Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:27, 26 May 2009 [1].

Millennium '73[edit]

Nominator(s):   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is the second nomination. Since the first nomination the article has been significantly streamlined in response to concerns that it was overly-detailed and had too many quotations. It has also undergone GA and had a second peer review. The prose has been improved and I believe it now meets FA standards.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. All non-free images meet the WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • The Eck reference needs the link formatted with a title.
    • Done.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references (I noted UPI, but there may be others)
    • Done.
  • I take it the Maharaj Ji A Very Big Little Mystery ref is self-published? It doesn't have a publisher listed.
    • Done.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • {{Harvnb|Rawson|1973}}
  • {{Harvnb|Mangalwadi|1977|p=219}}
  • {{harvnb|United Press International|1976}}
  • {{harvnb|Greenfield|1975| p=87}}
  • {{Harvnb|Collier|1978|p=176}}
  • {{harvnb|Greenfield|1975| p=275}}
  • {{harvnb|Downton|1979| p=189}}
  • {{harvnb|McDonald|1999|pp=85–86}}
  • {{harvnb|Lane|2004|p=75}}--Truco 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've caught all of those.[3] Thanks for finding them.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. The text does not match the sources:

"Both the Western and Indian branches have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973.[1][2]"

One source is from 2007 and the other from 2000, and both seem to be Indian-based organizartions Pergamino (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the split, the Indian branch was controlled by Satpal Rawat while the Western branch was controlled by Prem Rawat. However Prem Rawat went on to create an organization in India, so perhaps it'd be more logical to refer to the branches by their heads, or simply say "both branches". I've gone ahead and done the latter.[4]   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not referring to that only. Is the "have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973" in these sources? Where? Pergamino (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In one instance follow this link: [5]. You can see files related to celebrations of the festival in 2008 and 2008. The other source is off-line, if I recall correctly.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the source about "since 1973"? That was what I am referring to. I suggest removing it unless there is such a source. Pergamino (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2008 is later than 1973. I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you explain better what the problem is with the assertion?   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both the Western and Indian branches have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973 seems to imply continuity of these celebrations, which is not what the source says. That was what threw me when I read it. No big deal, thought, I'm sure you can fix it by making it explicit that the source says 2008. Pergamino (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hear if others find this confusing too. I think listing a single year would be a mistake since that would imply that was the only year in which it had been celebrated. It was an annual festival before 1973, and by appearance it's still celebrated annually, though we don't have a source that says so explicitly.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I don't think that "by appearance" is an argument worth discussing when the discussion is about the source that was used to make the statement in the text. Is either in the source, or it isn't. Pergamino (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source shows that the festival has been celebrated again since 1973, which is exactly what the article says.   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going in circles? I do not see the need to repeat myself. Pergamino (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text seems clear enough. BTW, here's another source for the festival being an annual event even after 1973: [6]   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs reviewing:

According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation, there were no ETs, and the Astrodome did not levitate.[3][41][18][45] Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure,[116] a fiasco,[117] a major setback,[11] a disastrous rally,[118] a great disappointment,[119] and a "depressing show unnoticed by most".[64] A

I read that the ET and the levitation were half-jest comments, and saying that the expectations were about ETs and levitation is strange. The "Journalists and scholars called" sentence, seems selective. Were there other comments, or just these? Pergamino (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading the text incorrectly, or perhaps it needs to be made clearer. Some of the people repeating the assertions about ETs did so in "half jest". But others did so seriously. There were many comments about the festival. The section contains others as well.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not read right. When I came across that sentence, I had to go back and re-read, because it seemed strange. Seems like a conclusion that mixes apples and oranges. Anyway, I'm sure you can fix it. Pergamino (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the apples and which are the oranges? I don't see how this is confusing.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A frequently repeated prediction, attributed to Maharaj Ji, was that the Astrodome would levitate.[3][52][53] Davis and others made often-reported predictions, repeated in half-jest, that extraterrestrials would attend.[51][54][42] Bal Bhagwan Ji said, if people saw any aliens, they should just give them some DLM literature.[50] "

For the 1st sentence there are three sources:

  • Levine, Richard (March 14, 1974), "Rock me Maharaji - The Little Guru Without A Prayer"
  • The spiritual supermarket - Robert Greenfield
  • Boyle, Deirdre - Subject to change: guerrilla television revisited

