This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I've changed the phrase "communicating with an alphabetic board" to "communicating by means of an alphabet board". This is better English because a person communicates with another person and not with an inanimate object. I made some changes to this page quite some time ago now and I haven't revisited it for a while. I'll have a look at the grammar more closely over the next few days and probably make some further changes. I'm a bit of a pedant as regards grammar but I only want the article to read as well as possible and this is the reason for my editing. I'm a confirmed Baba Lover so don't get nervous, all changes will only be for the better I assure you. BBesar 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)BBesar.
I think this entry could deserve FA status. What is your opinion about it? Kkrystian 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put links to Christian ministries on this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for links and not a place for evengelism. The article is about the person Meher Baba. Please limit to links that add some information about the subject. Sharnak ( talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what appears.
Now the following will be hard to reference but is so important in the Baba World, it needs to be there. Im putting this out here so we can all nut this out sensibly, before anything is added. This is the issue.
I contacted about seven key Baba page editors of the last year about the above. No comments! OK. The work as it stands is POV. No definitive reference is provided that states 100% that Baba did not break his silence before he dropped the body. On that basis I am going to delete the POV statement now. -- Liamjones4477 ( talk) 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Rachel Brown The lines about Rachel Brown's book have been deleted with the comment that they are not enclyclopedic data about the person Meher Baba (or words to that effect). That is why they are included under the section about Legacy. Her book is certainly as much a part of his legacy as is the music of Pete Townshend.-- Rosabibi ( talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Obedience
Baba's instructions to followers and his insistence on obedience are very much a part of his legacy, since those instructions are adhered to, to the letter, by many of the followers concerned. Devoted followers of Baba have said that when he "dropped his body", among their feelings were disappointment that now he would never recind those instructions. I was about to reference to line about geographic confinement (with regard to Mansari), but it has now been removed. I am not about to engage in edit wars, but I would ask you to restore those lines, because the entry as it stands does not give a complete overview. Sorry I forgot to sign.-- Rosabibi ( talk) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from Meher Baba's followers does not represent independent sources. This article needs quotes from national magazines, books, important newspapers, etc. And preferably from points of view from religions at variance with the views of Meher Baba. Wikipedia is not a place for self-advertising, and this hugely long article is mostly that.
The unsubstantiated, peacock terms number in the dozens. This is contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines.
The very long quote in section Silence is a violation of copyright. You may not quote so extensively, editor, just because you view yourself and the quote as in support of the subject. This is a serious charge. Either the editors must fix this (preferably by limiting the quote to a couple sentences), or I will mark this article in violation of copyright, which will cause it to be entirely deleted.
24.130.14.170 ( talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would note that attempt to include relevant information from a non "devotional' angle were deleted immediately and no response given to my comment (see above). Rachel Brown's book gives valuable insights into Meher Baba's legacy - that is, unless one is determined to claim that this legacy is unquestionably entirely positive. It is not very plausible to say that anyone who studies Meher Baba from non-devotional viewpoint ends up becoming a believer when contributions from non-devotees are deleted entirely without appropriate discussion.-- Rosabibi ( talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand Wikipedia copyright poliicy. Quotes are acceptable when short in proportion to the original work. This article has two quotes. Gertrude Stein has eleven. Maybe you should get that one deleted. Shamak ( talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tommytocker removed the 2 quotes. I'm restoring. Let's discuss before pulling, please.
Is the question copyvio? If so, there's no reason to remove the quotes (Pace, 24.130.15.94).
Is the question whether the quotes add value? If so, let's the hell get rid of quote number 1! Meher Baba could be oblique, to say the least, as quote 1 shows.
The New Life quote seems significant to the article in many ways, and trying to paraphrase or parse it would only be harmful to understanding.
Quote 2 (New Life) is good juju, and only 2 sentences -- hard to see copyvio there, and very hard to subsititute to get equal value. As to its length, it's well within bounds based on my understanding of fair use. I have been a technical editor for some years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the concept. I have until 2 days ago ever heard of a 100 word limit in anybody's rulebook. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that the New Life quote of Meher Baba's is copyrighted. I certainly have never heard so. Books authored by Baba have been copyrighted, as have books about him. Not that quote, however, which so far as I can find has not been registered as copyrighted.
