all the rest is seen as dust kicking. Hoverfish Talk 23:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's odd to redirect a person to a section in an article where their name is used once. There was no vote for that in the Eruch Jessawala discussion. Better to be deleted I think. Can it be relisted for deletion? Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted, all the edit history is gone. Then the title got re-created with a redirect on it. I'm not sure under which excuse this could be deleted, there are some speedy ones, but deletion has never been my favorite pastime in Wikipedia. I don't see any reason for deleting it as long as it's orphaned. The link is off the template (it should propagate soon to the what-links-here of E.J.) and all we have to do is get it off all the articles of the what-links-here. If anyone happens to look for Eruch in Wikipedia he'll just find the mention in MB. Hoverfish Talk 00:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Note: I took the link off several articles and the name off some lists of notable people. Now this name is mentioned only in talk pages. Hoverfish Talk 10:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I have added one more item to the list and notes about the outcome of some listed AfDs that were not deleted. Hoverfish Talk 10:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia COI on Baba followers?

I just saw this and it is alarming: User talk:Dazedbythebell#Note. On what basis is a Baba follower in COI for editing Baba related articles? There is no organization sanctioning Baba followers. If I chose to state I am a Baba follower what is the COI that forbids me to edit Baba articles? Like if I say I follow Plato I am not supposed to edit Plato? Is this credo policing? Hoverfish Talk 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the Christian, Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Sports, and other such articles and WikiProjects are going to lose a whole lot of long-time and new editors with this use of the policy. Luckily I'm not a "follower" of Baba ("Which way did he go?"), don't know any, and have only read maybe four or five pages of one of his books, so I didn't get one of those notices. But thanks for alerting others of this new policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the same logic, deletionists should be banned from AfDs :) Hoverfish Talk 19:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SPA can be an issue, even if not COI. We do indubitably have a lot of problems with connected editors who follow this or that belief system. (And articles on yoga have often been noted to be practically walled gardens, for example.) I've not bothered checking if Dazedbythebell edits much outside of the Baba topic area but if they do not then probably it would be a good thing to spread out a little. If not, people need to keep a very close eye on what they're doing because, AGF or no AGF, wittingly or otherwise, they're likely to introduce bias and it is a topic area that doesn't get the coverage of mainstream beliefs. Just some thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained use of the term Avatar in the context of Meher Baba

@Nyttend: has brough up a valid point about the use of the word Avatar in the lead of the article. The term is linked to the Hinduist article, where it is treated in its original sense. However Meher Baba also mentioned Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad as Avatars. Also he gave the alternate term the Ancient One. So I agree that the unexplained use of the term in the lead may confuse a reader. One has to read all the way to section Perfect Masters and the Avatar to find the clarification needed. And now with all the related AfDs going on, and especially that of Perfect Master (Meher Baba) we may remain with even less clarification for the reader as to the use of some key terms. So it may be proper to give some clue as to the use of Avatar right from the beginning. One thought was to link the term to the above mentioned section, instead of to the Hinduist article and link to the latter from within that section. Hoverfish Talk 13:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent change. Well thought. Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if he said that Zoroaster etc. were also Avatars, how could he be the Avatar? Wouldn't he be an Avatar? Maybe I'm messing up because of my unfamiliarity with the topic (I'm not even sure what religion we'd call him; he sounds Hindu, but he's categorised as a Sufi); sorry if I'm causing problems. I just ran across something mentioning the name and came here to figure out what it was, and I was surprised because I thought "Maher [sic] Baba" was some sort of Hindu theological term, not a 20th-century religious leader. And I was unaware of the AFDs before reading what Hoverfish wrote about them. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only you are not causing poroblems, but you give useful feedback for possible improvements to the article. Actually his family was Zoroastrian. They were "Iranis" i.e. people who migrated to India from Iran. His statement about religion was: "I do not intend to found any religion, cult, creed or society. There are already far too many of these organizations." And to the extent possible his followers avoid being or acting as one, though religious practices do take place, without them being any sort of "must do" or "must act" so in order to be a good [?]. So we can't say there IS a religion, though the article is classified as New Religious Movement as there is no better branch to place it under. He sounds Sufi as his father was a Sufi mystic and he sounds Hindu as most of his followers were Hindus and Moslems in faith and he didn't ask them to be anything else. Actually in many of his teachings he used some key terms from many traditions syncretically. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the use of "the" instead of "an" is simply because we quote his statement. Hoverfish Talk 21:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're quoting him, I can't ask for a change :-) Thank you for the help. I assumed he wouldn't be classified as Zoroastrian because tons of this would (seemingly) be nonsense to someone who had only ever heard of Zoroaster and Ahura Mazda, and I didn't quite understand how this would fit any kind of Islam (but Sufism is weird; I don't understand it at all), and knowing virtually nothing of Hinduism, I took the Avatar reference as an indication that he was just another strain of Hinduism. "No better branch to place it under" works quite fine. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba said this about his teaching. "My teachings are not like any religion or philosophy. If you are looking to anything for close similarity, it would be a sort of synthesis of Sufism, Zoroastrianism and Vedantism." Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Discussion for O Parvardigar (film)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O_Parvardigar_(film)-Pkeets (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for William Donkin (physician)

Here's another. William Donkin, at this link. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New developments....

