Jump to content

Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Old comments

Looks that someone(s) have been really busy. lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

... for an article that has been on-wiki for a total of 2 days? Someone have got to be jocking. Wikipedia articles are developed by collaboration of editors and not by asserting a seemingly status quo (and WP:OWN by the look of the reluctancy of its singular editor to make sugegsted changes to his article) and moving to peer review at such early stage. From WP:REVIEW, my highlight:

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

The only extensive work here is by a singular editor, who decided to work in the obscurity of his own private sandbox rather than in the open so that the wiki effort of collaboration can manifest, seems to me to be disregarding this project's principles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the overall mess, and I'm just following this from WP:AE. But there's absolutely nothing bad faith or wrong about sandboxing an article, putting it live, and immediately dropping it into the peer review/GA/FA cycle. I've done that, notable FA authors like Giano do it all the time. Just specific to that, why is sandboxing and then running it through bad? This is how on some articles a lot of people prefer to do it, since it lets them build an article freely. Once it's live, its anything goes like usual. rootology (C)(T) 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks rootology for your opinion. I disagree that private editing and force-feeding a full article is productive as it pertains to consensus building. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So these sorts of edits and activities like this are not in line with our principles and ideas? These are all GAs, one is up for GA, and one is "thisclose" to going for FA next. On some articles, some people prefer to draw up a full version in private--maybe they're worried about AFD/CSD overaggression. Having been just lightly bit myself by that here on the Bruce Gilden article 4 minutes after it's creation, I don't think I'll readily do this kind of development again out of a sandbox as freely. Maybe they want to get down a semi-coherent version first. Maybe they want to make it AFD-proof with adequate sourcing first (this is my own personal concern, as my interests are borderline obscure). Is there any policy, guideline, or essay that discourages sandboxing and then putting live, here or on a private wiki, notepad.exe, or in my head? rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
At one time the record for fastest FA was held by Automatic number plate recognition, which went from zero to FA in about 9 days. I suppose that article disregarded the project's principles too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

If any more quotes from Maharaj Ji or others are edited to support a particular point of view, this article should have non NPOV tag on it. For this article to claim that "Maharaj Ji is reported to have said etc" when in fact the source says that a reporter was "told by someone that Maharaj Ji had indicated etc" is a flagrant distortion.Momento (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are saying. All quotations are edited. As for your other issue, does this concern the levitating Astrodome? If so, there is more than one report about this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, WillBeBack all quotes are edited but editing that changes to meaning is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The line was quoted perhaps dozens of times. Aside from that letter, I've never seen it that way. Perhaps we should just use another source and then there won't be a question of how to edit it. Editing it to promote our own view of its meaning might constitute original research ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Palace event?

From Price 1979:

Nineteen seventy-three was the peak year for the mission's activities both in Britain and the United States, when two major festivals were organised to rally the faithful and bring in new recruits. In Britain there was the Festival of Love at Alexandra Palace which drew thousands of premies and seekers,... (bolding added)

Shouldn't the Alexandra Palace event be mentioned in the Millenium '73 article, as the UK follow-up on Millenium '73? Are there other sources for the European event besides Price? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

They are an interesting pair but the Alexandria Palace event, which I believe was Guru Puja, took place several months before the Millennium festival. Mentioning it first would disrupt the narrative about this event, in my opinion. We do still have a section on the DLM article that covers the festivals, and gives the context. As for sources, I think Price is the only substantial source, but it is mentioned in a few other sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Goom Rodgie