I can only find a mention about levitation in the last source. The second sentence is about "half-jest" comments. The last sentence, is sourced to this text in the New York Times article: "When the word was passed that extraterrestrial creatures in U.F.O.'s would be visiting the Astrodome, it was Bal Bhagwan ji who said, 'if you see any, just give them some of our literature.'" Basically, all these are tongue-in-cheek and not "predictions", hence my point about the need to revise this.Pergamino (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've read all three sources? You seem very familiar with this topic.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are easily found via Google and Google books. I still believe that the sentence is flawed. Pergamino (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that discussions of this type are better suited to the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a thread to discuss the levitation sourcing: Talk:Millennium '73#Levitation sources. If, after discssion there, there are any outstanding questions we can leave a note here.   Will Beback  talk  07:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, this thread is just to support or oppose and that thread is for discussions? Pergamino (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the sources or not? All the Google seems to have for the Greenfield book is what they call "snippet" view. I'm not sure how you can really question a source based on reading a couple of lines. Anyway, that kind of discussion is better suited o the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the details of the sourcing of that assertion on the article talk page so we don't fill up this page with back and forth that makes it harder for other reviewers.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article, which now comes for consideration before FAC as a twice-peer reviewed WP:GA, is an improvement upon the version that was considered for FA in its first FAC. It flows well, and comprehensively describes the sequence of events before, during, and after the festival. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Interesting article but I'm puzzled by some of the style choices, conclusions, and overall presentation. I addition to the objections I have already explained:
  • In doing a quick search in Google Books, I find 150 books for "maharaj ji millennium". The sentence in the "Afterwards" subheading I have objected to, does not include other opinions, such as Miller's, Melton's, Bauman,'s Guiley's, Felton's, Barker's, and others. I could ascribe this to poor research or something else, but basically the presentation seems to be selective.
    • Who are Bauman, Guiley, and Felton and why should their views be included?   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many paragraphs read poorly, for example the subheading on "Debt" and "Impact" is not prose, but staccato bullet points. Any student of History will know a paper written this poorly will be rejected. Are wikipedia standards any lesser? Not according to this: Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria ("(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" I'd say this article fails miserably here (with the exception of the lead which is well-written)
    • I'd be surprised if this article would recieve a failing grade if submitted as a history class paper, but I'll see if I can smooth out the prose in those sections. They certainly aren't arranged as bullet points.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read these aloud and you will see what I mean. These are bullet points strung together, no flow, no prose. A guaranteed failing grade. Pergamino (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the value in reporting that a sign said "don't run", or " You will sit in your assigned places, please"? That's another puzzling choice.
    • This was extensively discussed previously. The signboard was mentioned by many observers and it was called it among the most important communication channels at the event. A number of phrases are quoted in secondary sources. We had more before but reviewers asked to have fewer quotations.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems to be a trivial thing that is irrelevant, unless "Please take your seats" has some unexplained esoteric connotations. Pergamino (talk)
  • Levitation "predictions" sourced to Boyle's Subject to Change: Guerrilla Television Revisited" (PDF available in the Reference subheading) describes devotees as "pathetically seeking stability and guidance in the guru's fold." I'd say that without the context of Boyle's negative view of the subject, that claim has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Is this an isolated instance? I don't really know.
    • Boyle was published by the Oxford University Press and is a reliable source. Are you suggesting adding her view of the followers to the article? We already have several views of the followers, but I suppose we could squeeze in another.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying that you can't dis-associate a source from its views. Pergamino (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the long thread @ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millennium_%2773/archive1 and find that several of the objections there have not been entirely resolved. Despite the effort in responding, some of objections seem to be still valid. Maybe someone can take the initiative to re-post in this thread such pending issues.

