Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1

Millennium '73

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it ready for featured article status. I believe the article is neutral, comprehensive, and well-sourced. In addition to general suggestions, I'm particularly interested in help with the intro (maybe outside eyes can do a better job of summarizing the topic). Suggestions on handling the citations wouold also be welcome. Thanks, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. It is fascinating and seems pretty close to FAC ready to me, so my comments will be pretty nit-picky. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so move the [22] in Hans Ji's widow, Mata Ji, and her 22-year-old[22] eldest son, Bal Bhagwan Ji (pronounced "Baba-gwan-gee" by followers)[23] ...
• Put "(DLM)" after the first mention of Divine Light Mission
• Some places could do a better job of providing context - I though "Hans Jayanti" was another family member at first in Hans Jayanti commemorates the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji. It was the largest of three annual (and numerous ad hoc) festivals that the DLM celebrated.[16]
• There are a fair number of short semi-choppy sentences that break up the flow - the preceding example could be combined to something like Hans Jayanti,the largest of three annual (and numerous ad hoc) festivals that the DLM celebrated, commemorates the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji.[16] (not sure of tense - used the ones in there).
• I would mention the capacity of the Astrodome earlier in the article.
• Missing a word? A member [thought?] that that was probably an example of lila, the guru's divine game-playing.[4]
• There are a few two sentence paragraphs - could they be combined with others or expanded?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I fixed the citations so that they all appear following punctuation. I've added "(DLM)" and a better explanation for the Jayanti festival ("Jayanti" apparently means "festival", so we have to avoid tautology). I've cut some of the chopy sentences, but I don't know if I got them all. I added the Astrodome capacity to the intro. A point of confusion is that some events have been staged there which have drawn greater than capacity crowds over a day or more. For instance, Elvis held two concerts in one day that attracted a total of something like 85,000 fans (possbily some people attending both performances). The missing word was already fixed. I'll keep working on choppy sentences and short paragraphs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Flows better - a trick that works for me is to print it out and read it out loud slowly (especially after a few days of not working on it or rerading it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has numerous problems many of which are being discussed by involved editors in the article's talk page, so I will not address these here. My main concern relates to WP:NOR, in particular Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. The article contains information that has been never published, nor by the media, neither by scholars, violating the principle stated in WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Although primary sources can be used to make descriptive claims about the information found in a primary source, there is isubstantial nformation in the article relies heavily on primary sources which have not been described, studied and/or reported on secondary and reliable sources.