The lead must reflect the article and no sources are provided say Rawat held or organized the event. On the other hand all scholars accept that DLM held and organized it.Momento (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Goom Rodgie"? Do we have a corroborating scholar for this tabloid stuff. If not it should go.Momento (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The pronunciation of a foreign name is hardly "tabloid stuff", whatever that means. It has two reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It is when it is so obviously wrong. What scholar supports Snell.Momento (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
According to whom is it wrong? In addition to the two sources, one can also watch the Lord of the Universe video for direct evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of LOTU is OR. Who else beside Snell gives this spelling? Any way the article needs a lot of work.Momento (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the reference, Moritz also gives the identical pronunciation. Larson give almost the same pronunciation as well, though he spells it "Goomerajee". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Why then did you leave out Larson?.Momento (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
A) because two reliable sources seem sufficient for a minor issue, and B) because he spells it differently so it'd be more complex to give both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a minor issue. Dozens of journalists and dozens of scholars have written about Rawat without corroborating Snell's extraordinary claim that he was actually called "Goom Rodgie" by his American followers. And even if every American follower called Rawat "Goom Rodgie", that is still less than 1% out of a following of 5 million. You can't just choose to include the unsubstantiated opinion of one journalist as if it was common place. It either needs extensive crediting and context as well as Larson's version or it should be left out.Momento (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It is quite possible that, among other followers in other places at other times, the name was pronounced differently. This article is just concerned with this one festival so the way in which the name was pronounced at the festival is directly relevent to this article. The information is well-sourced and there are no sources that significantly contradict it. I'll add the Larson pronunciation per your request above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added detail.Momento (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
What is your source for "no other scholars or journalists at the festival support this view"? That kind of assertion seems like OR and could be added to any article in a dozen places. Since we have three sources, plus a video, and no contradictory sources it seems a bit much to imply that this is a fringe viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It is an "exceptional claim" that needs "exceptional sources" i.e. a surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. Only Larson and Snell claim a mis-pronounciation of Guru Maharaj Ji and even they cpntradict each other.Momento (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:REDFLAG. This does not count as an exceptional claim. There's nothing surprising about it. Saturday Review and Current Biography are both mainstream sources. Claiming that this is exceptional in spite of good sources, and in spite of a video which uses the same pronunciation, appears tendentious. If you can't find a source I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing surprising about claiming Maharaj Ji's followers can't pronounce their own teacher's title? And the only sources a Christian evangelist and a free lance reporter. And what is "tendentious" about getting you to attribute this exceptional claim to a its authors? And what do you need to restore?Momento (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
And just for fun I listened to the first minute of LOTU. One mahatma clearly and correctly pronounces "Guru" with an "R". And then Rennie Davis does the same.Momento (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, there are no sources provided that give another pronunciation, or which say that the sources are wrong. If you insist that this is a fringe viewpoint we can take it to the noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
So following your current argument if an editor can find one journalist who said he heard supporters pronounce "Barack Obama" as "Boorack Oboma" then, in the absence of anyone saying how it is pronounced, that reporter is correct and that unique view should be presented as the correct and majority view. I think it's time for a little common sense.Momento (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
All we can do on Wikipedia is summarize reliable sources. "Common sense" doesn't really apply whtn it comes to deciding how to pronounce terms in English, especially foreign terms. Just recently, folks wrote requesting help on how to pronounce Biden and Palin. Journalists are certainly capable of hearing how a name is pronounced and transcribing it. I don't see a need to attribute this information, it's not a POV, it's a simple fact. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Since there are no contradictory soureces, and since it's a bare fact rather than an opinion, I'm going to remove the tendentious attributions. As a compromise I'll replace them with "according to sources". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Time for an RFC.Momento (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Pronunciation

Discussion between involved editors

The question is over how to discuss the pronunciation of a name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The question is "Should a frivolous and tiny minority view be the only view presented"?Momento (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
All significant, sourced views should be included, and they are. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that the vast majority of people know how to correctly pronounce "Guru", as in "Guru Maharaj Ji" and followers of gurus certainly do. Therefore no one needs to tell people how it is pronounced. Except for two lone voices. One journalist in a crass attempt at humour (Goom Rodgie) and a fundamentalist preacher, famous for doing exorcisms on the radio (Goomerajee). Neither agree with the other but WillBeback insists these are "significant, sourced views". They are not linguists, religious scholars or experts in any field that would make them "significant".Momento (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You keep omitting Current Biography, which is a very reliable mainstream source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And what does it say?Momento (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the CBY text:

  • As telescoped conversationally by American premies, Guru Maharaj Ji's name is pronounced "Goom Rodgie." The Guru's full name, with title, is Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji. According to the records of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, he was born Prem Pal Singh Rawat in Hardwar, India on December 10, 1957.
    • Moritz, Charles (Editor), Current Biography Yearbook 1974. New York, The H. W. Wilson Company, 1975. ISBN 0824205510

That does not give any indication that it is a fringe viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All it suggests is that Moritz took it from the journalist Snell.Momento (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That appears to be a Morton's fork argument. If only one reporter notes it then it's a minority viewpoint. If more than one source notes it then they are just copying from each other. I suppose that if many sources report it then it's media bias, right? It's possible that the CBY editors found that pronunciation in the Snell article and if so that's an endorsement of the reporting. Anyway, the Saturday Review wasn't a gossip rag, it was a highly-regarded, mainstream magazine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside views

Telescoped pronunciations of many things are quite common. As an aside, I might mention that Western followers of Indian movements who adopt Sanskrit names don't seem to make any attempt to pronounce them correctly. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bit more time. This is an example of Zipf's Law: common words are short, rare words are long. His followers talk about him a lot, so they tend to shorten his name. The version I've heard is Grumraji.