This type of article is not my cup of tea, so I'll leave this at the discretion of these that are interested to pursue its development further. Pergamino (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we narrow the search at Google Books to not simply "maharaj ji millennium" (which may also include many sources not discussing specifically this event, but could also include discussions of Prem Rawat in books that more generally discuss other new religious movements/cults in the context of Millennialism), but instead search a tighter "Maharaj Ji" "Millennium '73", the results decrease to 44 hits. This article, due to the excellent work by Will Beback, already references material from over double that many sources. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a numbers game. More is not always best, and quantity of citations does not necessarily imply quality when assessing a paper or article. My objections stand. Rather that pat the author (authors?) on the back, feedback should be accepted with some humility; after all, defending a poorly written paper does not do the authors any favors. Pergamino (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the books Google finds are not about this festival, have only very brief mentions of it, or are not reliable sources. Are there any sources that Pergamino thinks need to be added? Please be specific so that the problem can be addressed.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Pergamino (talk · contribs) - Respectfully disagree, the primary author of the article has done a tremendous job and deserves some praise indeed. And also respectfully disagree as to the writing quality of the article, which is quite good. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this review process designed to praise authors of articles? I though that it was designed as an opportunity for critique. If the writing quality is good in your opinion, obviously our standards differ, particularly if you consider the prose to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." which I believe is not. Pergamino (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do believe the prose quality is of a high standard for FA consideration. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with Slavery_in_ancient_Greece. Now, that fits the qualifier.You can actually read and enjoy the flow and the content, not here I'm afraid. Pergamino (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could give specific examples as to how to better improve the article's already high level of prose quality even further. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the prose to be of high quality, then no specific examples would help you. Anyway, read the lead, and when the article reads with the same ease, then you will be done. Pergamino (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately if you are unwilling to give specific examples as to how to further improve the article's prose, then we cannot address your concerns. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This idea of "provide specific examples" is unworkable when there is so much that is wrong. Just read the "Debt" and "Impact" subheadings, for example. Pergamino (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly saying those subsections should be deleted? And if so, why had you not raised these concerns previously on the article's talk page, but instead are making these comments now in the FAC? The "Debt" and "Impact" of the event are incidents that are highly reported on in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. If you disagree with the sources' analysis, perhaps this is unfortunately more an issue of the individual user's assertion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as opposed to a NPOV discussion of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments were not about the sources, but about the prose, which is atrocious in these sub-headings. An author that is working on the Han Dynasty article who posted on my home page, spoke of a team of copyeditors that have formed a Guild of Copyeditors. Maybe you can ask them to help you with the prose. Aanother Guild that deals with source verification may be also available, but I'm not sure. Pergamino (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited the "Debt" and "Impact sections. If there are still any problems please point them out.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pergamino, could you please provide a set of examples, so the nominator(s) can get an idea of what needs to be done? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


1. Delete as irrelevant "You will sit in your assigned places, please" and "Attention, Attention/Please do not run and dance" from the sub-heading "Stage, signs, and effects". Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know how familiar you are with the topic, but the relevnce of this material is established by the secondary sources. Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. The lead reads : "The following year, the movement split into branches headed by brothers Bal Bhagwan Ji in India and Maharaj Ji in the West." But under the "Impact" subheading it reads:

"Disagreements between Maharaj Ji and his family lead to the movement being split between a Western branch, led by Maharaj Ji, and an Indian branch, run by his mother and Bal Bhagwan Ji."

Which one is correct? What was the mother's role? Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mother and elder brother are sometimes credited with running the pre-split DLM, with the younger brother as the spiritual leader and "Perfect Master". As part of the split, the mother said the younger brother was no longer the Perfect Master and gave that title to the elder brother. However the younger brother insisted that he was still the Perfect Master. So each brother became the spiritual head of a branch. The "Indian" branch was (and still is) headed by the elder brother, and it was initially run with help from the mother. Both sentences are correct. Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. This paragraph:

"Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure,[113] a fiasco,[114] a major setback,[11] a disastrous rally,[115] a great disappointment,[116] and a "depressing show unnoticed by most".[63] According to one scholar, James T. Richardson, the event left the movement "in dire financial straits and bereft of credibility".[117] Religious scholar Robert S. Ellwood wrote that Maharaj Ji's "meteoric career collapsed into scandal and debt" after the event.[118]"