Referencing a copyrighted book that contains the quote does not matter. A scholar quoting Hamlet in a copyrighted paper does not thereby suddenly acquire ownership and royalty rights.
Until someone can prove that has registered copyrights to quotes, ANY copyvio point is moot. He may claim to be 'eternal' but I think you'll agree, 24.130.15.94, that Meher Baba is not at this point capable of releasing anything into the public domain in a formal way, is he? So that demand seems spurious.
24.130.15.94, what makes you think those quotes are under copyright? -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. I still think quote 1 can be dropped.
Some "one" has left the following on my talk page:
Copyright terms as left by Meher Baba in his last will and testament
Meher Baba specifically left copyright of "sayings" and "messages" in Trust except where otherwise specified http://www.ambppct.org/trust/docs/Will%20and%20Testament.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherbabalastwilltestament ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That information is of interest, but not entirely germaine to the case of a charge of copy violation. There is no clear evidence that a copyright to the New Life quote is perfected by this document. Will someone produce the specific title or registration of this quote. It PURPORTS to be one of Meher Baba's, and I believe it is. But what I believe, as 24.130.15.94 rightly points out, is a matter of BIAS, not OBJECTIVE proof. So I'll stand by assertion while I wait for someone to produce clear evidence that the quote in question is registered and protected by some legally binding copyright that prevents it from being used here.
Which is worse, an IP address, or a one time made up identity? Whose agenda is at work here? Since 24.130.15.94 seems to think that the article is full of "unsubstantiated, peacock terms" and other puffery (my word to summarize), it seems odd that what is being recommended is not the editing out of THAT, but rather editing out the basic substance of the piece. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
All the above is tangential however. Wikipedia Fair Use Guidlines state:
Text
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
I think it's pretty clear that 2 sentences are a brief quotation in practically anyone's book -- except maybe 24.130.15.94's.-- Nemonoman ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the section about Melanie Safka because, as it was written, it's really problematic. While it's true Melanie was a follower of Meher Baba for a short time and did wear a Baba pin at one time, there never was a Baba pin that had the expression "Don't Worry, Be Happy" written on it. The pin she had simply was a photo of Meher Baba. Also, currently there is no clear way to verify the mention of her in the October 1969 issue of Hit Parader Magazine, which was a paraphrase and not a quote. If you can find the actual date and actual quote it would help. Sorry. Tommytocker ( talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The excerpt below on Wikipedia policy is from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. Tommytocker ( talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>
simply by spacing the paragraphs apart with blank lines. A
workaround is to enclose each of the block-quoted paragraphs in its own <p>...</p>
element.The lead seems a bit too long. Perhaps re-looking at the guidance provided at WP:LEAD may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless there are specific objections, I will merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) into this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
<<< All sourced material has been merged here. Also added references to material that was not referenced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The actual first printing date of The God-Man by C. B. Purdom is 1964. A couple places on line misquote it as 1962. It was printed in 1964 and 1971. Tommytocker ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a silly suggestion here to merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) with this page. That makes no sense as there is a Perfect Master page to link to. Is it the idea simply to accept that this page cannot link to the Perfect Master page because the Perfect Master page MUST NOT be exhaustive enough to be worth linking to? What is going on? This is the craziest thing I ever saw. Either build up the Perfect Master page so it is worth linking to or keep the Baba one and make it clear that it exists at the other page. I don't understand the concept of merging a word to this page about a man that used it. What???? DeanaG ( talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, see Incarnation and Rainbow flag for examples of more complete articles that are multi-culturally inclusive and link to sub-articles. This isn't rocket science. :') I've never seen a page so puny and timid as Perfect Master. What is the concern here of having more content there. Anyway that is for a discussion there and not here. ;-: DeanaG ( talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, you're not understanding at all the problem. The word "perfect master" comes up twice in the article quite early on. So there is a need at that point for the reader to 'know' what this means so he can understand then what he is reading. That is how Wikipedia works. Words that are of interest link to other articles. As you are doing it, you miss the whole issue and think that this is some part of his life. Baba had dozens of words. There is a Meher Baba Glossary of