Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Meher Baba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

I may be wrong but believe the current three other editors follow Baba and IMO thats a good thing. As MB left no teachings, (unlike Jesus and Buddha) how a Meher Baba follower connects to MB is the key to that person and Baba. And i appreciate its a very personal issue. I respect that. As Charles Haynes said to me in Myrtle Beach, 'If there is no internal connection, if I dont feel him here (touched his heart with hand) whats the point of following him?'. Once this personal issue has a public face, (a Wikipedia article on MB for instance) this becomes another issue entirely and connections, interactions, between different Meher Baba followers will occur in public. This is where problems can arise, as they have here. Therefore much of the dispute over this article (see archive) comes down to standards, both personal and editorial (writing / grammar and the like) being played out online which when someone of Baba's status is involved can become heated.

My 10 cents worth: IMO the article structure needs a shakeup and review and does not reflect Meher Baba as he should could be reflected, portrayed on Wikipedia as it stands. I think it could be better with a bit more work. Where? A decades desriptions theme is problematic as MB's work was not bound by decades e.g. mast work and as the GA review summary points there are gaps in his work e.g manonash, fiery free life too. The Legacy and Teachings sections in particular lack clarity, depth and breadth and perhaps attempts to fill the gaps in a sparse decade by decade descriptor theme. Legacy as a title is a good title as it can cover a lot of ground, but having anything else in there, expanding it sparks a war. Equally Legacy could be there instead of teachings. His written and spoken published words are a legacy too you know. You know my views on teachings as a title. Why have it as a title then have a paragraph denying it. Thats only one reason I think the article needs re organising. So I believe the fight over new material being put in reallt highlighted the flaws in the article structure and a type of editor possessiveness. (Remember this now, here, is a discussion. Part of the wikipedia process. Ignoring it is not an option that supports reverts later. You become involved or dont. If you dont discuss and just fall back on reverts after ignoring, and only become involved if an editor adds material to the article, well that behaviour is a type of Troll Editing and is evidence all the criticisms of Wikipedia exist here on Baba's page)

Length? Tighter writing will get it all in while keeping under the recommended limit. From the GA review "it could use more information about the other named phases of Meher Baba's life such as his Fiery Free Life, Manonash, etc." This is true. There is still 7kb space left.

Its a good article. yes....but, the whole is not as a tight descriptive accurate piece of writing thats fits well with MB's life as it could be. Should we do better? Yes. Am I being blocked so i dont become part of the we? Yes. Is this the spirit of wikipedia? No. Will I go if people wont co operate? Possible yes, as I said I will. What is the point of making this fuss you might ask? Its about Ethics and personal Morals. I cant just view this site and let it go without saying something. Too many people see it

To those who put so much work in the past. Well done. It served a purpose, but now the trouble here is stasis. No real progression will occur with just tiny add ons to appease. It makes the problem worse. Its your call

--Jones.liam (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution." Hoverfish Talk 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know what trolling is. But life is never really black and white, either. Im not calling people here trolls per se, but the spirit of (quote from wikipedia) "the contributor is welcome to be bold and to edit articles, contributing knowledge in a collaborative way". Reverting changes made by a new editor is made legitimate by a lack of discussion (LOD). Ignoring in effect. So LOD is a tactic of the emcumbent editor and is therefore anti the wikipedia spirit, and protocol. I dont like trolls either but its always a good idea to ask if one is being negative in how one edits and the LOD involved. IMO the now and the previous LOD (re the edit war) had and has negative affects. Yes I did it too, but what choice was there? IMO I added material in part to the tactic of LOD, and to get some Discussion going. Is LOD Negative behaviour? Yes IMO. --Jones.liam (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

--Jones.liam (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll, I like your inclusion in the notes section. I have two thoughts on it though. One is that it might be condenced a bit. Second, I have a little trouble with:

"The only de facto consensus seems to be a marked reluctance to include either of their accounts of Meher Baba's vocal utterances into factual narratives of Meher Baba's life."

First of all, I'm not sure which factual narratives you're referring to. Eruch only made his statement about the sound Baba made after Lord Meher was written by Bhau. So it couldn't have been included. It is mentioned in those references you give. And it is mentioned within the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure of any major works on Baba life that have come out since. Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by implying this ommission, if it has occurred, established a consensus of anyone. That might be an opinion or conjecture. Just thoughts. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll, its great like it is well done --Jones.liam (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The note contained a lot of unwarranted speculation. The facts are treated more comprehensively in the "Final seclusion" section, which has more detail and more accessible references. I've therefore removed this note. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent change to the lead section's first mention of the most notable aspect of Meher Baba's life, his silence, I find inappropriate. The silence-breaking issue is well explained lower down. Putting this in the lead, before the clarifications that come later, feels like an attempt to ammend the major published sources on Baba's life - using Wikipedia as a venue. I don't think the lead section on Wikipedia is the right place for that. Even if the prevailing documented view (that his silence was lifelong) is false, veering from the published sources to minor websources in the lead is essentially original or new research. The best published sources given in the Notes do in fact say Meher Baba's silence was lifelong. And Wikipedia is a reflection of best sources, not a place to start pushing the envelope into new developments, especially in the lead section. The lead is only intended to be a brief overview of the most notable documented and most broadly accepted facts in the biography. Also, as it has been changed the statement is unsourced in the lead. It may feel unfortunate, but if the article begins to emphasize websources over major published books, it is almost certain to lose its GA status. Because of this status articles get spread more widely in the world, by the use of additional media. So it would be nice to keep it GA. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept the reluctance to stress Baba's vocal utterances before he dropped the body, I'm not going to revert the edits, since it's mentioned further down anyway, but do note that "Dazed..." above is basically arguing that false information is preferable to the truth (re: "Even if the prevailing documented view (that his silence was lifelong) is false..."), simply because something is already widely in print? Unless one is suggesting that Bhau or Eruch wasn't being truthful, this info. is not "pushing the envelope" per se, but rather just integrating known facts, which is exactly what venues like the Web make feasible. Also, for an example of a recent factual narrative, see p. 3 of the history essay included as vol. IV of the Revised 6th Ed. Discourses: there's a "...silence remained unbroken" claim in the very first paragraph -- this was written in 2007, by the Trust no less. At what point is the threshold reached when one can be straightforward about the issue on Wikipedia, if current publications continue to misrepresent the facts? I humbly suggest that, overall, Baba folks seem to be a bit in denial of the fact that he's been known to speak before he dropped the body (the meaning of which is a whole other issue, I'm just referring to the simple fact that, in a literal sense, his vocal silence was broken). But it may take another 40 years for that to be widely accepted, I guess, which is fine... Hdtnkrwll (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Bhau who witnessed the "Yaad rahk" utterance states that for him Meher Baba's silence was not really broken by it. He often repeats this in his webcasts. What I mean is that this issue is not something clear. The facts are here: Bhau and Eruch did report these utterances. The rest are interpretations of a deeper significance and there is no notable published work that can be referred. There is no false information in the article. If in 40 or 20 or 2 years there is a notable study published about the significance of Meher Baba's silence and its breaking, it will surely be properly documented here too. Even to include here the issue of a dispute between Baba followers on whether his silence was broken or not cannot be sourced properly. Do we have any verifiable source about who claims what? And anyway isn't all this the stuff that leads to dogma? Hoverfish Talk 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It reminds me of the problem of Jesus' entombment and disapparance. There are different conflicting accounts in the gospels by different witnesses - and Mark, which originally ended with the women finding the empty tomb and being frightened, was later redacted to conform to the newer Christian account, the Resurrection of Jesus. And now there is even some modern research that he survived and died in India. It also reminds me of Paul writing that Jesus spoke to him on the road to Demascus, a claim that no one could of course verify. To get deep into such conflicts in the article tends to force the article down a few notches. The Jesus article is a B class article. About being more willing to be 'wrong' in the article than veer from prominent secondary sources -- that is what an encyclopedia is. If the sources are wrong you still have to go with the sources. It's not the place to get it right, but get it rightly sourced. Getting it right is original research, and belongs on a different venu and is very important. I'm only saying this isn't the place to set the record straight. Wikipedia insists that articles follow the record. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dazedbythebell: I'm pushing you on this because I'm actually curious what your argument really is. Are you actually implying that the veracity of direct testimony from Eruch and Bhau is of the same level of uncertainty as the historical construction of the New Testament gospels? I'm not sure if you're aware of contemporary biblical criticism (in the scholarly sense), but that's like saying a recorded televised interview is just as uncertain, content-wise, as a summary written & rewritten hundreds of years after the event by many different people, for many varying ideological reasons. Again, I'm not making claims about the metaphysical meaning of it all, just the simple fact that utterances were made. This is exactly what I meant by my passing reference to "denial," by the way, at least when it comes to the basic, simple fact that utterances were made. Why, in principle, does it need sugarcoating, or be judged "inappropriate" to make the intro. phrase match the existing phrase further down? Would you challenge Eruch or Bhau's accounts directly, or just on Wikipedia? If not, why are such sources fine in one section, and not another? I suspect this has more to do with personal sensibilities than the facts. Which is fine, but let's be clear & keep the two issues distinct when discussing the matter. You seem to be implying that transparently pointing out one particular fact automatically equals "original research," yet allowing misconceptions to exist is fine, since they're already in print. This strikes me as arbitrary, to say the least. I personally don't share your concern with "GA" statuses; to me, accurate information is more important. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: That is actually what I meant -- if it took Eruch and Bhau that long to relay what they heard, then it'll probably take everyone else at least a similar amount of time to accept it as true. For whatever it's worth, my footnote did not make any claims regarding the more mysterious or metaphysical significance one way or the other (people like Ken Lux have written whole mini-booklet essays speculating on that, which indeed could be cited, whatever one's own personal views), but I was simply referring to the factual record of the utterances themselves, which are often still misrepresented in very recent print publications (in revised 6th ed. Discourses' history essay, in the recent Meher Baba's New Life book, for example). If the language between sections were consistent, I wouldn't have even been motivated to add the note -- it just makes little sense to use the phrase "...up to the end..." in one section, and "until shortly before his death..." in another, when factually speaking, regardless of interpretation, it's either one or the other. But again, I'm writing this to clarify the intention behind the note, and don't care if it's gone as long as the info. in the "final seclusion and death" section stays. I do, however, think it's a bit silly to assume a Wikipedia reader needs their hand held over the issue, but that's just me I guess. If the sources are good enough for one section of the article, why not for the entirety of the article? These sourcing concerns make little sense, if they're already being used in the article elsewhere. Dazedbythebell: I respect the points you're making, but to confuse basic facts about Meher Baba's life (again, not the interpretative issues, which I agree aren't the scope of this article) with the value of a "GA" article status per se seems a bit silly to me, also... But I'll leave it up to others, the info. is there anyway. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I heard Eruch talk about Baba's grunting back in 80s, and he didn't make a big deal about it. Somebody had asked him if Baba still had the capacity for speech after his long silence, and he mentioned the grunting as an indication that MB maintained the ability to speak if he wanted to. He didn't suggest at that time that this was some sort of Primal Sound, or that it had any much significance at all. So I personally don't put a whole lot of woo-woo on this fact. I think some BLs may have a woo-woo agenda and Eruch did his brotherly best to accomodate them.