The paragraph fails to attribute the quotations and differentiate between scholars and others. For example, [63] is from Playboy Magazine, which is the only journalist source quoted. Either summarize all these into a short sentence (as in the lead), or fully attribute all the quotes. Also missing are other scholar's opinions, such as Miller's (a source already used in the article) (http://books.google.com/books?id=y3Mt7QlXrRwC&pg=PA364&dq=maharaj+ji+millenum+festival), and York (http://books.google.com/books?id=umbl7x8aYqkC&pg=PA112&dq=maharaj+ji+millenum+1973), and other magazines such as JET (http://books.google.com/books?id=VbEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA97&dq=maharaj+ji+millenum+1973). There are probably more, but I haven't checked. Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the job of a lead to summarize the details of the text in an article. These are the details. If we summarized it by saying that "the festival was called a dismal failure by many scholars and journalists", then there'd probably be a complaint that we were engaging in WP:SYNTH. As for the other sourfces you suggest, Miller says followers were disappointed, which we already say. York calls it a "financial disaster", which seems repetitive but we could include it too if you think it's necessary. The Jet magazine page is an advertisement for the album Eric Mercury recorded at the festival. That would be a primary source and even so it doesn't seem to say anything useful. As for the complaint that the only one journalist is quoted despite being a plural, we can add another journalist's viewpoint. Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still reads like a "pile-on". You can summarize by saying that there is a consensus that the festival was a failure. Pergamino (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't have a source that says there was a consensus. What we can do is show readers the general agreement among sources, aling with other views, if any, and let them decide for themselves. While we don't have any sources that called the event a success, that doesn't mean they don't exist, so making a generalizations isn't as good as simply listing the opinions given. It doesn't take much room in this instance.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can show the general agreement without the sentence reading as a pile on. For example, the intro presents this consensus in a simple manner that can be expanded in that sub-heading. e.g. "Scholars and journalists generally depicted the event as a failure and a disappointment." Pergamino (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The intro summarizes the details that are in the text. If it seems like a "pile-on" then maybe that's because it was a "pile-on" - every source that makes a comment says that it was a failure. I think that, for the length of the overall article, this isn't too much space to devote to the assessments of outsiders. There is only a short paragraph on the topic so it isn't excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If every source that makes a comment says that it was a failure.... it makes my point that can be summarized. Similar points were made on the previous discussion. You can also check comments by Pichpich and Vasyanna in that discussion. Pergamino (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see that in the previous discussion. Pichpich made a separate point about the sentence, which was altered to address his point. Vassyana made a general point about reducing the number of quotations, which we also addressed. Anyway, in this sentence and paragraph we show readers what scholars and journalists said about the festival. We do so briefly and with a neutral point of view. I don't think there's a significant problem with this material from a policy angle.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • What I was referring was the reported inability of being receptive and the self-serving defence of the text which was observed by other people as well. What is the point of this discussion? Pergamino (talk)
                  • I'm not sure what the point of your comments is. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the article meets the featured article criteria.   Will Beback  talk  18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. This paragraph:

According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation, there were no ETs, and the Astrodome did not levitate.[3][18][40][44]

This paragraph produces four sources, from "journalist and others" (which others?) but seems to be paraphrased from one source (The Texas Monthly "God Goes to the Astrodome"):

" There were no levitations or other miracles, no visitations from extraterrestrial believers, and—for those of us whose expectations were more mundane—not much excitement and little substantive content.

Basically, if the Texas Monthly made that comment it needs to be attributed and quoted, otherwise it means that the conclusion is attributed to all four sources.

Also, as I said before, that sentence conflates two disparate aspects, one of expectations, and other of rumors and tongue-in-cheek comments. Apple and oranges. Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The several sources agree with one another that there were no ETs and that the Astroome did not levitate, nor did world peace break out. This is hardly a contentious assertion, so three sources seems like more than enough. Are there any sources to the contrary? Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. This paragraph:

Repeating accusations he had been making through the summer, Krassner said that the movement was part of a CIA-directed conspiracy.[3][49][107][108] He called it a neo-Fascist discipline and said Maharaj Ji was a mystic hired to seduce the youth movement into oblivion.[109] Krassner said Guru Maharaj Ji was the spiritual equivalent of Mark Spitz.[106]

Can these three comments from Krassner be strung in one sentence rather than use staccato periods? Have you heard about the semicolon? Also Mark Spitz could be linked to the article on the Olympian. Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. This paragraph:

Admission to Millennium '73 was free, unlike other DLM festivals that charged sizable fees. The DLM leadership had expected that a huge attendance would be followed by generous donations. Despite fundraising beforehand, lower than expected attendance and mismanagement left the DLM in serious debt, estimated at $682,000. Individual members also carried debts incurred for traveling expenses.