terms. http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/glossary.html So this was not the issue that the review raised ( and linked to above) -- that the reviewer did NOT want a section on this, but a link. Now there is a page you have helped on called "perfect master" and so it could make sense to link to this so the reader will understand. But also, if you check there is also a common practice here to have a term with uses in different cultures not only have some expansion on each cultural use but also to link to sub-pages. See Rainbow flag and Incarnation as some examples of this process. You will see there is a page for Rainbow flag and then a sub-page for Rainbow flag (LGBT movement). You are not seeming yet to get what the issue is. We don't need the Baba article to explain all the words in the Baba glossary that are over 100, just a way to respond to the suggestion that this use be clarified when it arises early in the article. Do you see now? You are working way too hard. DeanaG ( talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not doing research, just adding tags. I know you think this is how to help. But let's stick to the original issue. Okay, so do you like the idea of merging the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) page with Perfect Master? At least that still gives a place to link to for the word, which seems to be what is at issue. So that is okay. Do you want to remove the main article templates from Perfect Master or should I? Then we can link the references to that term to that page and expand that page as time goes on. That works just as well and was my first suggestion. In fact I had already added the links that way and then saw you had added the templates from Perfect Master pointing to the other page so I reverted that thinking we were in sinc. DeanaG ( talk) 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find the GA review for this article, and given the lack of sources for many of the content it seems to me lacking for GA status. Can anyone provide the GA review link? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
see this-- Nemonoman ( talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, here I'll try to say plainly what you appear to want to do.
What does this look like when you add it all up? It looks like you are obsessed with this page and are thinking of thinks to upset it. A cursory search in the history shows a really stable article for years until you arrived. Just wanted to say how this looks. DeanaG ( talk) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
My responses:
Terminology in God Speaks | ||
Vedantic | Mystic | Sufi |
Paratpar Parabrahma | God's Beyond-Beyond State | Ghaib-ul-Ghaib / Wara-ul-Wara |
Paramatma | God in Beyond State | Allah |
Anant | Infinite | La Mahdood |
Nirguna | Attributeless | La Sifat |
Nirakar | Formless | La Surat |
Sat-Chit-Anand | Power, Knowledge, Bliss | Qudratm, Narefat, Mussarat |
Vidnyan Bhumika | Realm of Mastery | Alam-e-Hahut / Arsh-e-Ala |
Atmapratisthapana Sahaj Samadhi | Established in the Life of God | Baqa-Billah |
Vidnyan | Highest Divine Consciousness | Ahadiyat / Akan-e-Lahut |
Saguna | Qualitied | Ba Sifat |
Sakar | Manifest in Form | Ba Surat |
Brahma | Emanator | Afridgar |
Vishnu | Sustainer | Parvardigar |
Mahesh | Dissolver | Fanakar |
Mano Bhuvan | Mental Sphere | Alam-e-Jabrut |
Pran Bhuvan | Subtle Sphere | Alam-e-Malakut |
Anna Bhuvan | Gross Sphere | Alam-e-Nasut |
Utkranti | Evolution | Irteqa |
Punar Jamma | Reincarnation | Rij'at, or Awagawan |
Bhumika | Plane | Asman |
Atma | Soul | Jan, or Ruh |
Jiv-Atma | Embodied Soul | Jan-e-Jismi |
Manava | Human | Insan |
Yogi (Sadhak) | Aspirant | Rahrav |
Sadu | Advanced Soul | Mutawassit |
Mahatma | Great Soul | Akhyar |
Mahapurush (Sant) | Saint | Abrar, Wali |
Satpurush | Advanced Pilgrim (Saint) | Afrad, Pir |
Manonash (Nirvana) | Annihilation of Mind (self) | The final Fana |
Nirvikalpa | Oneness with God | Fana-Fillah |
Brahmi Bhoot | The Divinely Absorbed | Majzoob-e-Kamil |
Turiya Avastha | Divine Junction | Fana-ma-al-Baqa at / Muqam-e-Furutat |
Paramhansa | Divine Super-Man | Majzoob-Salik or / Salik-Majzoob |
Jivanmukta | Liberated Incarnate | Azad-e-Mutlaq |
Sadguru | Perfect Master | Qutub |
Avatar | God-Man | Saheb-e-Zaman |
OK. I will redirect that article to
Perfect Master, as well as adding a summary to this article as per
WP:SUMMARY
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review and a reviewer has already responded. See here. He says he will be able to get to it tomorrow. I suggest holding off on any major changes until after the review has been done. I think this step is overdue and will give the article's progress more focus. I see that Hoverfish suggested this step twice in the past. DeanaG ( talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a partial list of sources that can be used to expand this article with viewpoints from third-party authors and scholars
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no prior knowledge of this article or even its subject, but come here because of the question raised about the article's GA listing. I, too, think the GA listing is "dubious". Sharnak nominated the article for GAR on Jan 2, 2007 and Da54 picked up the Review and passed the article on Jan 17, 2007. Apparently, no detailed Review was provided, simply the Talk page post: "I see no reason not to pass this article for GA status. It meets all requirements. Passed. Da54 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)." Not necessarily a problem except for the experience and edit history of the Reviewer, Da54, and the state of the article at the time of the GAR.