Should this be mentioned in WP? In some cases the shortened pronunciation is standard, eg Wymondham in Norfolk is pronounced Windam. In some cases even the spelling has succumbed to shortening, eg idolatry for idololatry. But simply loose speech? Maybe too trivial to mention? Peter jackson (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems Zipf's law isn't the right technical term here, but I don't know what is. Peter jackson (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. Maharaj Ji was more often Ma-raj-gee but Guru is almost always pronounced with an "R". And could by some become Gru-m-ra-ji as you have heard. Two sources, Larson and Snell, both antagonistic to Rawat offer their opinion. Larson is a christian preacher famous for exorcizing people on the air. Snell's opinion comes from an article "Goom Rodgie's Razzle-Dazzle Soul Rush" and which he also offers""Hey, buster, you tryin to start sumpin', or sumpin'?" he said, speaking slow and steely, like Shane". Hardly literate, let alone a linguist. Both sources use their version of his name to poke fun at him which is not surprising but this is an encyclopedia and that is why I object to these trivial opinions.Momento (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on the town that Peter jackson mentions, Wymondham, lists its pronunciation right at the beginning. Pronunciation is important, and is mentioned in the context of the festival, amking it relevant to this article. However, as a compromise we could move the pronunciation to the Prem Rawat article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
And that's because it's pronunciation is at such a variance to the way it's spelt. And you can bet that the pronunciation was sourced from a linguistic authority not a free lance journalist and an exorcist. The opinions of Larson and Snell are insignificant and don't belong anywhere.Momento (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
And that's why it's relevant here- because the name is pronounced differently than it is spelled. All three sources are reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Show me a linguistic authority not a free lance journalist and an exorcist.Momento (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You just added a citation from a freelance journalist to another article a few minutes ago.[1][2] Being a freelance journalist doesn't make ones reporting unreliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the only comment is " Maybe too trivial to mention?". I'm removing it until someone other than Will thinks it significant.Momento (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why "...other than Will..."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No consensus for adding it either.Momento (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's factual, well-sourced, relevant, and neutral. There's no reaso to delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason to include this pronunciation info in the article Millennium '73. It might be at Prem Rawat (to which Guru Maharaj Ji redirects) - though it does seems rather insignigicant to me. - Of the first 50 items on the "What links here" list for Wymondham, only Wymondham Abbey and List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations (and its talk page) seem to mention the pronunciation - even Wymondham College doesn't.--Noe (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbatim copying

It is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policies to copy text from another source without marking it as a quotation.[3][4] Please either re-write the material in your own words, or, if the material is worthy of a quotaiton, mark it as a quotation. In my opinion, neither of these are worth quoting, though some of the material might be added in our own words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have put it in quotation marks.Momento (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've re-ordered the Millennium Fever section because the way you wrote it Will it went straight from what Rawat wrote to a whole lot of wild and wacky stuff from others without any sense of separation.Momento (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The order before was 1) comments by leaders, 2) commetns by followers, 3) predictions of attendance. I'm not sure what the order is now. Why is it better now than it was before? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Because your version went immediately from - "Rawat wrote in a letter" to "he reportedly predicted that angels would drop flowers on the Astrodome, which might then fly off into outer space" - without making it clear that we had gone from fact to speculation. And worse, that it didn't make clear that it wasn't "reported" by a "reporter" but said by a follower to a reporter. But even worse, you omitted the rest of the sentence which goes - "although a premie has assured me that the latter prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". In other words it was completely distorted.Momento (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not speculation - it's a fact that members believed that the Astrodome would levitate. We can add more sources for it. I'll move the material back into logical order but modify that aentence to make it clearer who is reporting what. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, text from Maharaj was added that doesn't appear to relate to the runaway expectations that are the topic of the section. That material may have more to do with the general teaching of Maharaj Ji, rather than the expectations for this event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the Rawat letter from the Millennium Fever since their is nothing feverish about it.
Having a think about the whole "Millennium Fever" section, I think it's not NPOV. Collier says only a minority experienced Millennium Fever, so perhaps the heading should be "Expectations" and that would allow us to include a more balanced range of expressions.
Claiming that this would be the most holy and significant event in human history was one of the most widely reported claims about this festival. This letter gives us the assertion straight from the source. On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any 3rd-aprty sources mentioning his assertion that, "In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism." Nor do I see that that has to do with expectations for the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
He didn't claim Millennium was "the most holy and significant event in human history". He was talking about the "festival (which) has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967. And this year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America". Anyway as I said above, naming the section :Millennium Fever" gives undue weight to a "minority of members" as per "Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue".Momento (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've revised your text about the levitation. There are two sources for it. Boyle writes about, the Houston Astrodome, which the guru promised would levitate at the close. So Levine says that the guru hinted, while Boyle says that he promised. I think that "said" is a good compromise between those two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the Boyle comment, what page is it on please.Momento (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As for the heading, I think "Expectations" is a valid name too, but let's limit the contents of it to actual expectations, not other elements of the DLM's belief system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As for the levitation, there are many sources that attribute it generally to members or organizers, in addition to the couple who attribute it directly to Maharaj Ji. It appears to have been one of the more common "memes" of the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Where is Boyles quote please.Momento (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll check the book again to find the page number. Boyle made the same assertion in a periodical archived on one of the Rawat-oriented sites, I believe. It's also on the cover of the LOTU video. We can certainly improve that citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The LOTU cover makes the claim but it doesn't appear in the video.Momento (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I neglected to record the page number in my notes, but I've requested the book again and will add the page number when I get it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should remove it as a source?Momento (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I tracked it down - it wasn't from Boyle's book but from an earlier article that Boyle had written. I also found an even more explicit reference to Maharaj Ji's prediction in Greenfield. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing encyclopdia = activity of "mind"