Can this be written as a coherent sentence that does not leave you hyperventilated? Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the problem, and that was just re-written. The sentences aren't overly-long. Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Same about this one:

Scholars describe 1973 as the peak year of the movement, or mention a significant drop in new followers. The financial crisis required retrenchment and reorganization. After the festival, Maharaj Ji began taking greater responsibility in the movement;

Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a few things I found when something I read triggered something in me. I see that this article has undergone two peer reviews, but these deficiencies were not identified there. What is the process by which sources are validated and cross-referenced? Seems to me that these peer reviews did not scrutinize the details and they should have. Pergamino (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources were thoroughly vetted during the last FAC, not to mention the careful review that Jossi and others have done.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that pride of authorship is often our worst enemy when it comes to these matters, but I'd expect more receptiveness to feedback. I have made some additions and corrections myself. Pergamino (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pride of authorship isn't the issue, but familiarity with the sources is. You asked about the assertion that the Astrodome didn't levitate, and I replied to your question. But it appears that you made a change without consulting all of the cited sources.[7] That isn't helpful. I can't see any reason for adding a "[sic]" comment to the quotation, since the word is spelled correctly. Don't forget that the article has a talk page, and substantial edits should be discussed first, especially if you're not familiar with the sources. Please use the article talk page to explain your edit.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pergamino, many of your concerns have been addressed, and you've edited th article yourself to address others. Could you please cross off the items that have been handled, or otherwiselets us know which ones are still current?   Will Beback  talk  13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After noticing a concern of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) about cite ordering [8], I went ahead and fixed this throughout the article [9]. I will be back later to do some copy-editing. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through the article and have a few observations:
"According to the official schedule, the three evening addresses by Guru Maharaj Ji were the main events."

  • Perhaps it would be better to rephrase this to say that the official schedule described the three addresses as the primary purpose behind the gathering?

"A month after the festival, Maharaj Ji came of age and took administrative control of the US DLM."

  • Re "coming of age", is there a better way of saying this? This wording implies that his taking control of the organization was causally related to his age. Is this accurate, or did the two events merely coincide?

"Hans Ji Maharaj, who taught of secret meditation techniques called kriyas or "Knowledge",[3][4] founded the Divine Light Mission (DLM) in India in 1960."

  • Is it necessary to talk about kriyas here? Do they help provide relevant background to M'73?

"Their plans for the festival were over-reaching, and some sources speculated that Maharaj Ji went along with them to keep the peace until he was legally an adult."

  • This seems a bit weak and overly speculative. Can you rephrase the "over-reaching" part? Not quite sure if that adequately explains the nature of their connection with the event. As for the speculation, who speculated? Attribution might help here.

"An energetic promoter of his new guru and of Millennium '73, he traveled across the United States on a 21-city tour,[5] speaking to what he said were about a million people a day through radio and television interviews,[6] telling people that Guru Maharaj Ji was the solution to civilization's collision course.[6]"

  • This sentence feels like a run-on. Can you split and/or shorten it? Is "his guru" needed? Also, "collision course" sounds like a direct quote, and should include quotation marks where necessary.

"A two-week, eight-city, 500-person tour, called "Soul Rush", was organized to promote the festival."

  • Since this is a new paragraph, perhaps you should provide context by indicating that the festival is M'73.

"One reporter who traveled in the tour wrote that they had little press coverage and poor attendance but showed obvious energy, and that the tour itself went remarkably smoothly with expressions of love among the members."

  • Which news organization was the reporter with?

"One spectator, impressed by the good spirits of the marchers, donated money and said, "If this is what I see on these kids' faces, I want it.""

  • Is this single spectator's view significant enough to include?
  • "The "Call to Millennium" said [...]"
  • What is the "Call to Millennium"? Is it a newsletter? A flyer?

"Some premies made bizarre predictions, which reflected their excitement about the event as well as authenticated its significance, according to one scholar."

  • The statement feels almost like it could have been taken directly out of the paper that it is citing, unmodified, which could be a neutrality problem; it should also be attributed to who is making the statement. Maybe you could say something to the effect of "Thomas Pilarzyk described devotees' predictions as 'bizarre', and suggests that their excitement validated the significance of the event".