@Dazedbythebell, Randy Kryn, and Hoverfish:--

  • I see that Beyond Words (1997 film) has been quite-agreeably dispatched to the gallows....
  • I'm interested to drag Mandali, New Life (Meher Baba), Meher Spiritual Center and Silence Day for trial by fire.For the last, it would be a few months late and rather a widely-advertised re-trial.... By now, you're probably fairly accustomed to the validity of arguments at AfD and might be interested in tending to them in some real form which might include addition of secondary reliable sources, covering the subject in a significant manner or other ideas, as you may have......

Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 14:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

..."quite-agreeably", "gallows", "drag", all very nicely revealing of your personal motives in this attack. Well have fun then. And please don't ping me again in your rants against the topic. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 15:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gallows was a metaphor......If you fail to see through it, I feel sorry.I don't see any minimal problems in the word;--quite-agreeably (How the heck, am I otherwise going to state that I agree with some other user's deletion nomination?!) and drag, which is a parlance in AFD-sphere.At any case, my sole motivation in posting this was because one of the pinged trio apparently believes that my mercenary-ways in not tagging the articles with templates etc. or informing main contributors; a prior to drastic measures is not giving the article(s) any good chance of survival .Whether you want to utilize the opportunity is up-to you and only you.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "master"

According to Dictionary.com (definition 6), a 'master' includes a person whose teachings others accept or follow. Regardless of what the word 'seems' to imply before looking it up, that is part of its dictionary definition. Previously, the word "mystic" was used, to fend off such objections. However, the dictionary definition of a 'mystic' does not conform to Meher Baba's statements. The dictionary says a 'mystic' is a person who seeks . . . to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute. Meher Baba claimed and was claimed by others to possess such unity already. Therefore the word 'mystic' would not fit him. The term 'spiritual leader' would also not apply, because he did not form any organization to lead, and repeatedly said it was not his intention to do so, and there are numerous sources to confirm this. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. SaintAviator 22:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

@ 71.178.250.224, I notice you have not bothered to discuss any of your changes. And now you are nearing an edit war with Hoverfish. I agree with the edit Hoverfish made. Before changing it again, please discuss here. Thanks. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I notice that you have not bothered discuss WHY you reverted all of my changes. And now you are nearing an edit war with me. I disagree with the undo that Hoverfish made. Before undoing it again, please discuss here what part of what I said was objectionable, untrue, or otherwise deserving of being undone. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanSamuelOfNewton (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meher Baba's last words were "Remember that I am God." His last words were not "Remember that I am the Avatar." Furthermore, as another user noted previously on this page, many visitors to this page do not know what an Avatar is. It does not seem to me that there is any consensus that the first paragraph should ignore Baba's claim that he was God in favor of a claim that he was the Avatar. In addition, as someone else also noted on this page, there have been countless Avatars, according to Meher Baba. The definite article in the phrase "the Avatar" was problematic because it suggests that there is only one Avatar. Baba said Jesus, Zoroaster and others were avatars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanSamuelOfNewton (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some references stating there is only one Avatar who keeps returning, so Baba has communicated there is only one. But how would we know? They, advanced souls, may job share. It all comes down to RS here in WP and consensus. BladeOfTheAntipodes 00:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it all comes down to the truth about what Baba said or did not say. Did Baba say he was God, or not? The truth is that he did say it, repeatedly and emphatically, for the last 15 years of his mission. But aside from that, you still missed our point entirely.

I and the other person who suggested the need for change of this wording were not saying that Baba was correct or incorrect to call himself "The Avatar". I merely state that uninformed readers might reasonably conclude that the expression "The Avatar" means that according to Baba there has been only one Avatar, and thus Jesus and Zoroaster were not Avatars. I know that Baba did not mean that, but it would be a reasonable interpretation if an uninformed reader concluded that based on the ambiguous cryptic reference in the first paragraph to "The Avatar".

@JonathanSamuelOfNewton aka 71.178.250.224. Hoverfish, WilliamThweatt, BladeOfTheAntipodes, and Dazedbythebell seems like a consensus to me. You are in an edit war with the entire community. Dazedbythebell (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that four people represents a consensus among "the entire community". How big is this community? If hundreds read this article each month then four people is surely not a consensus. At best it is a sample, and a tiny one.
I have no problem with anyone undoing some of the changes I made. I DO have a problem with others insisting on a blanket revision of all the work that I did and then refusing to discuss any part of it substantively.
Again I ask, why were Baba's last words "Do not forget that I am God" if he did not claim to be God? Why did he call his book God Speaks if he did not claim to be God? Please comment substantively on this point. It may very well be that some, not all, will view Baba's claim to be God as grandiose, and will not consider loving him because of it. Fine. It is not the job of Wikipedia to either bring people or not bring people to Baba. It is the job of Wikipedia to tell the whole truth so readers can make up their own minds. The truth is that Baba for the last fifteen years of his mission stated repeatedly and emphatically that he is God, not merely that he was the Avatar.
A Proposal For A Compromise
How about changing it to "Baba stated that he was God and the Avatar"? Don't you think that a claim to be God is at least as important as a claim to be the Avatar? Why not include both? If you agree then simply revert all my changes. I will add the reference to Baba's assertion that he was God back into the intro, and we will be done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.250.224 (talk • contribs) 03:34, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, please note that I have indented your reply for you. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes like ~~~~. This will append your IP and a time stamp so that other people know who said what and when. It'll look like this: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous undiscussed problems with the edits by JonathanSamuelOfNewton aka 71.178.250.224. Some examples are changing the referenced word "Avatar" (that links to its meaning) with God (ignoring the 5 references cited). Redirecting the word "God" back to "Meher Baba" as a loop. Changing the word describing Baba's parents from "Irani" (which is linked to explanation that these are Indians of Iranian descent) to "Iranians" (which they were not, as they were Indian citizens). The changing of "injured as a passenger in two serious automobile accidents" (which explains he was not driving) to "being in serious car wrecks." I could name countless others. These are poor and incorrect and misleading edits. They were done anonymously (as User:71.178.250.224) over three days with no discussion. Now the user (again as 71.178.250.224) comments without signing. This is not how Wikipedia works. When there is concern over one's edits, one listens and discusses them one by one. You don't put them all back whole cloth over and over, even after being reverted by three editors. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.178.250.224, please stop edit warring. Your edits are putting in question the Good Article status of this biography. This status was reached after a long work with the reviewer and it is now written in an encyclopedic way according to Wikipedia criteria. You are plainly wrong about the job of Wikipedia being "to tell the whole truth" (according to whom, by the way). Also we are not here to speak about how one should love Meher Baba, but to write a biography article acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Please do respect all the efforts done in the last decade here and do not insist when several editors tell you that there are serious problems with your edits. Hoverfish Talk 01:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very simple explanation, like "...who said he was the Avatar, God in human form", wouldn't hurt the intro in my opinion. Meher Baba did say he was God in human form and he also said he was the Avatar. But I do not agree with implying any differentiation of Avatar vs God in the intro or anywhere in this article as it would create and place undue weight on a theological issue that doesn't belong here. Meher Baba also explained about the Ten States of God,and also explained that each and every individual is God, though not all consciously so. But all this is not material to treat in Wikipedia. These are theological points that have no notability for this medium. Even the article Perfect Master, as meant by Meher Baba, was nominated for deletion lately, but survived by a thin margin. And many other Baba-related articles were deleted as non-notable lately. Therefore please also do keep in mind that there are many critical factors to consider before getting into issues like "Some have said he will break it (his silence) someday" (unreferenced). Hoverfish Talk 04:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need a definition of "avatar" for context. We shouldn't expect readers to click the wikilink for a piece of information that is crucial to our understanding of Meher Baba's mindset. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the short explanation as above, avoiding an "and" which would imply a difference between the two terms and therefore need further explanations. Hoverfish Talk 15:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The addition by Hoverfish is good. Baba said he was the Avatar, using that Hindu word, and defined it as God in human form throughout his writings. A person can click on Avatar to read its root and various theological interpretations, but also has the meaning Baba applied to it. It is also consistent with the five references given. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can still remember when the word Avatar became mainstream and thinking well thats going to complicate things in relation to MBs claim I am 'The' Avatar. Lets just take a moment and imagine if he was God, then from his view he IS the Avatar, he is other things too which he said various times like I am this or that. He indicated quite a bit he was the best at this or that. It used to annoy me, but if he is the head honcho then I can accept it. But from our point of view I have some Avatars too, on my blogs, games and if you accept reincarnation we are all Avatars.

As for the truth, WP is not too concerned about that. If you have good refs thats what counts. I like it that he could be refed saying his last words. I think that should be in. Yes 4 is a small consensus but new to here editor I may be old fashioned but I find your syntax, grammar, choice or words to be a lesser experience. However it does not mean all your ideas are not good. If you could maintain the higher standards in writing with any good points, I think that would be reasonable. But do respect the good work done already. BladeOfTheAntipodes 22:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A note of context. Unless I got it wrong, the phrase "Do not forget that I am God", was addressed to his disciple Bhau Kalchuri personally and not any public declaration. Is it really important enough (due weight) to mention in this short biography? Hoverfish Talk 09:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, to Bhau Kalchuri he said, "I am not this body," but these were not his last words, only his last words to Bhau. "Do not forget that I am God" were his actual last recorded gestures, and the inclusion helps explain the next line, "In time his devotees called the anniversary of his death Amartithi (deathless day)." Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for explaining this. Hoverfish Talk 19:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meher_Baba&oldid=864679091"