Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spidern (talk | contribs) at 07:43, 19 April 2009 (→Arbitrary section break (for easy editing): line br). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Millennium '73

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]

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.[3]   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In one instance follow this link: [4]. 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]
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]
The text seems clear enough. BTW, here's another source for the festival being an annual event even after 1973: [5]   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]
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]
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.
  • 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]
  • 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.
  • 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]

Arbitrary section break (for easy editing)

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]

  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=284767974"