Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meher Baba’s critics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meher Baba’s critics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I was preparing this to start an AfD at some point. Now the main author has requested deletion per WP:CSD#G7, but as others have edited it, it was not eligible. The following analysis of sources is still relevant regardless:
Whilst at first appearance this article looks to be of reasonable quality, deeper inspection suggests that it is deeply flawed, due to inappropriate sourcing. Since our policy of verifiability demands that our articles are based on reliable sources, this is a serious problem. In short, the majority of the information is based on self published books which, as has been discussed at WP:RSN are, most likely, not reliable. Even if the sources used are reliable, the subject of the article is likely inappropriate regardless, as a point of view fork from Meher Baba (a good article that contains very little about these supposed critics) or from biographies of the respective people.
As the basis for this nomination is mainly due to sourcing, I'll go through the main sources and add notes regarding the publisher and how they are used:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this helps, there is some basic information about Manifestation Inc. here 1 and here 2. Hoverfish Talk 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was one of the main two other editors of the article, but all I did was fix redirects before I had first carefully read it. Now that I read it through I have a lot of problems with the article and agree with its originator that it should be deleted. My feeling is the problem is not the sources, but that the article rambles about Paul Brunton far from the subject, and appears to be about Brunton mostly, with others thrown in at the top to give some other critics. Originally it was all about Brunton. Also, the article is missing any actual understandable criticisms of Baba (morally or legally) and seems to rather be expressions in print of people who just did not like Baba's personality or appearance. Is a person who complains Baba had a pointy chin and was moody a "critic?" Seems just a disliker. So I find the article uninformative, and agree with its author for its removal, or merging with other articles such as to Brunton and Landau, which is more what it is about. Dazedbythebell (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I have mentioned in the article's talk page, the article started as an essay about Brunton describing the background of why he came to oppose Meher Baba. IMO, the issue itself lacks the notability needed to create an article about it. Although the title has been changed since and efforts have been made to improve it as an article, I still feel it remains an essay about issues scarcely notable in relation to Meher Baba's biography and only as relatively small issues in Brunton's and Landau's biographies. Also I agree with Dazedbythebell in that any serious criticism on Meher Baba is absent and that therefore the title does not justify the content. Hoverfish Talk 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As was noted by DGG at RSN, sourcing is the least of the problems with this article. I agree with his assessment that it is a POV Fork, written from a clear POV that is not neutral, contains excessive quotation, and principally contains material that belongs in the Paul Brunton if it belongs in Wikipedia at all . [10]] I might not be that kind, but since all of the contributors to the article are in agreement that it should be deleted, there is no reason to elaborate. The 7-day clock ran out a few hours ago; this should now be deleted. Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly for the record.
- Glow International was a Journal (“a medium for Meher Baba’s message”) launched in 1966 and was still going 30 years later in 1996.
- According to the website for Larson: “Larson Publications started in 1982 as a North American subsidiary of Sweden's Bokförlaget Robert Larson AB. The original idea was to be a general publisher. In 1984, publishing The Notebooks of Paul Brunton as quickly as possible became our obsession. Two years later we joined forces with the Paul Brunton Philosophic Foundation. By early 1990 the Notebooks series was complete. Besides Paul Brunton's books we (as part of PBPF) published works of Joseph Campbell, Anthony Damiani, Plotinus (MacKenna translation), Rumi (Ergin translations), Lex Hixon, René Guénon, Louis Lavelle, Georg Feuerstein, and a variety of gifted new writers. In June, 2007, we started re-inventing Larson as an independent company.” Larson therefore does not publish Brunton to the exclusion of any other subject. The two publications I used as sources for the article included the only current published biography of Paul Brunton, written by his son, and Vol. 8 of Brunton’s Notebooks. Both books were used in context. The latter usefully comprises Brunton’s own words, and the former provided information re Brunton’s early life, and also a revealing incident involving several of his disciples who accepted him as their guru.
- Dr. J Glenn Friesen is a scholar who has done much to clarify the relationship between Paul Brunton and Ramana Maharshi. In fact, to my mind his writing on the subject is far more objective than Fung’s thesis. He also provides an invaluable record of Brunton’s early life which I was grateful to use in part. As with all “self-published” sources (whether books or websites), reliability judgements should not be black and white. There has to be editorial discernment. Not all published sources are factually correct.
- Charles Hayes: “Though it has been much revised, much of the original manuscript was written for my doctoral dissertation at Emory University.” This being so I would put the book on par with Fung’s website, and agree with your comment, “probably just about ok.”
- Margaret Hickman. The booklet is probably self-published as there is no publisher listed. But the material I used in context for the article was factually correct. I appreciated the effort that went into writing the booklet.
- I removed a whole section of the article (“World War III”) based on the books of Kenneth Hurst, Jeffrey Masson, and Anthony Storr. The added reference (from another editor) appears to be that, based on correspondence with the author, Masson had little, but not extensive, knowledge of Meher Baba and did not appear to even realize that Brunton “disparaged Meher Baba.” Jeffrey Masson’s account of Brunton is certainly more revealing and trustworthy than that provided by Hurst.