I will continue listing off some points tomorrow if I have time. This should give you something to work with. ←Spidern→ 07:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have addressed most of these above points as raised by Spidern (talk · contribs) [10]. Will continue to do more copy-editing. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: After asking Spidern (talk · contribs) about this at his talk page, he commented: At a quick glance, it looks like my points were addressed. I'll be gone for most of the day though, so I'll have to strike them out when I get back. In the meantime, it would help if you could mark the addressed points as "Done". Just a quick note to Spidern: we don't really use the {{Done}} template on FAC subpages, though striking out addressed comments is okay. Cirt (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Recent edits to this article by Pergamino (talk · contribs) introduced problems including: inappropriate use of "[sic]", run-on sentence structure, incorrectly formatted refs, and incorrect attribution of a quote to the wrong author [11]. Unfortunately in the last FAC, there was also the problem of an account introducing edits to the article during the FAC process which actually degraded the quality of the article's prose, while this account also simultaneously Opposed the FAC and made complaints about the article's prose. As noted in the last FAC by Will Beback, [12] the account Jossi (talk · contribs) added redundant information to the article, and later also added unhelpful information to the article, during the FAC process [13], which was then itself acknowledged by Jossi (talk · contribs) [14]. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback has made a good faith attempt to discuss issues raised above by Pergamino (talk · contribs) at the article's talk page, so as not to take up too much space at this FAC page, but so far Pergamino (talk · contribs) has yet to post to the talk page of the article. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did another pass through of copy-editing on the article [15]. Will give it another read later. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support In general, this article is much more tightly-written than the last time I read it and I feel that it meets 1a. All issues I had with the sourcing were resolved at the last FAC and the only issue I have with comprehensiveness is listed below (which should be easy to resolve).
I am now happy to fully support this article. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was disappointed that the "Millenarian appeal" section had been deleted, as I feel that is a crucial element of the "Background" - it puts the event in a larger historical context for readers unfamiliar with the 1970s. Would it be possible to restore it?
  • I've restored the last version.[16] It had been deleted at the request of the GA reviewer.
  • Their plans for the festival were over-reaching - This doesn't quite make sense.
  • I deleted the sentence because the issue of over-reaching plans is already covered at length, and the other half of the sentence is problematic (it may be better moved to the aftermath section).[17]
  • Sophia Collier, a teenaged member who later left the group and published a memoir, said that a minority of members, mostly limited to Houston, became victims of "Millennium Fever" and Bal Bhagwan Ji was the fever's carrier - This makes the "fever" sound like an actual disease. Can we reword the "the fever's carrier" section?
  • I've reworded the sentence - "...became victims of a "Millennium Fever" promoted chiefly by Bal Bhagwan Ji."[18]
  • He said he tried to remind that the aim was to establish peace on Earth, not to travel to another planet - remind who?
  • Fixed by adding "them" - "... he toured the country explaining to members that the festival would be significant because of what happened there... He said he tried to remind them that the aim..." [19]
  • A journalist described the scene as reminiscent of the Great Awakenings and the revivalism that has been part of American history, and observed the peculiar encounter between two absolute opposite ends of the religious spectrum: India's unstructured spirituality and the despiritualized, pragmatic American religiosity - I'm not sure that it is worth including this statement, as this entire event is clearly part of America's spiritual, revivalist tradition, not part of its despiritualized tradition. If there is only one journalist who holds this view, must be include it, since it is so manifestly false?
  • I removed the sentence.[20] As you point out, this is only asserted by one journalist. The point isn't made by any of the religious scholars who have written about the event. If anyone wants to argue for its restoration, it might fit better in the aftermath section which summarizes the festival's place in history.
  • Reporters wrote of waiting for hours on the airport tarmac in the heat and humidity in order to cover an appearance that lasted only a few minutes. - This paragraph has no context - is this when Maharaj Ji arrives at the airport? If so, that should be made explicit.
  • I moved the point about impatient reporters up to the airport arrival section which places it in context, and also rearranged the media section for a more logical organization.[21][22]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback and also for your direct improvements to the article. I believe I've addressed each of your points above. If anything more is needed I'd be happy to make further revisions.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish you'd be as accommodating to my feedback. Pergamino (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to every issue you raised and made edits as appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You replied, but have not been accomodating, as you are with others. Pergamino (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which "others" are you referring to? The only other person who's made general content suggestions that I've responded to is Awadewit, a highly experienced editor. This isn't about accomodating people, it's about creating an article that is worthy of being featured.