Bhau is interesting case. He keeps remembering things that frankly I would have had a tough time forgetting. OOOPS! Did I forget to mention that Baba ordered me to write a children's book? Silly me! YIKES!! Did I forget to tell you that Baba broke his silence -- to ME??? What a goose am I!

It is not uncommon for those who follow Meher Baba to have a deep, even metaphysical connection to his silence and its profundity. This is certainly my situation. Bhau's story of Baba's breaking of silence certainly gave me significant pause. I have thought about it a lot, and I personally don't believe Bhau's account. If Baba were to break his silence, I can't imagine that he would choose to do so in front of only one person, and particularly one prone to long lapses of memory.

But as I have said many times to other editors, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY -- not truth. And it is certainly verifiable that this is what Bhau says happened, as it can be verified that Eruch says he heard MB's grunts. So in they go, no doubt about it.

The question being kicked around here is WHERE do they go. Here's my take: Baba's 45 year silence is the news, not the lone account that Baba spoke three words. Even if the three words were spoken, as Bhau himself (apparently) says -- MB did not "Break His Silence" by uttering them. His lifetime of Silence is what counts, it seems to me, for the lead of the article.

This article is an overview and a thumbnail at best, and according the Wikipedia Manual of Style, that is what it is MEANT to be. I don't know how the New Life can reasonably be covered in a few sentences, or the Silence, or the Accidents, or the Mast Tours, etc., etc. Yet it is our task to pull back far enough to make thumbnail-sized portrait. In doing so, some detail will be lost. And it would be a profound confusion to the novice, generalist reader to make a big honking deal about a rather minor and debatable contention.

I remember how I first heard a Baba lover talk. She was doing a slide show of her travels in India to some business colleagues over lunch. They expected to see the Taj Mahal in the moonlight. Instead: First slide...some sort of ceiling. What's that, they asked. "These are the rafters of the mosque where Meher Baba ended the New Life. He'd been wandering as a beggar with his companions for several years and they came to this deserted mosque, and a pigeon in the rafters kept Baba up, so he told his mandali Eruch to climb up and get rid of the bird, but before Eruch could do it Baba clapped and made him come down again and then Eruch had to light all these matches to watch Baba's gestures because there was no light, and Baba told him he had done a wrong thing by giving the order to catch pigeon, so Baba would have to be punished, so the next day Baba gathered all his disciples and made them hit him with shoes and spit on him and that was the end of the New Life." I tell you, I couldn't wait to hear what she'd say about slide number two, but the rest of the group was a bit disconcerted.

Everyone here might want to read WP:UNDUE. Writing an encyclopedia is an exercise in presenting facts in an appropriate way, appropriately weighted. I just doing my best here, and leaving the rest...well, you know the phrase.--Nemonoman (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely respect Nemonoman's honesty, he simply doesn't believe Bhau's account, which is fine. But how does making two divergent claims within the same article resolve the issue, either? ("…up to…" vs. "…until shortly before…") I've simply been sticking to the gross-sphere level of description here; it seems to me it's others who may be bringing in some of the metaphysical assumptions? Unless one really does think Eruch and Bhau's testimony are just "minority viewpoints"? I respect the concerns re: Bhau's memory (or intentional timing), but I think it would be hard to justify claiming either E. or B. were somehow just minority viewpoints when it comes to Meher Baba?

As an analogy: imagine a saint or holy person (let's say) who throughout his whole life continually made a prophecy about some sort of large green bird showing up shortly before he died, the complete significance of which was intentionally unspecified and mysterious (or simply impossible to fully communicate on our level). Now, just before he passed away, a large green bird showed up and was witnessed by several of his followers, even at different times. Afterwards, some of his disciples happen to think "that's not the bird he was talking about!" Others may think, "his prophecy was fulfilled!" (neither group may have any idea whatsoever what they're really talking about, in terms of what the saint meant). But either which way, from a purely gross-sphere, factual level (albeit within delusion, within maya) a green bird had showed up, and was seen by several of his followers. That's all I'm saying -- regardless of how one thinks of M. B.'s silence, it's on record from E. and B. that in a purely literal sense his vocal silence was 'broken,' that's all. So in that minimal, specific sense it doesn't seem to make any sense to describe the same phenomenon differently just depending on the section of the article one's in, since the entire article, in theory, is supposed to be factual (at least in the common, gross-sphere sense, of course). That's all I'm saying. For me it's not a question of position within the article, or emphasis, but just gross-sphere factual consistency. It's also telling, to me, that the same purely factual issue comes up in recently printed books, post-Eruch's account, post-Bhau's account, etc. But I've said my piece. If others aren't willing to explicitly take fault with E. or B.'s accounts, as Nemonoman has (to his credit, in terms of honesty), then I think there is a certain level of denial going on, at least when it comes to the 'gross sphere' sense of Meher Baba's silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdtnkrwll (talk • contribs) 03:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Because man has been deaf to the principles and precepts laid down by God in the past, in this present Avataric form, I observe silence." That's not from Eruch nor Bhau. Is this "silence" the silence we are taking about? Hoverfish Talk 06:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the most meaningful sense of it, straight from Meher Baba, as he explains in many other great quotes as well. The note addition, then phraseology-matching between the two article sections, was trying to stick to the literal, gross-sphere sense of his silence, though, for the purposes of the article. Again, it's easy to switch registers, from the gross to the most sublime, but that move per se doesn't really address the factual consistency issues that inevitably arise when describing even just the most gross/everyday level, which we do have testimony about. A phenomenon no doubt has meaning on many different levels simultaneously, especially something as symbolic as MB's silence. For the purposes of the article, though, it strikes me as a bit of a slight-of-hand move to insist on the most sublime aspects as a way to avoid resolving how to represent testimony we already have regarding the most literal aspects? I think by this point I've said what I wanted to say, though; any of us could start offering our favorite quotes, of course, or remain silent, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.142.54.159 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll: To express my part, I do not doubt Bhau's honesty. If what Nemonoman writes about Eruch's contradicting statements is indeed so, it is perplexing and I accept his explanation as quite reasonable, though I personally remain in doubt. My concern for this article is not on "other levels" but one in literal context, which is that what you term "vocal/gross silence", which has been broken according to these reports, may be confused with what Meher Baba meant by "silence" as in the quote I gave above. I do not hold the two as equal in context or importance and think we would be "comparing apples and oranges". I do not wish to make you repeat yourself, as I find all you said clear enough. Hoverfish Talk 13:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the concern really is just the literal context, then I don't understand what is controversial about using the "...until shortly before his death..." phrase, which is already used further down, at the top. I think we have to trust that the average reader will be savvy enough to be able to handle the factual truth (can think for themselves, etc.), yet can still understand that symbolism & mystery can co-exist right alongside and within the literal facts, too. I understand the confusion-of-levels concern, but isn't the only way to address it by being forthright & clear? As it stands it's already confusing to any careful reader, since the article uses two distinct categorizations ("...up to the end..." in one section, and "until shortly before his death..." in the other) to refer to the same factual claim. I really don't see how arbitrary oscillation (as it stands now) alleviates any potential confusion either, in other words. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the Glow article "True to His Promise, He has Broken His Silence," and if anyone can post a copy, I'd appreciate it. But in conversations with Eruch, he seemed often to suggest that Baba had broken his silence as evidenced by changes in human consciousness and human events.

I'm not certain that Eruch regarded the humming or grunting as the "Breaking of His Silence", per se. I never got the impression that those vocalizations had a huge meaning for him. So I'd like to see the article to see if that equation is made there: during the time I spoke with him, he seemed to have a big divide between the physical world of sound and the metaphysical breaking of silence, and did not appear to equate the two. I didn't have much contact with Eruch during the period when that article was published however, and Eruch was thoughtful and willing to change his opinions as his thinking evolved. It may be that he had reconsidered the matter and maybe reached different conclusions than during the period when I got to see him. So the actual content of the article would be helpful in clarifying that info for me. If Eruch specifically said: MB hummed, that hum was the Breaking of His Silence -- well that would put the matter in a different light for me.

