Talk:Discourses (Meher Baba)

message: * Per WP:NPOV: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source
* Per Wikipedia:Notability (books): The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. 
* Per WP:PSTS: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources
Taking these into consideration, this article as it stands does not meet established criteria: without multiple third party sources (for example a review of the book) the article cannot achieve NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party sources, V and NPOV  

message: Whereas I think that enough has been said and done about the alleged breaking of Meher Baba's silence, it is one thing to claim "mistakenly asserts" since this can refer to some contrary fact, and another to claim that it is "misleading" since this implies intention. Also I am not sure who said that "It is a serious blunder" and "This misrepresentation is an incomprehensibly serious mistake.". Are these someone's quotes or the editor's opinion? Hoverfish Talk 13:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason for removing "misleading" 

message: User Rolandtoy: the name Rolandtoy appears as a member of the http://beachwalla.net. The debate you try to insert in the article originates from the members of this group. I do not question the intentions of this group, but stating that "the treatment of Meher Baba's published words has been the subject of debate for several years", and citing the very group that raises this debate is not permited in Wikipedia. The existence of the debate has to be mentioned in a reliable source and then this reliable source can be cited. If the existence of "a debate" comes from the ones who are creating it, advancing thus their position, then Wikipedia is used as a means of promotion of this "debate", which is not permitted by policy. Hoverfish Talk 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest the possibility of eliminating the section "History of the Discourses" entirely? Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

text: That's fine. It just seems it has been a lightning rod for people seeking a venue to express their opinions about the quality of editions. But I agree the history is encyclopedic. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that Wikipedia cannot be used to promote personal debates, or for self-promotion. As said above, the problem with a history section is it can be a lightning rod for people seeking venues to express their preferences among editions. This is why the current history is taken entirely from the published version of the history in the Revised Sixth edition, published specifically to address these concerns in a calm, scholarly, and neutral way. Let's try to keep it this way, or the article will digress into edit conflicts that serve no encyclopedic purposes. Such personal opinions are best expressed in forums such as personal websites and blogs. This is not the right venue for it. Also, the original 6th edition is linked to in the External links. What more could a person want who enjoys that version best?  Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia cannot be used to promote your debate

message: Thank you Dazedbythebell, this section was actually taken from Beams of the Spiritual Panorama. Discourses has this chapter but with a different content. Hoverfish Talk 16:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good and Evil 

message: Substituted at 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment