Talk:God-realization (Meher Baba)

Please see discussion at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Meher_Baba_related_entries --Editwondergirl (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The sole criterion for notability is a reference to a single reliable secondary source. This article meets that criterion.--nemonoman (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines as I understand it, from WP:GNG, says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Secondary sources that are from followers of the belief system probably are not enough, for example. And all the sources on this article are from followers no? (I'm assuming the citation is really for Allen Y. Cohen, not Allen B. with isdn 0-06-090371-6)

This term might be noteable, but out of curiosity is there a sanskrit term or similar that it is an english translation of? That might help in comparing and contrasting it with other teacher's english terms from related new religious movements. Note: I just found the NPOV incident linked above archived here, but that doesn't look like it resulted in much further discussion? I agree that individual terms and articles must meet the guidelines. Removing noteability tag here though because there was no consensus discussed that i can find. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any sanskrit word for God-realization as he means it. Meher Baba was very particular when writing in English and defined his terms carefully. Moksha is not the same. It refers to liberation from samsara (births and deaths). Jnana isn't right either as it translates as gnosis or spiritual knowledge or real knowledge, but not necessarily the state of God-realization. Nirvana is definitely not right, as Meher Baba made a distinction. Nor is samadhi. AguireTS (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of references

Inline citations are supposed to give a source for the stated text. I have removed several references that instead of supporting the stated text were linking to "read also" material. Please discuss before reinserting any of them. Hoverfish Talk 22:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Take note @Hoverfish i have reverted your edit as they prove very unproductive, your choice of words are rather deceptive as you did not remove some references provided 24hours ago rather you removed all, inline citations are meant to support texts in an article and thats exactly what the inline citations you removed did, in those citations you removed were articles that contained texts and paragraphs to support claims made in the original article which is now in dispute. I need not remind you that wikipedia is a colloborative project and not a one man show, you should have made your complaints via this platform rather than delete several citations that could help contribute to knowledge and breach the current long gap in knowledge, if you have a WP:COI with this subject, it is best you avoid editing it. For instance in the section "Goal of creation" the last inline citation clearly supports the text and the section as a whole but it is like you just refused to see whats very glaring due to maybe WP:COI do take your time to be thorough before further editing this article in particular. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"Due to maybe COI", implies that I may be paid to edit Wikipedia. I hope you understand that this is a very serious accusation, even as a "maybe". Assuming WP:GOODFAITH is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Still, with all due respect to Paramahansa Yogananda, I fail to see how this page provides a source for a sentence that starts with "According to Meher Baba...". In such a sentence the citation should verify that this statement is true, i.e. that Meher Baba did indeed make such a statement. What Paramahansa Yogananda said about God Realization does not contradict what Meher Baba said, but the place for this link is not a proper citation to this sentence, but a "See also" or "Further reading" issue. Hoverfish Talk 22:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The external link http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/godreal.html leads to an anthology of Meher Baba texts about God realization. This is NOT a proper inline citation here ("According to Meher Baba one gets God-realization at the hands of one Master[ref=anthology page], but" etc). Placing an anthology page as a citation is NOT "provision of inline citation that directly supports text" as you claim in your edit summary, but provision of "see also" material in the wrong part of the article. Hoverfish Talk 10:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A citation is supposed to identify a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. If one intends to insert material as a "general reference" (as in the case of an anthology of quotes that would support the topic of the article), it should NOT be linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation, but it should be listed at the end of the article in a References section. Hoverfish Talk 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish i am inclined to allign with your thought process, but regardless, the entire removal of inline citations provided does not suppot the spirit of productivity & development of wikipedia as a whole no matter how one looks at it, rather than delete it why didnt you re-shuffle and place the citations as references or further reading as you mentioned to me earlier?? you would have contributed greatly to knowledge by doing so. if i were a new editor and someone did me dirty like this aint no way i'm editing wiki again, but i know better and this is not even a BLP where sources provided are greatly srcutinized, but oh well i think i grasp what you saying. Celestina007 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of my edits only, I have deleted links to pages that do not correspond with the topic of this article, i.e. the term of God realization as used by Meher Baba. I see that after reverting my removal you also deleted most, so I take it that you do agree they were not proper for this article. I did remove your link to eric's anthology at first, because at that moment navigating to it gave me a 404 error, but when I tried it again now, I got the proper page. My bad, I apologize for my wrong edit summary in removing it, and as you see, I have not removed it the second time you inserted it. Instead I am trying to reach to an agreement with you about its proper placement. Again here, I find your suggestion that I may have done "someone dirty like this" (especially a new user) as an accusation that doesn't coorespond to my sense of morality as a wikipedian. Hoverfish Talk 16:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish i observed the page improvement, good job! Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)