To any and all editors: I regret that I am bringing up my own opinions and personal conversations in this matter, and I do so only because I don't have the specific references here, and because (as I think is evident) those individual details are affecting my edits, for better or worse, and I think that full disclosure of my mindset may be useful to others in determining whether my weighting of information is reasonable or simply being driven by my own prejudices. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you add the new claim to the lead by Bhau, and you honestly only want to be "forthright & clear," then you are beholden to also add to the lead that the sole witness of this fact first wrote in his biography of Baba that Baba gestured, and then decades later changed his story. After all you say "the reader will be savvy enough to be able to handle the factual truth." I assume you mean the whole truth about the source, and not a selective set of facts with exclusions. How else can the savvy reader make an intelligent decision? Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Baba had repeated the same thing many times over the years, "I am not this body . . ." But this time, when his hands conveyed these words to Bhau, it had a tremendous impact on him. For the first time, Bhau actually realized and felt these words to be true: 'Yes, Baba is not the body.' Aloba took over night duty at 10:00 P.M.... (LM 6710, Bhau Kalchuri, 1986)

Dazed...: Yes, that sounds good to me! Of course I'm not suggesting that the article shouldn't be edited beyond the note I had started, but simply wanted to acknowledge the issue, that a plurality of interpretation exists (apparently even over simple gross-sphere facts -- yet they're much more directly accessible than New Testament issues!). The amount of resistance one encounters over the issue is incredible, frankly. Why not at least briefly, dispassionately mention the plurality of interpretation in the wiki article directly, rather than arbitrarily describe the same 'fact' differently, depending on the section one happens to be reading, thereby implying that a careful reader shouldn't notice the difference? Without acknowledging the issues involved head-on, we indirectly continue to encourage misrepresentations in other venues/publications, etc. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this but Hdtnkrwll appears to know as a fact that Meher Baba did break his silence before his death. However, whether I believe the one account or the other, or whether I am naive or not, the only facts are what Bhau and Eruch said and if the average reader is respected, then Dazedbythebell is correct, their changed reports over time would have to be also described. Except all this is definitely not material for the lead section. Hoverfish Talk 16:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's fine with me. Whether that's material for the lead section (even as just a brief note) is of course a judgment call. I simply wanted to insist that not acknowledging the discrepancy, as it stands, is just as much of a judgment call. I simply don't think one can honestly claim that "to the end of his life" and "until shortly before his death" mean the same thing, if one really is just referring to a gross-sphere factual issue, that's all. For whatever it's worth, for me personally the meaning of MB's silence need not follow an either/or logic (it's not either literal or symbolic, etc., but the literal facts and higher levels of meaning interpenetrate -- Baba himself gets at this sort of logic in the "Supervening Orders..." chapter in Beams, also in how he frequently describes the gross/subtle/mental spheres or worlds interpenetrating; but of course I would have never put all that in the footnote, was just trying to at least acknowledge the issue).

Im going to post this first because its a clear example of whats gone wrong in the past, then read the rest and comment on the rest later.

This is copied from above, very early on when discussion is only beginning. The editor says whats wrong with the piece (without any IMO noises) then changes the article saying "I've therefore removed this note." editor? Nemonoman

This is classic dictatorial editing. No discussion, no ultimatum, just a fait accompli. Now if someone reverted this no discussed edit made by Nemonoman, imagine the edit war. No i dont have to imagine it, its happened already. I repeat what i have said before, Nemonoman this is not your web page. --Jones.liam (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK its been a reasonable discussion, in terms of politness, but I agree with what Hdtnkrwll has said, his arguments are too strong and truthful to be denied. I liked this esp, "Dazed..." above is basically arguing that false information is preferable to the truth (re: "Even if the prevailing documented view (that his silence was lifelong) is false..."), simply because something is already widely in print?

Very very good and true point.

Hoverfish I dont want to judge this comment you made below,

"I am sorry to say this but Hdtnkrwll appears to know as a fact that Meher Baba did break his silence before his death'

But you are either sorry or not, and you may mean something else, e.g you are not mocking such a belief. You know some people may know. But to clear the air and set a standard Im coming right out here and saying this. Of course he broke his silence. Absolutely 110% --Jones.liam (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not mocking anyone and I fully respect what a person believes to be true. Actually I happen to believe that Meher Baba has broken his silence, though NOT in a way that can be recorded as a fact in an encyclopedia. Nemonoman does not take this to be his web page. On the contrary, he is a very good Wikipedian and his actions reflect his knowledge of the rules and requirements of Wikipedia. Now, the phrase "From July 10, 1925 to the end of his life, Meher Baba maintained silence, and communicated by means of an alphabet board or by unique hand gestures" is not our invention or merely Nemonoman's opinion, but is derived from a notable source, which is Charles Purdom's books. If you find another source which is as acceptable for references in Wikipedia and which states differently, please, start by making this source known to us instead of condemning a good editor for being dictatorial. Wikipedia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy, but an encyclopedia. And Nemonoman did try to help you get acquainted with the processes needed to make valid edits. Invalid edits can be reverted as he did without being guilty of the things you accuse him of. It is not just Nemonoman, or Dazedbythebell or me who insist in verifiability. It is the process of Wikipedia that requires it. Hoverfish Talk 09:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Two notes:

Bhau's account (both with and without speech) describes an incident that happened less than 24 hours before Baba's death. I'd call that "the end of his life" without fear of equivication. I appreciate that there might be other ways of saying this, but that's my way of saying it. So shoot me.

Yes, there are others ways of saying it, much more directly and with less intentional ambiguity and wordplay . . . within the very same article. If the sources are fine for those sections, they'd be fine for the first section. This is like a math article stating "1+1=2" in one section, half-way through, but at the top, for unspecified reasons, stating "1+1 is really lesser than or equal to 2". IMO, there should at least be some reason explicitly given for the varied language. I understand this stems from concerns similar to those articulated by H. (mentioned above, not wanting to conflate the deeper symbolism with a crass fact), but why not make this explicit? Baba himself has quotes referring to the different/varying levels of meaning of his silence. This concern could be addressed by quoting Baba himself that it's not an "either/or" type of thing. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this comment by Hdtnkrwll: Why not at least briefly, dispassionately mention the plurality of interpretation in the wiki article directly, rather than arbitrarily describe the same 'fact' differently, depending on the section one happens to be reading, thereby implying that a careful reader shouldn't notice the difference?. The reason why not is that there is no reference for this plurality of interpretation, and it is incorrect to include information with out reference to a Reliable Source (see WP:RS). Note that we had a dickens of a time convincing other editors that even Lord Meher and similar books by BLs should be considered reliable sources. But if a reliable source can be found for the plurality assertion, it would be quite right to include it. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is already citing a plurality of sources and views on the issue (Purdum, Eruch, Bhau), etc. The plurality already exists and is cited here. If you'd like, I can also provide citations for the recent volumes which claim the vocal silence was never interrrupted. My point is that the plurality already exists. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes H exactly, plurality does already exist and so does material that is unreferenced. Its about subjective views about what in and whats out. I had similar issues.

OK yes Hoverfish, unreferenced material is a problem, but the other way to revert is to disagree with content that is referenced. That’s what happened to me. All my material was scrupulously referenced. And anyway I can go thru the article now and still find unreferenced material. Its not black and white. . Hoverfish I have got to know you a bit and if you say N is editing well and not treating it like his web page, that’s OK with me, but he needs to consider other views, re content and now plurality.

Im pleased that at least the silence breaking is in there and its not too controversial for Wikipedia. And Im glad that Teachings is now explained re MB.

One last point the top quote below is from the article, the second is from the Silence Day link. They don’t mesh.

From July 10, 1925 until shortly before his death in 1969, Meher Baba was silent From July 10, 1925 until his death in 1969, Meher Baba was silent.

--Jones.liam (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a major contributor to the Silence Day article, and I don't believe that this article needs to be changed to be consistent with that article.

That 1 person says now that he heard Baba speak is clearly noted. That incident was less than 24 hours before Baba died -- the end of his life. I don't think that contradicts the to the end of his life. It is not being hidden from the reader, but clearly stated.

That one incident is not a plurality of interpretations. It is one addtional fact.

That fact is NOT from a reliable source (not questioning Bhau's reliablity here -- just noting that the citation of this fact is only on a website and websites rarely cut it as reliable sources -- see WP:RS). A fussy editor could therefore remove it. I'd like to, but I'm holding back.

To include some line like There are a plurality of interpretations..., such as was found in the now deleted note, an editor would have to cite reliable sources that stated those INTERPRETATIONS. I haven't seen this, nor do I know of any RS that contain those interpretations. The interpretations as I have heard them consist of bull sessions at the Original Kitchen, etc.

I don't think the lead needs to be Except for the newly recovered memory of Bhau that on one occasion less than 24 hours before he died, Meher Baba said 3 words to Bhau that nobody else heard, Meher Baba kept silent from 10 July 1925 to the end of his life. However is someone wants to write it that way and footnote it, and basically have the tail wagging the dog, please be my guest. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

N.: Are you now just choosing to ignore Eruch's account? You've already admitted to not having even read it. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: jones.liam describes editors (for example me) deleting material when they disagree with content that is referenced. A big point in Wikipedia is WP:UNDUE -- giving undue weight to information even though it may be verifiable. "Undue" weight being a matter of personal interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. I really think the "Bhau heard words" fact is in danger of getting Undue Weight. I can cope with the current setup OK, but I hope we don't go crazy trying to accomodate this dubious, unreliably sourced information. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all the editors have taken the time to read the policy that Nemonoman is referring to, WP:UNDUE. Please take the time. The following is quoted from that page. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. In this case that viewpoint is that There are a plurality of interpretations on this subject. That's a point of view that would require a reliable source. If someone does not like the policies of an encyclopedia Wiki then it is not clear why they would want to write on it. This is not the sole format for communication. It is definitely not a place to steer future publications. It's suppose to be the other way around. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dazed…: The article as it stands is already acknowledging that a variety of interpretations exist, via the variations of descriptive language internal to the article itself. This is already the case, as the article stands now. I agree with you on the need for reliable sources and neutrality, but if a de facto existence of a variety of interpretations isn't enough to warrant a simple, explicit statement of the fact (which in my view would happen to be more of an objectively descriptive claim, based on the sources already cited, rather than a new interpretive claim per se), then allowing the authorial voice of the article to arbitrarily waver between sub-sections doesn't solve the issue, either. If you feel strongly that the Bhau and Eruch sources aren't valid sources, then you should be deleting them. Since they're included, it only makes sense to aim to make the descriptive voice consistent throughout the article. But you'll notice that I'm not editing the article in this regard (I don't have the energy for it, frankly). I am just insisting on the point in the discussion, for the record. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article as me? Where in the article does it acknowledge that "a variety of interpretations exist?"

"In 2003, disciple Bhau Kalchuri reported that Meher Baba spoke the words 'Yaad rahk' (remember this) several times in the hours leading up to his death. Kalchuri stated that Baba accompanied these words with a gesture that signified, 'I am not this body.'"