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your words confirm my point. My participation is not welcome because I am not "experienced"? Pergamino (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one said your participation is unwelcome. This page is solely concerned with deciding whether an article complies with the FA criteria, so the views of someone who is known to be experienced in making those judgments will inevitably be given a different weight than those of someone new to the process. As you can see, a number of your concerns were remedied without further ado, and you went ahead and made quite a few other changes without even discussing them. But we're here to improve the article, so suggestions that don't improve the article shouldn't be followed no matter who makes them.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a total of 28 edits to this article, while you have made 500. My question to you is then: how many of your edits were made without "discussing them", and why mine are to be scrutinized in a manner different than yours? You may say that my participation is welcome, but that is not how it feels, sorry. Pergamino (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have strayed from discussing the article's content. Let's return to that, everyone. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are autobiographies OK as sources? If so, the authors should be named and their affiliation explained. For example, Lonnie Lane is a messianic Jew, who wrote about her family's search for God. Pergamino (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how adding the person's name to the text helps the article. No one is going to recognize the name, and there's no biography of the author on Wikipedia. The author is simply noting her brother's reaction to the festival, which was not unusual according to other sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one will recognize the name of many authors in the article, and they are still mentioned by name. If not the name, their relation to the subject is needed to clarify the point of view of an author that may not be as important/relevant as scholars mentioned. Pergamino (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • btw, you have not answered my question about using auto-biographies. Pergamino (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed WP:V and WP:RS and I don't see anything about autobiographies. If you have doubts about the source then I'm not sure why you've added more material from it.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That make sense. In this case, the author who is a messianic Jew, writes about her brother being dis-enchanted with the guru (basically re-enforcing her point of view, that Jesus is the messiah of the Jews). Given that there are other sources available, is this really needed? Pergamino (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now mentions this is an autobiography. I see no problem with how this source is being used in the article. I looked at each of the three instances. In the last one, the article now clarifies that the view comes from, in essence, a spiritual autobiography. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, now after I added the fact that it is an auto-biography, it's OK. Pergamino (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Pergamino - Thank you for your input at this FAC, however it is much easier for FAC nominators to respond to your objections if you state them all at once. I noticed that you have suddenly started listing new concerns today. For FACs to run smoothly, reviewers are generally expected to list the bulk of their objections up front so that nominators know what kind of work they need to do to overcome the "opposes" listed. Thanks for understanding. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'll follow your advise from now on. Pergamino (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue for me is point #3 above and a few minor issues that could be taken care of in the normal editing process. Pergamino (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to point #3 previously. It appears that you're asking for us to insert original research in the form of WP:SYNTH.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Who is "us"? and why do you keep segregating me?) The point is still unaddressed satisfactorily, please read our exchange again.Pergamino (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so paranoid, my friend. "Us" refers to Wikipedia, of which each of us is a part. (English doesn't differentiate between the 1st person plural inclusive and the 1st person plural exclusive.) I thought I'd addressed your issues at #3. Could you please restate which policy or FA criteria you think is involved and how it would apply?   Will Beback  talk  16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in my view this interesting article satisfies all the Featured Article criteria. My only quibble is the use of "Holy Family". Can this be changed to a more objective expression such as "Maharaj Ji's family"? Graham Colm Talk 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. I'm glad you find it interesting; I think it is too. Quibbles are welcome.
    • "Holy Family" is used to describe the family of Maharaji Ji by over 24 sources, at least a dozen of them about the festival, making it probably the most frequent term. Internal publications used it without quotation marks while external media tend to place it in quotes. Indian custom favors multiple names, especially for holy people. Maharaj Ji alone has been known by a half dozen names or titles, and his family have a couple of names/titles apiece. The actual family name, Rawat, is used rarely in this context. A few sources erroneously used that honorific "Ji" as the family name, which is like assuming that all folks called "mister" are related.
    • To address this concern I've placed three of the uses in quotation marks and deleted the other two. See: [23] That adds more editorial distance from the term while preserving the historically correct and well-sourced usage.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed an earlier version of this and have a few quibbles, but these do not detract from my support.