- Dr. Andrew Rawlinson is a scholar who noted the significant fact: “Baba is the only prominent figure in the book (Secret India) of whom Brunton is really critical.” In the context of the article, that statement alone was a great find. Then, of course, we learn that Brunton “had formed the Meher League in Britain before his departure for India.” For me, those two statements, and the implications, were what the article sought to uncover and articulate.
- Kevin Shepherd, for whatever reason, remains a bone of contention on Wikipedia. Even a cursory glance at his websites reveals someone with an unusual scholastic ability. In the article I used Shepherd’s “self-published” books because they are factually correct and also offer a broad perspective not found elsewhere. He is also an independent scholar—even a devotee publication was obliged to acknowledge his contribution to the subject of the article. Again, one cannot dismiss all “self-publishing” with knee-jerk slogans of Wikipedia policy. Each case needs to be investigated intelligently. --Stephen Castro (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues
There are two related issues here. The first is the deletion of Meher Baba's critics, as requested by the article's creator, Stephen Castro. The second concerns the reliability of the sources for the article.
Regarding the first, I am the other major contributor, and I have no objection to the article's deletion.
Regarding the second, there are several points:
- The discussion of the reliability of the article's sources on the RS/N has not concluded. This fact is obscured by Smartse, who provides a link to an earlier version of the discussion. The last edited version (dated 20 February) makes clear that Fifelfoo is considering the argumentation with a view to closure (see also here). As yet, no conclusion has been given.
- Smartse indicates that Meher Baba's critics is a likely POV fork from Meher Baba, which he also points out has Good Article status. He then proceeds to question the sources used for Meher Baba's critics. This opens a can of worms, however, since the Meher Baba article is itself heavily dependent on several of the same questionable sources, especially Kalchuri (51 of 126 references), Purdom (13), Haynes (9); as well as other questionable sources, such as Abdulla (published by Sufism Reoriented), and Donkin (published by Sheriar Foundation). (When I say "questionable" here, I am merely applying the same yardstick as Smartse.)
- Interestingly, although Kevin Shepherd (originally the target of Smartse's RS/N query) has written two books on the subject of Meher Baba, his name does not appear even once on the Meher Baba page, which can only make one wonder even more at the encyclopedic quality of that "Good Article".
- Hoverfish provides two links to "some basic information about Manifestation Inc". To these I can add another, as well as the following facts. Manifestation is located in Asheville, NC, about 300 miles from one of the main Meher Baba centres in the US, at Myrtle Beach, SC (see [11]). Kalchuri was a devotee of Meher Baba, and his multi-volume biography was initially funded by donations from other devotees. Kalchuri's devotee sentiments are clearly visible at points throughout the book, from the very beginning. His book has been demonstrated to contain factual errors, such as his description of Rom Landau as an Italian journalist. Lawrence Reiter, editor of the 2nd edition of Kalchuri's biography, says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning" (preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17).
- Dazedbythebell says that his "feeling is the problem is not the sources". Of course, Dazedbythebell (like Hoverfish) has been a major contributor to the Meher Baba article, and one cannot help speculating that he is aware of the precarious position that the current discussion places that Good Article in. If one card is removed, then the whole house of cards could crumble, so to speak. So he and Hoverfish are quite happy to be rid of Meher Baba's critics, but they do not want the sources to be blamed, in case the infection spreads. The only source they really don't want to use is Shepherd, perhaps because his books have been sidelined by the Meher Baba Movement, apparently because they contain some inconvenient truths.
- Although Stephen Castro wants the article deleted, regarding the sources he adopts a commonsense position similar to that expressed by DGG on the RS/N and elsewhere, which is that sources need to be investigated intelligently. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that all of the contributors of the article have stated they are in favor of deletion (Stephen Castro and myself and Simon Kidd), or unopposed to it. As for my "contributions" to the article, the only contribution I made was to attempt to redirect the links properly in accord with Wikipedia and do general clean-up. See here As I explained I was doing fixes as I read it, to be of help to it. But upon completing it I saw it had other major flaws. I have never expressed any concern beyond the ones I described at that time. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure who is the one who "cannot help speculating that I am aware of the precarious position that the current discussion places on that Good Article", etc. Much as you would like to hide your edits behind such pretenses, you do not have (in me at least) an editor hiding from any of the petty concerns you describe. I have named my concerns, I have also given plenty of arguments in the talk page of the article under AfD, and all the rest I hear as demagogy, which BTW I find particularly out of place here. Hoverfish Talk 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC) -- If in doubt of my openness concerning the scarcity of secondary sources in Meher Baba's biography, here is my request for Peer Review in 2006: 1. Hoverfish Talk 04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have requested that the article be withdrawn. The consensus is currently for deletion. Arguments for or against Meher Baba’s critics can be found on the article Talk page. I thank everyone for their input. A simple yea or nay is all that is required here. I fully concede that Wikipedia is not the appropriate medium for the article. I have therefore chosen to attempt a book on the subject of Paul Brunton and Meher Baba. Who knows … --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.