I don't see any mention of any interpretations. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

D.: I thought this was clear from the earlier comments in this thread, but to be specific, please compare the following statements, as they currently exist in the article, and note that this text is all from within the article's single, unified authorial voice, not from cited quotes:

1. from top section: "From July 10, 1925 to the end of his life, Meher Baba maintained silence…"

2. from "Early life / Silence" section: "From July 10, 1925 until shortly before his death in 1969, Meher Baba was silent."

3. from "1960s / Final seclusion and death" section: "Although it was thought that Meher Baba did not speak after July 1925…"

All I'm claiming, which I really don't think is that difficult to grasp (?), is that the article itself, as it stands now, is already implicitly acknowledging a plurality of interpretations -- not via citations, but through the authorial voice used by the article itself. You don't see any mention of interpretations, but at least two different ones are already in the text itself, and not via citations. To any careful reader, this amounts to a variety of interpretations, as it stands now, whether it's made into its own explicit statement or not. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some searching. The article had it consistently as "until his death" up to the 4th of July 2009 when a one-edit editor with the red name Pingwnluv "Updated information about Baba's Silence". Following this edit by half an hour, Nemonoman added the parts about Eruch's and Bhau's accounts. So this answers my curiosity about the question of variety of interpretations. But if any of you really cares that this article offers an understanding about the issue outside the Baba community, then (I don't speculate on HOW) the whole story of Baba's promises to break his silence should be presented, even in thumbnail size. Most notably the Hollywood Bowl event with Adi Jr. who "knew that Baba would never do such a thing" and Baba consequently departing on a boat for Hawaii, Japan and China. This offers a fuller picture of what is behind all this "breaking of silence" historically. But for this article all this may well fall under WP:Undue, as was pointed out. Hoverfish Talk 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To correct myself here: it was still Pingwnluv's edit about Eruch and Bhau and Nemonoman simply moved it to the Final seclusion section. Hoverfish Talk 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish, good research thanks. Hdtnkrwll, im being as objective as possible and your still on the money.

Nemonoman, seriously if someone else applied the rules, as strictly as you use them to work you wrote, they could also revert and claim to do so based on wikipedia rules and protocols. Hdtnkrwll's example 'already implicitly acknowledging a plurality of interpretations' means you (as a contributor to those sections as shown by H fish) dont have the high moral ground 'of rules'. You too are in the pack and it would be more harmonious if you accepted that.

Nemonoman about deleting content. Your quite wrong. My material was deleted you state due to “giving undue weight to information even though it may be verifiable” This in italics also from the WP:UNDUE. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

This to me clearly shows that minority and majority views need to be there, they are part of the whole picture. Hence by you deleting deleting another view, minority, or majority view, you break WP:UNDUE. Policy. You cramp wikipedia.

The other point I make is that what I had material deleted was not even in the article before hand. It was verifiable, reliable (uses Bhau you cant just quote him for stuff you like) Baba said it and it’s the majority view of Baba followers that he has said such things. Eg Jesus and the crucifixion. So yes it was a delete based on someone not liking it being there.

Lastly this was uncivil from you Nemonoman , you wrote;

However is someone wants to write it that way and footnote it, and basically have the tail wagging the dog, please be my guest.

Please be civil not sarcastic. --Jones.liam (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the notes above, I have made changes to article. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Eruch and Bhau's accounts make more sense in the main 'Silence' sub-section anyway. I personally think it's important to keep them in the article, of course, and at least the editorial language is consistent now. At this point (to say the least), I wouldn't even dare to attempt to edit "…to the end of his life…" or "…until his death…" to something more inclusive of the known facts, so I won't even bother. For the record, though, for whatever it's worth, I do maintain that my original footnote addition was more descriptive than speculative, and that the existing variety of already-cited sources could have substantiated that description. Whatever one's personal views, Eruch and Bhau are not simply 'minority viewpoints.' If anything, we are. But again, I'm just writing this for the discussion record, I don't have the time or patience to deal with this level of denial and resistance. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coundnt agree more, Hdtnkrwll. I don't have the time or patience to deal with this level of denial and resistance. But im glad the record is here. One day someone will go over these records, and yes its a small matter in the scheme of things, but still history will judge some editorial decisions badly, Im sure. --Jones.liam (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The penny has dropped, the cogs have slid into place. Now I know whats wrong here. Whats wrong with this picture.

Editors are trying to do Babas work for him (probably inadvertently). No one can understand what his work is. Some editors want a sanitized version of Meher Baba’s life to present Meher Baba to the world. They are either trying to bring people to Baba, unconsciously or semi consciosly or without questioning why or understanding their motives or pathology / neurology and or perhaps they are even trying to justify why they follow him by showing how reasonable MB is and or they are uncomfortable with what Meher Baba is and stands for. Any combination of the above is unhealthy. These or combinations of these, are the reasons they resist change to the article. Its a neurosis / pathology. Are they afraid the truth will be too much for the public to handle? if so thats not their job. Is it too much for some editors to handle? Maybe.

Additionally they don’t want to risk the GA status and or use this as an excuse to prevent a rewrite. They want what they think is a readable, reasonable article with what they think is acceptable data for the public. The result is dry. They dont want material that will stand out, be controversial, not be accepted. Even it if its verifiable. They don’t want to let verifiable truth get in the way of a nice little package. In short they are afraid. And Baba is so not all these things. He is not easy to take. He is controversial to the mainstream. He said he can be anything and everything to anyone. He is not into fear and told others frequently not to be bothered by what others think of them. He is diversity. He has not for instance ONE favorite song. The article is too dumbed down. He is colorful....the article is not.

For the thousands who read this article these editors want what? Acceptance, a good response, something that wont frighten the masses, respect, a GA status, that they don’t want to be seen as wacky, out there, weird.

Too late. If you follow Baba its too late for that. Way too late.

If people who read the article dont follow Baba but are curious, then I respect them enough to want to give them a fuller package, not a Mac World version. They will very soon find that the Wikipedia article is lacking anyway in a few clicks and searches of the official sites. So why pretend? Why resist improvements?

So lastly he warned us to never ever try to do his work, he told us many times not to do this. BUT he did emphasis honesty. The article is disingenuous. It needs to liven up and show a dynamic life with the interesting bits in it.

--Jones.liam (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You call them improvements. You make judgments as if you have it all right and others not. So we are neurotic, and what not, and you of course are not. Surely you must be the measure of sanity around here and therefore you know it all best. No I am not being sarcastic, I merely read your previous post and come to this conclusion. What cogs are in place? For whom is it too late? Are you sent to warn us? Is the Inquisition ready yet? One way or the other, I see two suspicious keywords lately: "resist" and "deny". They indicate an agenda of some newly forming sect or front behind them. With prophets and crusaders too. Wikipedia, however, simply is NOT the right place for propagating it. Hoverfish Talk 07:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

H.: I understand, as you said earlier, that the issues are sensitive to everyone. I was referring to the (past) inconsistency within the authorial voice of the article itself (not to any "sect" or "front"!). To me personally the irony is that people commenting on the issue didn't seem to even realize what had prompted the addition of the note? People were throwing neutrality and sourcing rules around in regard to statements that already existed in the article. (The discrepancy between the "to the end of his life" and "until shortly before his death" characterizations, as they already existed in the article at the time.) My point was just that, within the article, it didn't make sense to refer to the same 'fact' with varying language, that's all (especially in a place like Wikipedia). People are obviously free to believe whatever they please, it's fine with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdtnkrwll (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll, what you refer to as "authorial voice" is IMO simply the result of the narrow path the editors had to follow to make a proper biography article, with its main sources being Lord Meher and other accounts from Baba's close circle, which is itself a very edgy matter in Wikipedia. I don't see anything more authorial here than a careful language so that the result is acceptable. Point taken about the original intent of your note. In the discussions that followed however, especially in the way Liam mentions them, the words "denial and resistance" imply a lot more. I will refrain from using sensitive terms as "sect and front" in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtnkrwll: About your comment, "My point was just that, within the article, it didn't make sense to refer to the same 'fact' with varying language, that's all (especially in a place like Wikipedia). People are obviously free to believe whatever they please, it's fine with me."

First of all, it does make sense to name the way that most reputable published sources have it, in the lead section. The mention lower down of Bhau and Eruch mentions later unpublished online sources so fits being separate and less prominent. Not because it's a minority view, but because it's in a minority of sources --and unpublished ones at that. The next line that you feel 'people are free to believe what they like' shows that you misunderstand what several editors have been saying to you. You are reading your own thoughts, and not what Nemo, Hoverfish, and I are saying. We are referring to sources only. You continue to make it about beliefs -- claiming that someone here besides you is saying that very few people think Baba spoke. In fact it is completely possible that most people think Baba spoke to Bhau and went "mmmm" to Eruch, but this changes nothing about the number and quality of sources and Wikipedia policies.

What's at stake is Wikipedia policies. There is a Wikipedia community. This is what Wikipedia is. I am not sure why it is recommended to disregard the rating system of Wikipedia. If one wants to contribute to Wikipedia it makes sense to familiarize with the ethos of the community. Why come to wikipedia to fight wikipedia? Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

D.: I agree with you that we seem to be speaking past one another -- I do accept what everyone's stressing about sources, I simply feel that the content of the original note added was actually more descriptive than speculative (except for perhaps the last sentence, but even that statement could have been sourced to published volumes), that's all (and, again, descriptive based on sources already cited within the article -- I am not the one who added them, although if they hadn't been buried outside of the relevant "silence" section, I wouldn't have even been concerned to add the note in the first place). The subsequent discussion that followed was indeed broader, about the fact of vocal speech vs. the symbolic meaning of the silence, which came up because the article itself was referring to the same fact inconsistently, at the time. It's one thing to have certain bits of information in certain sections, based on the sources, but quite another to outright describe the same fact completely differently in different sections of the article, all from the same supposedly objective narrative voice. Now that the editorial voice is consistent I feel no need to stress the intention of that original note addition, though, since E. and B.'s claims are within the silence section itself. And just to clarify, Eruch's source is not online, but from the Glow magazine, which is an ongoing, published magazine since the 1960s. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

D.: Just to be especially clear: the Glow magazine, for example, has its own OCLC publication number -- one could very legitimately argue that it's actually less "self-published" than Lord Meher (it has a wider variety of contributors, and probably has had more editorial oversight than the original edition of Lord Meher, etc.). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

...and just one more thing...please do not confuse what I am writing (and, again, in the discussion, not via edit-wars) with Liam's broader attitude. I'm not sure what his larger beef may be, but I do personally accept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I was critical of what I read as an investment in "GA" statuses as an excuse to avoid dealing with the thornier factual issues head-on, that's all -- especially since the sources were already cited and the language still varied between sections. I'm not "fighting" Wikipedia. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We all make judgments Hoverfish, it’s the human condition. Other have the rights to make judgments too and in regard to this article, they certainly have. And you are certainly making one here, I quote. “Surely you must be the measure of sanity around here and therefore you know it all best.”