The Da54 identity was created on Jan 17, 2007, and existed for six days. Certainly, this doesn't preclude the possibility that the user behind the identity is an experienced WP editor, but a look at Da54's Talk page shows that the user's experience and knowledge were called into question immediately. During this week-long life Da54 completed eight GARs, passing all articles. In fact, GARs is the only activity Da54 did, not making a single article edit under that username. Again, it's possible Da54 may be a legitimate avatar of another user or could be a sockpuppet (it might be interesting to see if there's a common contributor to those eight articles). No matter. Three discussions were immediately initiated on Da54's Talk page in which no fewer than five editors raised serious questions and complaints about Da54's GARs. Da54's single response was to laugh off the concerns. In fact, these are the only posts on the page.
This certainly raises a question about the quality of those GARs. In fact, it appears some were apparently delisted. I looked quickly at the quality of a few of the other six articles (at the time of the GARs) and they appear to have obvious issues that would impede – if not prevent — listing (sourcing seems to be the most significant issue). This article was not specifically addressed by any of the five editors who criticized Da54's review, so it has remained GA. Given the questions and activity surrounding Da54, it is certainly appropriate to question this article's status. I also looked at this article's state at the time of the review and it, too, appears to suffer from similar, serious problems with sourcing; if I had performed the review I would not have listed this article. It's clear this article did not undergo a valid GAR.
Consequently, this article should be delisted and if an editor truly believes it currently meets GA criteria, then it should be renominated for a valid review. A quick look at the article as it stands now show sizable passages with no apparent sourcing; that alone shows more work needs to be done to bring the quality up to GA level.
Jim Dunning |
talk 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to go on record stating appreciation for the improvements Jossi is attempting. Thanks. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are newspaper archives that carry stories on MB that could be a useful addition as sources to this article [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the newly added "Messiah" quote is somewhat misleading. Meher Baba didn't call himself this in the 30s, and contemporary accounts, and the cables and letters of devotees of the period don't call him that either. He accepted the term "Perfect Master"...but this newspaper article resembles others of the period that said he claimed the term Messiah and worse (or better). Baba pushed back against being called these sorts of names until he finally claimed the title Avatar in the 50s. I don't doubt that the article is being quoted accurately -- just that it might contain dubious journalism. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, here are my heartburn areas with the Messiah quote: 1. The Messiah. During this period "Messiah" was not likely to be used. God Man, yes, Perfect Master, yes, Messiah, no. 2. Blackboard. Baba stopped writing many years before this. Used an alphabet board, not a blackboard. 3. Miracles. Baba consistently said he would not perform miracles, and denied the validity of miracles ascribed to him by his devotees. 4. Sin. This term just isn't in Baba's lexicon ANYWHERE. Saving America from Sin? Not bloody likely.
I can dig up numerous references for the contra-indicated elements above (but of course not from "reliable" sources like newspapers).
These elements of that one little paragraph creates misleading impressions -- 2 or 3 fairly nasty -- that can only be refuted by a bunch of cumbersome references.
Can't the content you've reported be edited to leave out the essentially dubious parts? What is gained by including them?-- Nemonoman ( talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have restored that text, this time attributing it to the AP and labeling it as a conflicting report. Would this work? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. I never tire.