Another issue is related to process. I read above an intention to submit this article to FAC, but I have yet to see this article making it to GA, which may be a better first attempt. In any case, the article has yet to reach a stage of stability and maturity to warrant an GA nomination, let alone an FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The NOR concern has not been raised on the article talk page. The claim of violating WP:NOR is both sweeping and unspecific, so it's impossible to respond. For useful input, please be more specific. As for your last point, the article is mature and fairly stable. The edits over the past weeks have been fairly minor and specific concerns have been addressed. All comprehensive articles should be edited with an eye towards bringing them up to GA and FA standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The NOR concern is clearly stated: you are using primary sources that have never been published in secondary sources for large portions of the article. That is quite specific don't you think? The article, who carries an NPOV tag for the last week or so, if far for being mature or stable. Happy editing and good luck with a GA nomination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That article no more violates NOR than Public image and reception of Sarah Palin does. If you have a specific objection then please raise it. If not please don't snipe at a good article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, when one works in the opaqueness of a private sandbox for a long time, there would be a tendency to have some editor's pride at play, which is understandable. The primary sources used in the article, that have not been mentioned or described in any secondary sources, are quite obvious. You do not need my help in identifying these as you wrote the article in tutto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That I wrote the original draft without your input seems to bother you as you keep bringing it up. Your input is invited now. Please say which sources are a problem. Apparently, I do need your help in identifying them. I'm also interested in how you edit Sarah Palin without violating NOR if newspapers and magazines are not acceptable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin? What does that bio has to do with the article discussed here? The NOR concerns are related to the primary sources you hav used in the article, sources which have not been described and/or referred to in secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I mention the Palin article becuase it uses the same kinds of sources. I'm not sure I even understand your point about "primary sources that have not been mentioned or described in any secondary sources". I don't see anything about that in WP:PSTS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether the comparison to Sarah Palin related articles is appropriate I don't know (Palin is now in the center of attention, probably not even at the top of her fame, for Rawat and related events that was 35 years ago), but I'd urge jossi nonetheless to list as clearly as possible which sources he considers primary and/or used inappropriately. Vagueness doesn't help, indeed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article, as written by WillBeback, contains dozens of errors. Example "probably" and "maybe" are not synonymous. "Members of the DLM" is not the same as "some members" etc. And, either coincidently or deliberately, the errors produce an article with a decided anti-GMJ bias.Momento (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is here to garner specific suggestions for future improvements to the article from uninvolved editors, not to rehash old disputes among partisans. That type of discussion is more appropriate on the article talk page, where you've already made the same point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: An excellent, comprehensive article that easily satisfies WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA as well. I agree with the above comment by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), who seems to be both previously uninvolved in this article, NPOV, and highly experienced in the peer review and Featured Article Candidate processes: It is fascinating and seems pretty close to FAC ready to me. Good use of blockquoting and bulleted lists to break things up, but the present amount does actually flow well with the article text as well. One recommendation I'd make which would be a tad bit of work but would make things easier in the future for research/referencing is to reformat the Notes/References section using Template:Harvnb and Template:Citation. What this will end up looking like is something like the WP:FAs The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa, and will make things easier on future readers/editors. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The references now mostly use Template:cite book and Template:cite news. Is Template:Citation now the preferred template? I've avoided using Template:Harvnb because the article is so thickly-cited that including the author and year in the text would be disruptive, IMO. I didn't realize it could work with having the citaiton info in the footnotes. I do like how the cites work in those two articles you mention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if {{Citation}} is the preferred citation template, but it is pretty standardized and improves uniformity, and also I think the other individualized templates don't work in conjunction with {{Harvnb}}. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Another question that you or someone else might be able to answer is how to handle unsigned articles. Most TIME and Newsweek articles are unsigned, as are some items in newspapers. When it is attributed to the AP or UPI I use those as the author, but sometimes there's nothing. The citations are otherwise sorted by author, but I've sorted unsigned pieces by the name of the publication. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did some minor reformatting along those lines here. I am pretty sure that the convention in that case would be to just specify "TIME staff" and "Newsweek staff" in the author fields, though if there are multiple different references with those exact same author fields the second specification by date might (hopefully) kick in as well. I admit I am relatively new to this type of formatting as well, but I think it is a neat and helpful tool. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I swapped templates - that was easy because the fields are mostly the same. "TIME staff" isn't too bad, but "Syracuse Post-Standard staff" is a bit clunkier. Even so, if the links work it'll be worth it. I'll start converting some refs to the Harvnb template and see how it works. Thanks for the suggestion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the first two cites to the Harvnb template, but the links don't seem to work.[1] Any idea what I'm doing wrong? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, I was using "author" instead of "first, last". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Working perfectly now, thanks for the help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the criteria needed for GA is stability (#5 @ WP:WIAGA). Are editors here saying that this article is "stable"? How? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a GA nomination. This is a peer review. If you have any specific suggestins for improving the article they'd be welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional Ruhrfisch comments I do not watchlist peer reviews I do, so I did not see the developments here until a few hours ago. I just went back and looked at the refs again - there are a few primary refs from the Maharaj Ji (sp?), but I did not see more than two of those (although there are likely a few more from other authors). I did see a lot of newspaper and magazine sources, but these are secondary sources (not primary sources). For an example of a FA with almost entirely news refs, see Virginia Tech massacre. Magazines and journals are valid sources - they generally fact check and can be sued if they misrepresent / libel in their coverage.