U ask; Q. What cogs are in place?

A. Baba once said very few have the courage when asked, to say in Public they believe he is God. I guess that’s a good benchmark. I do believe there is an element of wanting to bring people to Baba via the article. That’s not possible. That’s his work.

The motive behind the article should be a clear and simple biography of his life which is not watered down to appease the mainstream or what some view is mainstream. If you find these ideas confronting, maybe its because they are hitting the mark.

You ask: Q. For whom is it too late?

A. I don’t know.

You ask: Q Are you sent to warn us?

A. I don’t know, am I?

U ask; Q Is the Inquisition ready yet?

A. What Inquisition? The only real Inquisition is ones own conscience.

You say. One way or the other, I see two suspicious keywords lately "resist" and "deny" They indicate an agenda of some newly forming sect or front behind them With prophets and crusaders too. Wikipedia, however, simply is NOT the right place for propagating it.

Over the top?

Look Hdtnkrwll said "resist" and "deny" first. I agree with him in that context he used. he was stonewalled. He is right IMO about the Silence question.

Seriously Hoverfish, don’t you think a heavy attachment to this article is also a kind of sect? What we have seen is certainly not exhibiting detachment is it. --Jones.liam (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be especially clear, to avoid any misunderstanding, that I used "denial" and "resistance" in a sense similar to the psychoanalytic sense, not in reference to any sort of hypothetical "sect" or "front" resorting to some sort of hypothetical "reeducation program" or guerrilla warfare! (If I had it to write over again, I probably wouldn't even use those terms & go there.) That said, though -- and D. please take note: what follows is admittedly a broader discussion, not just in reference to current sourcing issues, I get it -- I do personally think that "denial" actually is a pretty fair characterization, overall, given the oscillating descriptive language that was already within the article's main narrative voice (which, one could claim, was a symptom of the denial of dealing with the silence issue head-on, IMO). Whether Meher Baba broke his "God silence" vs. his "man silence" (as Bhau frames it), or both together or not, is one issue (and obviously involves interpretation either way, so is not a simple factual claim either way) -- yet when two close disciples are independently on record that they heard MB use his voice, and their accounts are minimized and diminished arbitrarily in recent publications (I'm not referring to Wikipedia sourcing issues here, but to the 2007 revised 6th ed. Discourses vol. IV, p. 3 ["...that silence remained unbroken"], to the 2008 Meher Baba's New Life book, p. 2 ["silence...which remained unbroken for the rest of His life"], etc.) then I think a certain level of denial is involved, at least as regards the "man silence" side of things. I'm not going to attempt it, but I do think there would be a legitimate, Wikipedia-friendly way to address the issue, without taking sides, citing the same level of sources that are already cited here, in a simple, descriptive manner which would not be original research, but just factual reporting. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is well understood that Liam would want us all "completely detached from the article" while he turns it into a colorful, exciting, controversial masterpiece. If we are "attached" to something, it is to the proper way of going about things in this working environment, which is much better than being attached to one's own personal fancies, arrogance and tantrums. Hoverfish Talk 06:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is well understood that Liam would want us all "completely detached from the article" Hoverfish that’s an assumption and a rather sarcastic one too. Lets get back to the real world where black and white are rare. Clearly we try to be detached verse levels of attachment that are unhelpful. Lets look at H suggestion as an a example of how changes come up against the wall. H states there must be a Wikipedia-friendly way to address the issue, without taking sides, citing the same level of sources that are already cited here, in a simple, descriptive manner which would not be original research, but just factual reporting. Im sure there is.

Lastly you say I want a colorful, exciting, controversial masterpiece. Wow that sounds so good its gotta be illegal. How about some middle ground. Stand back and allow others to edit too. --Jones.liam (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtrnkrwll writes: the 2008 Meher Baba's New Life book, p. 2 ["silence...which remained unbroken for the rest of His life"], Isn't that BHAU'S book?

I don't have the book. Also don't have True to his promise he has broken his silence. I would like to see the actual article to understand if Eruch equates the mmm'ing or grunting or whatever to the meta-term 'Breaking His Silence'. Can anyone scan a copy for me? --Nemonoman (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Meher Baba's New Life Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's Bhau's book, and Bhau is Mr. HeSpokeOutLoudToMe, why doesn't his book make that point? Or am I missing something? --Nemonoman (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bhau's 2008 new life book -- this is hearsay, but apparently it was more of a "group effort," and he didn't write the whole thing himself (although much is based on accounts already in Lord Meher). But it was read aloud to him & he approved the publication, as far as I know. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't find one either, so if you get the text, I'd appreciate it too. But searching for the Glow title I did hit this: http://www.answers.com/topic/meher-baba. The first biography (not sure where it mirrors from) states: "His controversial silence would last 44 years - for the remainder of his long life." and "On January 31, 1969, in Pimplegaon, India, to the great dismay of his many followers, Baba died without breaking his long silence, only signing to a disciple the message "Do not forget that I am God."" Next biography is from the Britanica Concise Encyclopedia: "For the last 44 years of his life he maintained silence". Next from Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia: "He often prophesied in this way that he would one day speak the One Word that would bring spiritualization and love to the world, but he died January 31, 1969, without utterance.". Well, next is Wikipedia mirrored at its present version, stating Eruch and Bhau's reports. So even though we are not citing same level sources to get there, we are addressing the issue, without taking sides, etc. So please, be happy and let us be happy too. All this complaining is taxing on our energy and nerves and we don't deserve it. Hoverfish Talk 18:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the date of Bhau's revelation to 2001 from 2003, to reflect the date of his "Awakenings" on the jaibaba.com webwsite.

I sent out a plea to the Meher Baba listserv for a copy of the Eruch article: only one answer so far: Are you sure that's the right issue? I can't seem to find that article on any page in that year & month. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no proof to the contrary soon, the reference should be removed. Hoverfish Talk 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be in Myrtle Beach next weekend and will check out the center library. It's been in there for months, so a few more days isn't going to hurt one way or the other. Somebody on the listserv might provide a reference before then. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article about Eruch's account exists in the Glow, although I don't have a copy nearby right now. I've read it with my own two eyes several times, though, so the citation may well just be off (I was assuming whoever first entered it would have gotten it right, but apparently not). Try looking for the same month in 1992, if you have access to back issues soon? But I'll try to find my own copy or notes also, of course... Hdtnkrwll (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference number 5 is also wrong. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dazed...: Just for the record (and, again, I'm putting this in the discussion, not via edits, I'm not "fighting Wikipedia"), this is a perfect example of the "denial" I've been trying to draw attention to here -- the current source for the claim "to the end of his life [1969], Meher Baba maintained silence" is from 1964, yet Eruch's own account, from a magazine continuously in publication since 1966 under MB's own original mandate, is almost impossible to find these days. I was going to make a wisecrack about the "rightly sourced" schooling bandied about above, but I'll refrain from doing so. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hdtn...: It is very hard to believe that after all that has been said and all that has been pointed out about sources you really do not understand. I think that you do and that you go just past it on purpose. The result is an endless repetition. Would you be so kind and place a question at the help desk and have some others, not connected with the article here, explain this to you? Also there is no point in leaving things "for the record" in Wikipedia. If you think there is any issue that needs resolution, you call for Resolution, not leave messages in a time capsule. Is it for when Wikipedia changes its policies or for future Baba Lovers who will demand justice done? Hoverfish Talk 13:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: By referring to the discussion record, I'm referring to a presumption that its purpose is to build some minimal level of consensus or agreement as to basic ("gross-sphere") facts and sources (which, of course, may not be possible). But is it really that controversial to claim that (1) the Glow is as valid as source as LM, according to Wikipedia standards; or (2) that Purdom's source from 1964 shouldn't take precedence over, say, Eruch's article from 1992, regarding 1969? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the fact that can be derived from the Glow magazine is that Eruch said "this and that". You cannot take Eruch's words and extract as fact that Baba has indeed spoken, no matter how credible you (or thousands) consider Eruch's statements. It is not a controversial matter, it cannot be done in Wikipedia. If you think I am making this up to disappoint you, please, ask an administrator or the community. If a famous book is written, by anyone, with reviews in notable newspapers, that states it as fact that Baba has indeed spoken, then we have a controversy that can be recorded here as such. Then the article will have to mention that according to these sources he didn't break his silence and according to those he did. Until now however, the state of things is that we have simple statements on emails by Bhau which state that during a dream Bhau remembered "so and so", and I am waiting for the precise wording of the Glow magazine article to see what exactly is claimed there. This is not the principle of Maya resisting the Truth. This is simply the discipline of Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 16:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: Again, just for the record/discussion, I don't mean for my discussion comments to be read in terms of "Maya" and "Truth" (I think you may be reading into them in that regard, honestly). I understand that the lead silence-reference probably doesn't merit changing (although the citation given certainly does, since Purdom's "...has lasted unbroken until this day," from p. 52, was written in 1964!), now that the Silence section below is clearer. I'm talking about retaining Eruch's article reference, and overall source validity, since you advocated deleting it. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well "Just for the record" -- I don't advocate deleting it and have never done. What I advocate is finding the correct reference, and I plan to work on doing this. IF no reference can be found -- unlikely -- THEN the factoid should be removed. About the Bhau website, it would be astoundingly low on the RS scale, and as I said A fussy editor could therefore remove it. I'd like to, but I'm holding back. "Just for the record". --Nemonoman (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

N.: Sorry for any confusion, I was responding to Hoverfish above. Just made that clearer. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Where did I advocate deleting anything? You can't put words in my mouth "just for the record"!! I advocate that the fact is that Bhau and Eruch made these claims. I advocate we should not end up presenting as historical fact that "Baba broke his silence". I never said we should delete what is already there. I do not want to delete that Bhau and Eruch made these statements. No one here present advocated deleting them. Hoverfish Talk 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I said the reference should be deleted, the thing that is down there indicating the wrong number of Glow magazine as source, THIS reference, NOT the reference to Bhau and Eruch statements. Hoverfish Talk 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I misread you then. By "If there is no proof to the contrary soon, the reference should be removed," I took you to mean Eruch's entire account, not just the note citation. I've updated the citation to the correct issue and page range. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

From: http://www.beachwalla.net/intuit/revisedsixth.htm. (Where? Control + F : type in Silence; 2nd search)In the May 1992 issue of Glow magazine, Eruch Jessawala dramatically describes how he heard Meher Baba break His physical silence: “TRUE TO HIS WORD, HE HAS BROKEN HIS SILENCE.” Bhau Kalchuri often tells how shortly before dropping His body Baba, using His physical voice, repeatedly and forcefully said, “Yadrakh,” then gestured, “I am not this body.” Eruch and Bhau form the most reliable eye-witness duo in creation.

If u read down a bit U will C this is an issue in the Baba community. But as per the Wikipedia rules so often quoted, minority views need to be expressed and represented. One day this view will be the majority, IMO, if is not already. I quote from the above address again.

The monumental fact that Baba broke His silence is mysterious and open to interpretation, but it deserves to be accurately reported. Especially in publications associated with the Trust. The beginning of Baba’s 44 years of silence, July 10 1925, has vast significance for lovers of Meher Baba. One of the few ceremonies Baba lovers observe is to maintain silence every year on July 10. It is incomprehensible—and beyond justification—for the breaking of Baba’s physical silence to be so cavalierly treated by a guardian of His words.--Jones.liam (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) --Jones.liam (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this quote from Beachwalla.net: In the May 1992 issue of Glow magazine, Eruch Jessawala dramatically describes how he heard Meher Baba break His physical silence: “TRUE TO HIS WORD, HE HAS BROKEN HIS SILENCE.” Bhau Kalchuri often tells how shortly before dropping His body Baba, using His physical voice, repeatedly and forcefully said, “Yadrakh,”

From all indications, the reference to the Eruch article is incorrect. I personally have a dull recollection of the Eruch article, and I don't doubt that it exists in some form, so I will make an effort to dig through Glows next weekend. But I am not convinced that Eruch characterizes Baba's vocalizations as speech in that article, and I will find it and report. I don't know whether there is a clear definition about what "Keeping Silence" means. On Silence Day, I often grunt, giggle, snort, etc., and I regard this as within the bounds of "keeping silence", but my son is real hard-liner and insists that any noise made by expelling air from the respitory system is Out. So I guess Baba's 'mmmm', would make my silence cut, but not my son's, and he would regard that as 'breaking his silence'.
The beachwalla.net precis very much mischaracterizes Bhau's words, which may be found here. Bhau describes that he had a vision or meditation-based talk with Baba in 2001, 32 years after Baba's death. During that visitation, Dream-Baba reminded Bhau of an incident that occurred at 11.00pm 30 January 1969: "Baba reminded me, “At 11:00, I deliberately spoke the first words with my tongue, ‘Remember this’ aloud in Hindi, ‘Yad Rakh.'

Bhau further clarifies his vision-inspired, newly discovered memory: The phrase was audible only once...When He said “Yad Rakh,” though His voice was feeble, the sound was very clear.

Bhau's vision-inspired memory is not that the repeatedly and forcefully said, “Yadrakh,” as beachwalla says. I disagree with the beachwalla statement that Bhau "often tells" of this incident. I've seen Bhau probably a dozen times since 2001, and he never introduced this topic himself. He was big on introducing lots of topics, but the basic subject of his talk was never "Holy Cow stop the presses Baba spoke!!" If he mentioned it all, he mentioned it in passing and moved on.

So, 32 years later, in a lengthy conversation with Baba who appears to him in a vision, Bhau contradicts (or at least embellishes) all his previous accounts, and now remembers two feeble words. Even then Dream-Baba tells Bhau: It was not the breaking of My silence. I did not speak the Word-of-Words. It was simply a sign that I could still speak.

In short, I don't believe that the Wikipedia article significantly misstates or mischaracterizes its discussion of Baba's silence. The article includes the Eruch-Bhau info despite poor sourcing.

As to the Purdom quote, that reference was put in to support an earlier version of the sentence that described silence, hand-gestures and alphabet board use only. The sentence changed, but the reference was not adjusted. I'll add a reference for "life-long." That won't be hard. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Other times Baba "broke his silence": The center library contains a tape of Baba in 1950's at a gathering at the barn, I think, where Baba may be heard coughing and clearing his throat, making vocalizations. Ask the librarians: they all know about it. Also, Margaret Craske described Baba getting on the phone to a woman calling him in desperation and suicidal depression from Switzerland, I believe. According to Margaret Baba took the phone and 'cooed' into it. I don't regard these incidents -- one of which at least has physical evidence to back it up -- as disturbing in any way Baba's unspoken vow of silence. I'm sure that there were other instances of similar vocalizations, but that the people who heard them did not regard them as significant enough to record or make a big deal about. I'm even willing to concede that Bhau might have heard something out of Baba: a grunt, a coo, a cough, a 'mmm', and 32 years latere 'remembered' that what he had heard were 2 syllables, feebly spoken. These incidents, to my mind, do not provide an adequate basis for changing this phrase: "From July 10, 1925 until his death in 1969, Meher Baba was silent." Sorry for the Subtle-ists out there, but I'm a botttom-line guy, and that's the bottom line.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Glow as reliable source. I think it's reliable, but my opinion doesn't count for much. I've been in the middle of lots of Reliable Source disputes, and not just about this article. To get a sense of how seriously some editors take Reliable Sources, visit WP:RSN. In the past week, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and US News and World Report have been challenged as WP:RS Reliable Sources. The notion that the Glow...has its own OCLC publication number is not going provide much weight in the case of a challenge. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- my point is just that what you're saying (for better or worse) actually applies to the majority of sources already used by this article, so some of the sourcing moralizing going on by some earlier strikes me as a bit disingenuous (even if well-intentioned). (And especially if it's a question of a 1964 book being used to counter-validate testimony within Eruch's published account of 1969.) Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources in this article are "Reliable" in large part because I spent dozens of hours arguing their reliability and finally getting agreement from skeptical editors. This was not fun or pretty, but through this effort we got the article to GA, which means we probably will not need to go through the same routine again at least with the vetted sources. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "that won't be hard" -- I hope someone does make an effort to add valid citations/sources for those claims where they exist, then, since despite this entire, lengthy discussion (and all the Wikipedia principles being expounded upon by others), neither statement to that effect in the article as it stands now is even valid (the first, "to the end of his life [1969]," is using a source from 1964, the second mention, "until his death in 1969," in the "Silence" section, doesn't even cite a source). This is all the more reason why some sort of simple, summary (and better sourced, of course, than the one I had started) explanatory note would be appropriate, IMO, but I'm taking a break from this. I'm curious to see how Eruch's article is dismissed once it's actually read by those already commenting upon its Wiki-merits, though, both in terms of source validity (in comparison to the sources already fought for -- although I respect N. for all the work he's done & for already stating that he considers the Glow a valid source, unlike some earlier), and in terms of its content re: silence-breaking. Bhau, of course, is a different case right now, but that that beachwalla site gets it wrong is irrelevant to Bhau's own accounts per se, and I'm content that they're at least mentioned -- there are several other web sources throughout the article already, to sites that might seem just as uncertainly valid, from a strict Wikipedia point of view. I do actually think, though, that the Wikipedia arbitrators/mediators, etc. would probably agree that most human beings on planet earth mean by "silence" the absence of speech or intentional sound/utterances (I agree, coughs & grunts aren't the point). I'm not invested in the article enough right now, or in this very simple point, to call for a Resolution (as Hoverfish suggested, since, it's true, there's no point to discussing this endlessly), but that the two main silence claims aren't even sourced, as the article stands now, sort of makes this whole lengthy discussion into a bit of a comedy of errors to me at this point. But I respect the work people have done previously, and what I do take to be good intentions, over a sensitive issue (even if resulting in nonsensical results, as the article stands now, at least). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You say "I'm curious to see how Eruch's article is dismissed". Eruch's article is not going to be dismissed. It is in what you expect to see derived from Eruch's statements that may disappoint you. Also once a citation has been given for a certain statement, it doesn't have to be repeated every time the statement is repeated. What can happen is that all these statements become more uniform in phrasing throughout the article. However I know you wish to see a certain statement that will satisfy you and this statement may not be acceptable. But whatever is stated in Glow can be reported here as "what Eruch said or claimed". Hoverfish Talk 14:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish: I get that, which is fine -- by "dismissed" I just meant that, from my perspective, giving Eruch's eyewitness account precedence in how the overall fact of the matter is presented (re: the simple fact of vocalizations, separate from all the symbolic and metaphysical issues) actually wouldn't be undue weight at all (in comparison with summary accounts of MB's life written by others), given Eruch's unique role with MB for all those years. But I know that is a subjective call either way, and of course it seems manifestly pointless at this point for me to try to convince the editors here of that value judgment. I think your earlier suggestion is probably the most doable -- to present "...the whole story of Baba's promises to break his silence...even in thumbnail size," alongside factual/NPV/sourced summaries of how various people have interpreted that over the years, pre- and post-1969 (which there are plenty of sources for, actually, including Baba's own statements of course). Over the coming months I may try to add a sub-section to that effect, if it's not started by others, but of course will take some work to write well & source well.

If I'm able to, I'll try to post an OCR-ed version of Eruch's article here (in a new talk sub-section) sometime next week, if only since it's become so inaccessible. But I realize at this point that no one's valuation of it, in terms of weight, is likely to change. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This article seems Ok re silence until a more relaible source comes along that can shed light on the matter. Its all well and good to talk about 'vision dreams' but they should not influence this discussion as they are not published material from a reliable source but heresay only, as interesting as they are. I think Nemonoman is doing an OK job and perhaps the future will reveal more reliable quotes.