No need to edit-war, my brother... I will not restore it without a good reason. Now, can we find a reason for a report that he died in a cave 100 miles from Mumbai? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I've changed the phrase "communicating with an alphabetic board" to "communicating by means of an alphabet board". This is better English because a person communicates with another person and not with an inanimate object. I made some changes to this page quite some time ago now and I haven't revisited it for a while. I'll have a look at the grammar more closely over the next few days and probably make some further changes. I'm a bit of a pedant as regards grammar but I only want the article to read as well as possible and this is the reason for my editing. I'm a confirmed Baba Lover so don't get nervous, all changes will only be for the better I assure you. BBesar 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)BBesar.
I think this entry could deserve FA status. What is your opinion about it? Kkrystian 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put links to Christian ministries on this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for links and not a place for evengelism. The article is about the person Meher Baba. Please limit to links that add some information about the subject. Sharnak ( talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what appears.
Now the following will be hard to reference but is so important in the Baba World, it needs to be there. Im putting this out here so we can all nut this out sensibly, before anything is added. This is the issue.
I contacted about seven key Baba page editors of the last year about the above. No comments! OK. The work as it stands is POV. No definitive reference is provided that states 100% that Baba did not break his silence before he dropped the body. On that basis I am going to delete the POV statement now. -- Liamjones4477 ( talk) 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Rachel Brown The lines about Rachel Brown's book have been deleted with the comment that they are not enclyclopedic data about the person Meher Baba (or words to that effect). That is why they are included under the section about Legacy. Her book is certainly as much a part of his legacy as is the music of Pete Townshend.-- Rosabibi ( talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Obedience
Baba's instructions to followers and his insistence on obedience are very much a part of his legacy, since those instructions are adhered to, to the letter, by many of the followers concerned. Devoted followers of Baba have said that when he "dropped his body", among their feelings were disappointment that now he would never recind those instructions. I was about to reference to line about geographic confinement (with regard to Mansari), but it has now been removed. I am not about to engage in edit wars, but I would ask you to restore those lines, because the entry as it stands does not give a complete overview. Sorry I forgot to sign.-- Rosabibi ( talk) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from Meher Baba's followers does not represent independent sources. This article needs quotes from national magazines, books, important newspapers, etc. And preferably from points of view from religions at variance with the views of Meher Baba. Wikipedia is not a place for self-advertising, and this hugely long article is mostly that.
The unsubstantiated, peacock terms number in the dozens. This is contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines.
The very long quote in section Silence is a violation of copyright. You may not quote so extensively, editor, just because you view yourself and the quote as in support of the subject. This is a serious charge. Either the editors must fix this (preferably by limiting the quote to a couple sentences), or I will mark this article in violation of copyright, which will cause it to be entirely deleted.
24.130.14.170 ( talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would note that attempt to include relevant information from a non "devotional' angle were deleted immediately and no response given to my comment (see above). Rachel Brown's book gives valuable insights into Meher Baba's legacy - that is, unless one is determined to claim that this legacy is unquestionably entirely positive. It is not very plausible to say that anyone who studies Meher Baba from non-devotional viewpoint ends up becoming a believer when contributions from non-devotees are deleted entirely without appropriate discussion.-- Rosabibi ( talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand Wikipedia copyright poliicy. Quotes are acceptable when short in proportion to the original work. This article has two quotes. Gertrude Stein has eleven. Maybe you should get that one deleted. Shamak ( talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tommytocker removed the 2 quotes. I'm restoring. Let's discuss before pulling, please.
Is the question copyvio? If so, there's no reason to remove the quotes (Pace, 24.130.15.94).
Is the question whether the quotes add value? If so, let's the hell get rid of quote number 1! Meher Baba could be oblique, to say the least, as quote 1 shows.
The New Life quote seems significant to the article in many ways, and trying to paraphrase or parse it would only be harmful to understanding.
Quote 2 (New Life) is good juju, and only 2 sentences -- hard to see copyvio there, and very hard to subsititute to get equal value. As to its length, it's well within bounds based on my understanding of fair use. I have been a technical editor for some years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the concept. I have until 2 days ago ever heard of a 100 word limit in anybody's rulebook. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that the New Life quote of Meher Baba's is copyrighted. I certainly have never heard so. Books authored by Baba have been copyrighted, as have books about him. Not that quote, however, which so far as I can find has not been registered as copyrighted.