  • I think as headlines dealt with the Vietnam war, the Watergate scandal, the Agnew resignation, a war in the Middle East, an energy crisis, mass murders in Houston and California, and UFO sightings across the South. needs a ref (perhaps an end of year news in review article)
    • That material came from one of the sources already in use - for some reason the citaiton appeared mid-sentence (probably to cite a quotation). I've moved the cite to the end to clarify the source.[24]
  • I would link satsang in He states the guru's mother, whose satsang... Also is it italicized or not (is someplaces, not others)?
  • (Re)explanation of premies belongs here At a stop in Washington, D.C. premies gathered in front of the White House and invited President Richard Nixon..., not a few sentences later in At each city, the touring group and local premies (DLM members) paraded in the morning...
    • Fixed by moving up to earlier sentence.[26]
  • First paragraph in Media coverage needs a ref for the last part
    • I've added citations for eachof the journalists.[27]
  • I would mention the debt incurred in the lead.

Hope these suggestions help, well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues. The prose isn't bad, but I found a few glitches. Book citaions: need an audit for page numbers. Here are a few random points.

  • "The festival was billed by its organizers as the most significant event in human history, and described as an event that would usher in a thousand years of peace." Remove comma and string of five words.
    • Changed to "The festival was billed by its organizers as the most significant event in human history which would usher in a thousand years of peace."[29]
  • " It was later described as among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s,"—but further up in the lead we've already been told that is was the most sign. event in human hist.". This sure is a come-down. And who "later described"? Puff, uncited.
    • I've altered the text to read, "It was later described by scholars and journalists as..."[30] Together with the change above that should help distinguish how the event was billed by insiders versus how it was evaluated by outsiders. In the text of the article these views are discussed in greater length and thoroughly cited.
  • I hope the estimated and projected attendances are referenced somewhere below. You might drop "about".
    • The estimates of attendance are fully cited later in the text. They range from 10,000 to 35,000, with 20,000 being the most common value. Since there's such a range the word "about" seemed like a good way of expressing the uncertainty. Perhaps it'd be better to simply say, "Attendance was estimated from 10,000 to 35,000, compared to the projected 100,000" instead of "Attendance was estimated at about 20,000... " I'll go ahead and make that change.[31]
  • Refs 9 and 10, supporting the claim of 50,000 members in the US and thousands more elsewhere: such a specific claim requires page numbers in these two books. It's an important claim. Tony (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, refs 9 and 10 are in support of the assertion that most Western members came from the counter culture. I've added a citation (with page number) for the size of the following.[32]
    • I'll go through and make sure that all book references have page numbers, where appropriate.
    • Thanks for the input. I'd welcome any other any other prose or sourcing issues that you can find.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've audited the book references and added page numbers to those that didn't have them.[33]   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The poster needs cleaning up, contains damage (creases?) and jpeg artifacts.
    I'm not sure how to do the cleanup. Would you be able to handle that?
The resolution is too low to do anything useful. I think it's OK as it is. Graham Colm Talk 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It could also be bigger so the text is more readable, it is a promotional poster so should not violate any copyright policies.
    Enlarged to 300px.[34] (It was there before, but someone deleted it without explanation.)[35]
  2. Marijuana dab link.
    Done.[36] That's a brand new dab page.[37]
  3. 4 refs are missing access dates, see link checker tool.
    Added.[38][39]
  4. Kind of off-topic, but why does the template include links to other sister-wikis?
    Removed.[40]
  5. File:Astrodome interior 2004.jpg can be cleaned up.
    I'm not sure how to do a cleanup, or what is required. Would you be able to handle that?
I have fixed this: Graham Colm Talk 20:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A note on File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg identifying who is who would be helpful.
    Added. [41]
  2. File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg a scan/from website?--Otterathome (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a scan from a magazine.
Comment The quality (or lack thereof) of images is not part of the FAC criteria, so I do not see numbers 1, 2, and 6 as actionable requests. As for number 8, File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg already identifies its source (And It Is Divine special Millennium '73 issue, this is discussed in the article in its own section too - see Millennium_'73#And_It_Is_Divine_special_issue) - so it is a scan Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of images and media is part of criteria 3.--Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the items that I can. I don't know enough about image editing to do the cleanups you're asking about. Your help would be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ruhrfisch's point, I don't see where "quality" is a factor in FAC #3. It says:
  • Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
As I read it, the issues are whether the images are appropriate, have proper captions, and have acceptable copyright status or fair use. Still, I'm sure that if the images can be improved that'd help the article, so anything you can do in that department would be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both image requests submitted to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Millennium_.2773.--Otterathome (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for submitting these and to Graham Colm for image cleanup too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Manavdharam 2007
  2. ^ DUO staff 2000
  3. ^ Melton 1992, p. 143
  4. ^ Rawson 1973
  5. ^ Greenfield 1975, p. 41
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Levine 1974 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millennium_%2773/archive2&oldid=1089084145"