Re reliable sources, those newspapers mentioned pretty much swallowed the hook line and sinker of WMD and that was a massive con. Newspapers are often not reliable. Johnathon. --203.26.122.12 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have add citations to Haynes and Kalchuri in support of the "lifelong silence" fact.

As to the reliablity of websites being cited, there are three facts having website citations.

A website showing Baba's Final Declaration. This is so far as I can tell, the only online source for the Final Declaration, which appears in LM and other books. If the fact that this website shows the Final Declaration were to be challenged, we could cite it in books, but that doesn't provide for the immediate access for the reader should it be desired.
Details of Baba's family as described by MB. The article being cited is nice because (1) it is compact and clear and (2) it's from MB himself. But this source is a clear violation of WP:RS, so it needs to be fixed, and if no one else finds better cites in the many books that have been vetted as RS, we should remove the fact.
Residence and Death of Muhammed Mast at Meherabad. Again the cite is not in a Reliable Source, and I don't believe that M.'s death is documented elsewhere, although his residence has been documented, I believe. If challenged by a {fact} tag, the fact should probably be removed. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't we cite a book and a website (if it is for convenience)? And how come we are giving a 1964 source for a 1969 event? Hoverfish Talk 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add a citation on my own (see Ref 6), but I am not familiar with how to do this complicated citation method. If someone can improve it to specifications I'd appreciate it. If preferred the "Meher Baba's Newlife,Kalchuri, 2007, p. 2" would be just as good or maybe better as it may be confusing to some that Discourses is by Baba but this volume about him. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nemonoman. Much much improved. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Industry Standard 8/31/09 "Starting this fall, text from new or questionable sources will be signalled with a bright orange background, while trusted authors will get a lighter shade." Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be interesting. --Jones.liam (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So now, some mysterious editor who is very familiar with all we are discussing here, Brendan132 came to Meher Baba's biography to replace "death" and "died" with "dropping of the body" and "dropped his body". He then started vandalizing various articles with silly and vulgar edits for about an hour until he was finally blocked indefinitely as a vandal. On his way he even added the word Meher Baba in Indian Honorifics and came back to this article to assert that "But during his life was always Avatar" which is a sarcasm about Meher Baba's death, as from a BL point of view, he is still the Avatar even after having dropped his body. Well, I wonder why such a pious fellow would leave an edit like this: . Could he be somehow disturbed? "Just for the record." Hoverfish Talk 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably disturbed yes. Drugs?. Considering he made about 500 contribution in a very short time over a large range of subjects and is now banned as a Vandal. Yes disturbing. I dont have a Wiki account now, in part because of the time involved and the grief that editors like him cause. Im on the Baba fringe too, but do check out this article a few times a year. Why not a bigger section on Sanskaras Im wondering? Johnathon --203.26.122.12 (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Who doesn't have a Wiki account now and because of whom? No, Brendan132 did only 12 edits (not 500) before he was blocked. This, however, is from IP 203.26.122.12 on the 10th September , this on the 5th September and the same IP was used back on the 5th and 6th December 2006 during the sock puppetry scheme with "Imogen4", "Waylander.one" and "HectorTroy". So now Sanskaras is lacking? Nice try though. Hoverfish Talk 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish this is my IP address 122.111.225.219. What are you on. Johnathon works for the state health service. we talked about this site. I guess he had a look esp since he did me a favour and was one of your famous sock puppets in 2006. Waylander I think.

I dont know where you are from and how it is there but there is a Baba community in this state. This is a big country and geographically isolated. for instance there are Parsis in South Australia who meet Baba who have nothing to do with the Baba community. My son chanced on one at a supermarket. You may be surprised just how many people know of Baba all over Australia. Thats what its like here. I don’t know why.

And this was one of only three nations where Baba put one of his three centers. Not Europe. Not south America. Not Africa. Not South east Asia. There are several people who work in the health care field who know of Baba. If you have good software you will find those IP addresses come from the state system of South Australia. One such Baba person even worked as a nurse at Meherabad with Dr Anne. She is now on the fringe. Another here is an actor. Another an artist. Its not my role to give out names.

Yes some of these people did vote in that famous straw poll to get that ridiculous amount of Pete Townsend off the article. I have said that before. Look it wasn’t the tidiest poll but I note your role in it too. I saw that you left a message on H’s discussion page way back in 2006 trying to get support for the Townsend section. Have you re read the article as it was before the straw poll? Can you honestly say it was better with all that left of field Townsend material in it? Would it have got GA with all that superfluous material? No. If yes then push for its return? You cant I don’t believe. Who can? You should be thankful these acquaintances and friends of mine did take time to get onto Wikipedia even for a short time instead of getting so hot under the collar.

Once again your bordering on uncivil and a little anxious. Please refrain and Chill. --Jones.liam (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave above links that prove you use IP 203.26.122.12 occasionally. Any admin can check and see for himself. So if you are now the speaker for Mr. Jonathon, could you ask him to explain to us how he doesn't have a "Wiki account now, in part because of the time involved and the grief that editors like him cause". In which way did Brendan132 edits come in relation to his account? Why are you talking for him? This isn't working out at all, in spite of all your update on the Baba community in Australia. "Bordering on uncivil"? I thought I was talking about Brennan132's vandalism. Hoverfish Talk 08:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. Look up this IP too. I could log onto any one of hundreds of different computers. The simple answer is that when I am posted to ED i see Liam and we talk about Baba. Its then I may occasionaly check the Baba article. Hence we may have logged on with tha same computer. I know Liam we BOTH work here, I move around a lot, hes in one place, thats health care. I hope this satisfies you. Brendan123 was neither of us as you should be able to check and Im not exactly sure what you are driving at with this. Yes I did do the poll in 2006 . Really it was a silly amount of P. Townsend (even though I like The Who) Now as Liam says chill a bit --203.26.122.12 (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)- Johnathon

So what was that Wiki account you lost? From IP 203.26.122.12 comes a lot of vandalism in wikipedia. It has been blocked 5 times, its talk page is full of warning templates and I just filed an Abuse response on it. You may comment in the discussion: Wikipedia:Abuse response/IP 203.26.122.12. Hoverfish Talk 22:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for having nothing to do with Brendan132, I will let you compare his above mentioned vulgarity: with a recent one coming from IP 203.26.122.12 here: . I think it would pass the sock puppetry duck test "beyond reasonable doubt". Hoverfish Talk 06:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK this is interesting now. Lets break this down. Please Show step by step the link between this IP203.26.122.12 you gave and Bredan123 posts. When I clicked on these links above I get some stuff about gun policy and the next about St kilda, ( which is an Aussie footy team) which is offensive. I cant see where the IP adress above is linking these abuses. Im really curious to know where it is. Lets establish this first. If the link is made Next lets find which computer this IP203.26.122.12 belongs too --Jones.liam (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Next, I did a scan and that Ip is from the Government of SA,

203.26.122.12 AU AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE SOUTHERN SYSTEMS (S.A. GOVERNMENT)

but when did I last use it? Was it in 2006? if so that IP belongs to another hospital the RGH where i was in 2006 and havnet been for 2 years. Do you know how many health profesionals and staff with computer access a big hospital has. Perhaps 40,000. You will believe what you want i guess. I can state with 100% truthfulness I have had nothing to do with these Brendan123 posts. They are stupid. I did notice though you are avoiding the questions above. Smokescreen? Ill repeat them here.

Have you re read the article as it was before the straw poll? Can you honestly say it was better with all that left of field Townsend material in it? Would it have got GA with all that superfluous material? No. If yes then push for its return? You cant I don’t believe. Who can? --Jones.liam (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not start messing with your escape route/smock-screen. Now, you pretend not to remember that you used this IP on the 10th of September 2009? Is your memory OK or do you hold us for idiots? I have even given the link to your edit above in this section and you didn't even check. Here it is again, please click on it: . Quoting you: "Hi all. This is Liam on another computer. Thats Ok isnt it D :) " It's really fine, except this was from IP 203.26.122.12 (look at the top in the diff page... ta-da!). I gave also a link to your 4th of September edit above, but it's a minor edit. Surely not 2006 and surely you are not being honest at all. As for the Townsend section, it didn't go out because of your puppet team. The sock puppetry scheme was verified and its influence in the straw poll invalidated. I had voted in favor of it being removed, if you remember. But now I regret it. Hoverfish Talk 12:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong. And one day you will find out you are wrong. You think Im Brendan123 your wrong again. Read below why computers like IP 203.26.122.12 are wikipedias achilles heel. Of course i did a minor edit on that computer. Wow big sin. not. Im not denying it, mostly i signed my name. Sometimes i forgot. I dont log in on Comps that are not mine. One my password is on my own comps memory and two i dont want any other comp remembering mine . Read below.

About 2006. go back and see that these comps also belong to Southern Health, just a smaller part of it. About townsend. i suspect you went with the crowd as evidenced by regretting it now.--Jones.liam (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true what Hoverfish is saying. This user is doing outlandlishly obvious sockpuppetry. There is so much confirmation of it it's almost comical. Here is one absolute example. See here. Now read below, from above discussion.

I'm on the Baba fringe too, but do check out this article a few times a year. Why not a bigger section on Sanskaras Im wondering? Johnathon --203.26.122.12 (talk)

This has gone way too far. It has become a true obstruction to Wikipedia. I'm going to try to see if an admin can intervene. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dazd: As long as the problem remains in the discussion page, I think an administrator cannot do much about it and Liam can keep using the page for his personal ends, be it his entertainment, his daily socializing, or whatever. He does have a grudge because we rejected his "Other planets", "Jesus didn't die on the cross", "Heaven and Hell", etc, and he will stay here to create fuss. Decisive action can be taken if he creates puppet accounts to edit the article itself. The case of the Brendan132 account is that the edits were reverted immediately from vandal patrol and the account blocked. If it was still active we could ask for an investigation. If such incidents are repeated we will have a strong argument to report for sock puppet investigation even if the accounts get blocked. What I have already done is ask for Abuse response on IP 203.26.122.12 (see above) which means that Wikipedia will contact Southern Systems to find a way to stop the abuse. Beyond this I personally will not offer any more entrainment to Liam in this page. I am still available for any main space events and constructive discussions. As you see I have invested more than enough of my time to try to make sense here, but more and more nonsense keeps coming. So as far as I am concerned, I am not responding to any more of it. Hoverfish Talk 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing Southern Health care can do and Liam is not my real name so no points there. Nice try. The problem for Wikipedia from Southern Health care is the night shift. Hundreds of people on Long hours and time to burn. Another problem for wikipedia is one person one computer issue and the ease accounts can be set up. Im not going to post from any computer but mine from now on as small minds shout sockpuppet. But for wikipedia this is an issue and a weakness.