Referencing a copyrighted book that contains the quote does not matter. A scholar quoting Hamlet in a copyrighted paper does not thereby suddenly acquire ownership and royalty rights.
Until someone can prove that has registered copyrights to quotes, ANY copyvio point is moot. He may claim to be 'eternal' but I think you'll agree, 24.130.15.94, that Meher Baba is not at this point capable of releasing anything into the public domain in a formal way, is he? So that demand seems spurious.
24.130.15.94, what makes you think those quotes are under copyright? -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. I still think quote 1 can be dropped.
Some "one" has left the following on my talk page:
Copyright terms as left by Meher Baba in his last will and testament
Meher Baba specifically left copyright of "sayings" and "messages" in Trust except where otherwise specified http://www.ambppct.org/trust/docs/Will%20and%20Testament.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherbabalastwilltestament ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That information is of interest, but not entirely germaine to the case of a charge of copy violation. There is no clear evidence that a copyright to the New Life quote is perfected by this document. Will someone produce the specific title or registration of this quote. It PURPORTS to be one of Meher Baba's, and I believe it is. But what I believe, as 24.130.15.94 rightly points out, is a matter of BIAS, not OBJECTIVE proof. So I'll stand by assertion while I wait for someone to produce clear evidence that the quote in question is registered and protected by some legally binding copyright that prevents it from being used here.
Which is worse, an IP address, or a one time made up identity? Whose agenda is at work here? Since 24.130.15.94 seems to think that the article is full of "unsubstantiated, peacock terms" and other puffery (my word to summarize), it seems odd that what is being recommended is not the editing out of THAT, but rather editing out the basic substance of the piece. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
All the above is tangential however. Wikipedia Fair Use Guidlines state:
Text
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
I think it's pretty clear that 2 sentences are a brief quotation in practically anyone's book -- except maybe 24.130.15.94's.-- Nemonoman ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the section about Melanie Safka because, as it was written, it's really problematic. While it's true Melanie was a follower of Meher Baba for a short time and did wear a Baba pin at one time, there never was a Baba pin that had the expression "Don't Worry, Be Happy" written on it. The pin she had simply was a photo of Meher Baba. Also, currently there is no clear way to verify the mention of her in the October 1969 issue of Hit Parader Magazine, which was a paraphrase and not a quote. If you can find the actual date and actual quote it would help. Sorry. Tommytocker ( talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The excerpt below on Wikipedia policy is from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. Tommytocker ( talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>
simply by spacing the paragraphs apart with blank lines. A
workaround is to enclose each of the block-quoted paragraphs in its own <p>...</p>
element.The lead seems a bit too long. Perhaps re-looking at the guidance provided at WP:LEAD may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless there are specific objections, I will merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) into this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
<<< All sourced material has been merged here. Also added references to material that was not referenced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The actual first printing date of The God-Man by C. B. Purdom is 1964. A couple places on line misquote it as 1962. It was printed in 1964 and 1971. Tommytocker ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a silly suggestion here to merge Perfect Master (Meher Baba) with this page. That makes no sense as there is a Perfect Master page to link to. Is it the idea simply to accept that this page cannot link to the Perfect Master page because the Perfect Master page MUST NOT be exhaustive enough to be worth linking to? What is going on? This is the craziest thing I ever saw. Either build up the Perfect Master page so it is worth linking to or keep the Baba one and make it clear that it exists at the other page. I don't understand the concept of merging a word to this page about a man that used it. What???? DeanaG ( talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, see Incarnation and Rainbow flag for examples of more complete articles that are multi-culturally inclusive and link to sub-articles. This isn't rocket science. :') I've never seen a page so puny and timid as Perfect Master. What is the concern here of having more content there. Anyway that is for a discussion there and not here. ;-: DeanaG ( talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, you're not understanding at all the problem. The word "perfect master" comes up twice in the article quite early on. So there is a need at that point for the reader to 'know' what this means so he can understand then what he is reading. That is how Wikipedia works. Words that are of interest link to other articles. As you are doing it, you miss the whole issue and think that this is some part of his life. Baba had dozens of words. There is a Meher Baba Glossary of terms. http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/glossary.html