I am very aware that I make mistakes and it may be I have completely missed the point of Jossi's comments. Jossi, I would really appreciate it if you would identify some of the problem sources as you see them. Perhaps pick a section and give the specific problems you see in that section as an example. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The primary sources I am referring to are:

• Bass, Jim (June 1, 1974), "Millennium Scoops The Press", Divine Times
• Maharaj Ji (November 10, 1973), A Very Big Little Mystery, Houston, Texas
• Maharaj Ji (November 1973), "A Letter From Guru Maharaj Ji, Bonn, Germany September 31, 1973", And It Is Divine: 2, Special Millennium '73 Edition
• Manavdharam.org "Audio-Video Satsang

The above sources have never been reported or described in secondary sources, and are being used to support dozen of paragraphs in the article and entire sections. Other primary sources, are all the historical newspaper reports and op-eds of the time.

In addition, the article mixes and matches reputable scholars, such as Richardson, alongside tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, pulp magazines, yellow journalism (example "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him." in Oui magazine, or "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and why is he saying all these terrible things about God?", Penthouse magazine) without attribution and without consideration for historical context. For example, we would not write an article on the Japanese people, based on the newspaper articles from US media in the weeks after Pearl Harbor, right? We will be much more circumspect in how we use newspaper reports and op-eds and chose to rely more heavily in scholarly sources (that take in consideration the historical context of events).

If you take this article and re-write it based on the scholarly sources available and use judiciously newspaper reports and op-eds of the time properly attributed, you may end up with an article that is neutral, encyclopedic, and useful. Until that time, this article will probably remain in the real of WP:COATRACK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are (or were) all publications of the movement that sponsored the event. And It Is Divine was their monthly magazine and Divine Times was their newspaper. Both of those publications are used as sources in a number of scholarly papers. The Bass article is a review of press coverage of the event and isn't a primary source. One of the pieces by Maharaj Ji was the letter inviting followers to attend, which was published in the event program and was quoted by secondary sources. The other is a transcription of a talk he gave at the event, which is quoted in several articles. The last source on the list is a website belonging to the Indian branch of the movement, and it is used simply to show that the festival has been celebrated again. I don't see how the use of any of these sources is improper. Perhaps Jossi could be more specific about his objection to them. Lastly, this article hardly qualifies as a coatrack: an article that purports to be about one topic but is really about another. With the exceptions of minimal background material, followups, and explanatory notes, everything in the article is directly related to the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of those publications are used as sources in a number of scholarly papers. ' Which? ; the letter inviting followers to attend was quoted by secondary sources. If that is the case, use the secondary sources, and not the primary source. That is standard practice and will avoid violations of WP:NOR that are abundant.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One of those is used simply as an additional reference to a speech that has seven secondary sources.[2] How is that a violation of NOR? In another case, we use a letter as a source for a phrase that has been repeated in a dozen or more secondary sources, but in the letter we get the full sentence.[3] How does quoting a published letter, while making no conclusions from the source, qualify as original research? I don't understand your point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Jossi, an admin, makes accusations of policy violations without providing any evidence of those claims. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Being disappointed is your choice, Will. I have read the article several times, and expressed my concerns clearly. You may want to dismiss them if you want, but for me it is simply and extension of my original conecern expressed: NPOV is achieved when there is a vigorous debate and not when an editor works in the opacity of a private sandbox. So there is work to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I take it that you are dropping your assertion that the article violates WP:NOR? If not, please point to the problem so we can fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Ref 5 is broken - not sure how to fix it as I do not use Harvard refs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with your classification of primary/secondary sources. And yes, the templates: not my favorite part of editing. I'm working through converting the cites to some fancy citation scheme. I know it'll be great when it's done, but doing the converting is a pain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)