Sour grapes? Well Hovefish are you still stinging about losing the Townsend poll? Why dont you bring all your Townsend content back?

Baba and the planets etc. Well I dont mind either way. I did some editing, it was reverted. Be bold in your editing Wikipedia said. Yeah right. They dont talk about existing editors. hahaha.

Now I used the phrase troll editor or something like that, to describe editors who oppose being bold, but it isnt quite right. Its got to be a phrase that is more conservative, , more stuck in one place, not roving, less bold, smaller, but of the same genre. I think Gnome, Dwarf or Hobbit are part of the phrase. Each possess a known stubbornness. Maybe Dwarf Editor Syndrome (DES).--Jones.liam (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you say its sockpuppetry when I signed my name Liam. Its a joke. In the above examples I say something like this is Liam. That dosnt count. Case closed. In the other example a friend posts a few words and leaves his name. Did he do any editing? No. Meanwhile someone else does some vandalism on the same computer. So what thats not me. Paranoia

Next do you actually think about what is written above. It's a work computer. I gave its location. Access to it is not restricted. Most of my postings come from this computer here at home. Sometimes at work I use a common work computer, and dont log in as my password at home is on memory, but at the work Comp, well I dont sign in but leave my name. At work anyone can use, this computer that is set up for the internet use in a common area.

I think you are desperate and frankly being childish and are trying to get away from criticism of the article and the past editorial process.

Look I could speak to several Baba people. Ask them to create a wikipedia account and get involved, do some editing and log in from home so you dont have any straws to cling to. Then you would no doubt cry foul when another straw poll was taken, but you would over time have no grounds to block editorial content. But Im not going to do that. --122.111.226.1 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) OMG i forgot to sign in SOCKPUPPETRY !!!!!!!!!. --Jones.liam (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoverfish. My problem with you is that I dont believe you that Brendan123 used that Ip address yet. Because when asked you didnt show a link. I dont trust wikipedia administrators to be impartial either just because they are administrators. (read below).

After having read around the problems I have had re reverts are common in Wikipedia. Dwarf Editor Syndrome by another name is mentioned below.

Somehow I think you wont accept this below.

Lastly a few times you have mentioned my character. The following should be sobering for you. I dont know if you have enough character to absorb all the below and I am not convinved you have not fabricated evidence or at least been superficial in highlighting only what suits your cause. Liam

Wikipedia claims (or is promoted by its users as) a replacement for the traditional encyclopedia. They frequently compare themselves to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but in reality Wikipedia is not an adequate substitute, let alone a replacement. What's more, because of fundamental problems in Wikipedia's philosophy, design, and operation, it would appear impossible for Wikipedia to ever become such a substitute.

There are many problems with Wikipedia, some more important than others. I'll discuss only two that have bitten me in the past. The Ignorant Edit-Bully. It seems that there are a large number of Wikipedia devotees or zealots who have little more to do than hang around the Wikipedia site, watching for edits to pages that they've contributed to. Any change to "their" page is taken as a personal insult and instantly reverted, regardless of its merit. What's worse is that the types of people who do this simply do not have the knowledge or intellectual tools to recognize the merit of the contribution.

Wikipedia prides itself on not relying on professional editors, which they claim makes Wikipedia more egalitarian. However, egalitarianism is not necessarily a desirable quality in a reference work, as the philosophy of everyones contributions being equally valuable is simply untrue in the real world. As Theodore Sturgeon noted, "ninety percent of everything is [crap]".

This leads to the problem of many of the Wikipedia articles having been created or primarily edited by the edit bullies (what I called Dwarf Editor Syndrome) described above:

They do not necessarily have a broad knowledge of any of the topics they write about. They are generally not well-read or broadly-educated, having little context for the particular areas they have studied in any depth. They tend to have concentrated their reading on various things of personal interest to them, so they have no sense of proportion or of what is truly significant to the world, versus the trivia that was important to them as teenagers and such

This results in the Wikipedia in general having laughably large holes in the areas it covers, while having an even more ridiculous amount of spurious detail on subjects that it has no need to cover. My current favourite example: Many Wikipedia articles about important historical figures are little more than caricatures, if they have sufficient details to even be called that.

Many people have noted this phenomenon, though I've never seen a good name for it before. In a nutshell, the problem is that a person knowledgable in a given field (but not a regular Wikipedia contributor) notices an obvious error in a page devoted to a topic in that field. They want to be a good citizen, so they edit the page and correct the error. However, within minutes, their correction has been reverted, restoring the error, and if they're particularly unlucky, they may receive a note from the person that reverts their change, accusing them of "page vandalism".

yes and there is much more at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6954

The popular online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has come to play an important role in informing and also shaping public debates. Yet as a Florida-based, US creation, it brings its own baggage to those debates.

US corporate media sources (Time, CNN, Fox, and so on) are privileged as reliable and “neutral” sources in Wiki entries, despite the fact that many of these bodies are intimately involved in many of the most contentious public debates, such as privatisation, intervention and war.

The online tool Wikipedia Scanner also demonstrates that Wiki is heavily edited by powerful organisations, such as the CIA, the Vatican, US government funded agencies, news corporations, banks and embassies.

Yet perhaps even more important is the role played by Wiki’s 1,000 administrators, who have “special powers” to edit and summarily remove content, determine what constitutes Wiki’s stated policy of a “neutral point of view”, excluding other points of view, disputed fact and “biased” sources.

from http://www.iptablog.org/2006/04/19/the_problem_with_wikipedia.html Lore Sjöberg, Wired: The Wikipedia FAQK: "The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: Experts are scum.

danah boyd offers some insight on the Wikipedia editorial process: on being notable in Wikipedia: "People wanted "proof" that i was notable; they wanted proof of every aspect of my profile. Then, when people in my field stood up for my entry in the discussion for deletion, they were attacked for not being Wikipedians."

want More? from Conclusive Proof that Wikipedia Is Shit http://bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=463467 Though I'm poking fun at this, it's not an innocuous issue. It extends to Wikipedia in general. I don't need to mention that it's the first resource that non-experts turn to on any given topic. It is easily more influential than any well-versed specialist in any particular field. What's worse is that its internal politics favor people with too much time on their hands (read unemployed) who have sedulously stockpiled an array of Wikipedia's merit badges. Case in point: look up any benzodiazepine article and track down the edits and commentary made by user Literaturegeek, who states he is an addiction counselor. This person has hijacked every benzo article and festooned them with garrulous, non-specific and dubiously sourced anti-drug propaganda. I concede that benzos can be extremely addictive, but they are also (IMHO) the most effective biological treatment for the spectrum of anxiety disorders. Yet user Literaturegeek methodically reverts any changes to his edits and has been the initiator of many editing wars (some of which make for very entertaining reading on the articles' discussion pages. So what we have is a biased non-expert becoming the English-speaking world's foremost authority on benzodiazepines.

lastly. from Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power. from http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/wikipedia.html

From me now: Wikipedia is deeply flawed and made worse by edit Bullies or Dwarf Editor Syndrome --Jones.liam (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --Nemonoman (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I vote to archive this discussion and stay on the topic of the article from now on.Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should let it for a couple more days or so and stay on topic. Do you remember what happened last time you archived? Hoverfish Talk 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That's fine with me. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote there is a lack of forthrightness here.

Hmmm somethings not right. There is too much haste and denial. Id say the Brendan123 evidence is fabricated or its a plain lie to link him to Sth Health. Why. To get me out of editing and discussion. When I supported Hk it was 2 vs 3 for awhile. Hmm that was uncomfortable wasnt it H and D. And yes of course you would want to stay on topic because the other option is to see how much of a Clique exists here and to think about uncomfortable things. Hoverfish are you Brendan123 or was he some idiot you convieniently used? Have a look at yourself.

As for bait re that abuse discussion. Administrators can be corrupted. I have shown that. There was no bait, only a lie. You cant show Brendan123 came from that IP . Yet earlier you say how easy it is to find an IP. Yet Hoverfish you have gone on like a person with nothing else to do but prowl Wikipedia and stop any new work. Its sad actually and dodgy.

As far as Im concerned this exercise has shown a pathology and a neurosis in how wikipedia articles are dealt with, edited and reverted. editors defend their patch as their ego has become part of the article. I should not be surprised really as Baba has told us the wick of righteousness is low. And Baba people are like anyone else. You have to watch them.

There is a clinging obsessive ownership to an article here as discussed by many web sites. I did not get involved in any more edits as I said I would do awhile back, but I kept this discussion going to see just how low you both could go and how flawed Wikipedia can be. Not for entertainment as you suggest.

Wikipedia can be a good quick reference and the Baba article is OK, but the journey to get there is tainted. And as Mehera said to us, its all about the journey. Or as we say in the West, the means dont justify the ends. So have your little Phyric victory, file this, and H get some honour back and put all that Townsend back in. U know U want to. Hahahahah. :) --Jones.liam (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As per the template now added to the top of the page, any off-topic comments will be removed. Editors who continue to indulge in off-topic commentary may also, potentially, find themselves subject to sanctions as per WP:DE. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 9

Wikiwand in your browser!

Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 9

Wikiwand in your browser!

Our Connection to Baba

On the article's characterization of MB's silence

Silence changes

Whats wrong with this Picture

Silence references

New Wikipedia Policy coming soon

The Brendan132 incident

Sockpuppetry is confirmed

Sockpuppetry is not confirmed

The problem with Wikipedia

Can we please stay on topic?