So this was not the issue that the review raised ( and linked to above) -- that the reviewer did NOT want a section on this, but a link. Now there is a page you have helped on called "perfect master" and so it could make sense to link to this so the reader will understand. But also, if you check there is also a common practice here to have a term with uses in different cultures not only have some expansion on each cultural use but also to link to sub-pages. See Rainbow flag and Incarnation as some examples of this process. You will see there is a page for Rainbow flag and then a sub-page for Rainbow flag (LGBT movement). You are not seeming yet to get what the issue is. We don't need the Baba article to explain all the words in the Baba glossary that are over 100, just a way to respond to the suggestion that this use be clarified when it arises early in the article. Do you see now? You are working way too hard. DeanaG ( talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not doing research, just adding tags. I know you think this is how to help. But let's stick to the original issue. Okay, so do you like the idea of merging the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) page with Perfect Master? At least that still gives a place to link to for the word, which seems to be what is at issue. So that is okay. Do you want to remove the main article templates from Perfect Master or should I? Then we can link the references to that term to that page and expand that page as time goes on. That works just as well and was my first suggestion. In fact I had already added the links that way and then saw you had added the templates from Perfect Master pointing to the other page so I reverted that thinking we were in sinc. DeanaG ( talk) 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find the GA review for this article, and given the lack of sources for many of the content it seems to me lacking for GA status. Can anyone provide the GA review link? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
see this-- Nemonoman ( talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, here I'll try to say plainly what you appear to want to do.
What does this look like when you add it all up? It looks like you are obsessed with this page and are thinking of thinks to upset it. A cursory search in the history shows a really stable article for years until you arrived. Just wanted to say how this looks. DeanaG ( talk) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
My responses:
Terminology in God Speaks | ||
Vedantic | Mystic | Sufi |
Paratpar Parabrahma | God's Beyond-Beyond State | Ghaib-ul-Ghaib / Wara-ul-Wara |
Paramatma | God in Beyond State | Allah |
Anant | Infinite | La Mahdood |
Nirguna | Attributeless | La Sifat |
Nirakar | Formless | La Surat |
Sat-Chit-Anand | Power, Knowledge, Bliss | Qudratm, Narefat, Mussarat |
Vidnyan Bhumika | Realm of Mastery | Alam-e-Hahut / Arsh-e-Ala |
Atmapratisthapana Sahaj Samadhi | Established in the Life of God | Baqa-Billah |
Vidnyan | Highest Divine Consciousness | Ahadiyat / Akan-e-Lahut |
Saguna | Qualitied | Ba Sifat |
Sakar | Manifest in Form | Ba Surat |
Brahma | Emanator | Afridgar |
Vishnu | Sustainer | Parvardigar |
Mahesh | Dissolver | Fanakar |
Mano Bhuvan | Mental Sphere | Alam-e-Jabrut |
Pran Bhuvan | Subtle Sphere | Alam-e-Malakut |
Anna Bhuvan | Gross Sphere | Alam-e-Nasut |
Utkranti | Evolution | Irteqa |
Punar Jamma | Reincarnation | Rij'at, or Awagawan |
Bhumika | Plane | Asman |
Atma | Soul | Jan, or Ruh |
Jiv-Atma | Embodied Soul | Jan-e-Jismi |
Manava | Human | Insan |
Yogi (Sadhak) | Aspirant | Rahrav |
Sadu | Advanced Soul | Mutawassit |
Mahatma | Great Soul | Akhyar |
Mahapurush (Sant) | Saint | Abrar, Wali |
Satpurush | Advanced Pilgrim (Saint) | Afrad, Pir |
Manonash (Nirvana) | Annihilation of Mind (self) | The final Fana |
Nirvikalpa | Oneness with God | Fana-Fillah |
Brahmi Bhoot | The Divinely Absorbed | Majzoob-e-Kamil |
Turiya Avastha | Divine Junction | Fana-ma-al-Baqa at / Muqam-e-Furutat |
Paramhansa | Divine Super-Man | Majzoob-Salik or / Salik-Majzoob |
Jivanmukta | Liberated Incarnate | Azad-e-Mutlaq |
Sadguru | Perfect Master | Qutub |
Avatar | God-Man | Saheb-e-Zaman |
OK. I will redirect that article to
Perfect Master, as well as adding a summary to this article as per
WP:SUMMARY
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review and a reviewer has already responded. See here. He says he will be able to get to it tomorrow. I suggest holding off on any major changes until after the review has been done. I think this step is overdue and will give the article's progress more focus. I see that Hoverfish suggested this step twice in the past. DeanaG ( talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a partial list of sources that can be used to expand this article with viewpoints from third-party authors and scholars
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no prior knowledge of this article or even its subject, but come here because of the question raised about the article's GA listing. I, too, think the GA listing is "dubious". Sharnak nominated the article for GAR on Jan 2, 2007 and Da54 picked up the Review and passed the article on Jan 17, 2007. Apparently, no detailed Review was provided, simply the Talk page post: "I see no reason not to pass this article for GA status. It meets all requirements. Passed. Da54 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)." Not necessarily a problem except for the experience and edit history of the Reviewer, Da54, and the state of the article at the time of the GAR.
The Da54 identity was created on Jan 17, 2007, and existed for six days. Certainly, this doesn't preclude the possibility that the user behind the identity is an experienced WP editor, but a look at Da54's Talk page shows that the user's experience and knowledge were called into question immediately. During this week-long life Da54 completed eight GARs, passing all articles. In fact, GARs is the only activity Da54 did, not making a single article edit under that username. Again, it's possible Da54 may be a legitimate avatar of another user or could be a sockpuppet (it might be interesting to see if there's a common contributor to those eight articles). No matter. Three discussions were immediately initiated on Da54's Talk page in which no fewer than five editors raised serious questions and complaints about Da54's GARs. Da54's single response was to laugh off the concerns. In fact, these are the only posts on the page.
This certainly raises a question about the quality of those GARs. In fact, it appears some were apparently delisted. I looked quickly at the quality of a few of the other six articles (at the time of the GARs) and they appear to have obvious issues that would impede – if not prevent — listing (sourcing seems to be the most significant issue). This article was not specifically addressed by any of the five editors who criticized Da54's review, so it has remained GA. Given the questions and activity surrounding Da54, it is certainly appropriate to question this article's status. I also looked at this article's state at the time of the review and it, too, appears to suffer from similar, serious problems with sourcing; if I had performed the review I would not have listed this article. It's clear this article did not undergo a valid GAR.
Consequently, this article should be delisted and if an editor truly believes it currently meets GA criteria, then it should be renominated for a valid review. A quick look at the article as it stands now show sizable passages with no apparent sourcing; that alone shows more work needs to be done to bring the quality up to GA level.
Jim Dunning |
talk 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to go on record stating appreciation for the improvements Jossi is attempting. Thanks. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are newspaper archives that carry stories on MB that could be a useful addition as sources to this article [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the newly added "Messiah" quote is somewhat misleading. Meher Baba didn't call himself this in the 30s, and contemporary accounts, and the cables and letters of devotees of the period don't call him that either. He accepted the term "Perfect Master"...but this newspaper article resembles others of the period that said he claimed the term Messiah and worse (or better). Baba pushed back against being called these sorts of names until he finally claimed the title Avatar in the 50s. I don't doubt that the article is being quoted accurately -- just that it might contain dubious journalism. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, here are my heartburn areas with the Messiah quote: 1. The Messiah. During this period "Messiah" was not likely to be used. God Man, yes, Perfect Master, yes, Messiah, no. 2. Blackboard. Baba stopped writing many years before this. Used an alphabet board, not a blackboard. 3. Miracles. Baba consistently said he would not perform miracles, and denied the validity of miracles ascribed to him by his devotees. 4. Sin. This term just isn't in Baba's lexicon ANYWHERE. Saving America from Sin? Not bloody likely.
I can dig up numerous references for the contra-indicated elements above (but of course not from "reliable" sources like newspapers).
These elements of that one little paragraph creates misleading impressions -- 2 or 3 fairly nasty -- that can only be refuted by a bunch of cumbersome references.
Can't the content you've reported be edited to leave out the essentially dubious parts? What is gained by including them?-- Nemonoman ( talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have restored that text, this time attributing it to the AP and labeling it as a conflicting report. Would this work? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. I never tire.
No need to edit-war, my brother... I will not restore it without a good reason. Now, can we find a reason for a report that he died in a cave 100 miles from Mumbai? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)