Two general concerns:

  • Writing an encyclopedia in a collaborative effort is a rational activity. That is unavoidable. Otherwise said: rationality is pretty much at the core of the Wikipedian paradigm. Those of us who want to adhere to a Rawatian paradigm ("consistently reject[ing] 'theoretical' knowledge as 'useless'," according to Mangalwadi 1992), and think this is going to work if each of us only accepts his/her own intuition as measure of what can be done and what can't be done in Wikipedia, definitely need to look for another hobby.
  • Pro-Rawat editors (but the same applies to former-follower-editors) often need to be protected against themselves. For example, there's some pushing to deteriorate the style of the intro and make it into a MoS horror, in favour of an illusory "order by importance of facts". Let me assure you, pulling that string puts Rawat in a way less favourable light, than an intro with an intelligble flow that invites to read the rest of the article. And even then, Rawat's name should be in the first sentence: the festival being connected to Rawat is imho more important than how many days it was etc. So if I'm going to revert to an earlier version of the intro now, really, that's for protecting overzealous supporters against themselves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I am following this at a distance, but I would want to warn you that you are threading too closely into WP:NPA territory, by asserting that people that have Prem Rawat as a teacher, reject 'theoretical' knowledge as 'useless' (quoting Mangalwadi does not spare your responsibility for what you write). I would appreciate if you can put a sock on it, and play nice. I am trying to stay away from these articles, but if I see any further personal attacks or attempts to challenge editors based on your perceptions of their beliefs, I will bring this to the attention of WP:AE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"At a distance"? "Trying to stay away"? Let's see, you've edited the article, you've made posting to this talk page and to the peer review page, and you've nominated two images for deletion. How much distance is that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, at a distance and keeping an eye on it for copyvios and other such. Do you have a problem with that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with any editors getting involved in a dispassionate, constructive manner. I was simply questioning the assertions of maintaining a "distance" and of "staying away". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess the "following this at a distance" phase is over now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article's POV

I shouldn't have to correct errors every time a read this article. Sources are distorted and journalist's opinions are frequently given as facts and there is an over reliance on biased media. The anti GMJ bias warrants a POV tag and I have put it up.Momento (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please say what the specific NPOV problem is so that we can fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Most encyclopedias would use sources such as Levine's, whose opening description of GMJ is "He looked like a precocious Third World account executive on the make", sparingly but it is the major source for this article with more than 50 quotes. Eight quotes from an article titled "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget". Another 8 from "Goom Rodgie's Razzle-Dazzle Soul Rush". 20 quotes from the leftist Ramparts magazine. Plus material from ". "Singing Along With the Guru", ""I See The Light: In which a young journalist pushes a cream pie into the face of His Divine Fatness and gets his skull cracked open by two disciples",And where are the scholars? Messer gets 2 quotes, Galanter 2 and Downton, who wrote a book on this era of DLM, less the 20. The lack of balance is overwhelming.Momento (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This article uses over 80 sources and over 400 citations. Richard Levine wrote a very thorough article. Many of the citations to Levine are in addition to other sources, confirming the reliability and notability of the assertions. David Snell was a senior editor at Life magazine and was writing for one of the most prestigious magazines of the era. Downton does report a bit on the festival, most of his work is on other aspects of the movement. Is there something more about the festival in Galanter that we should add? If you are asserting that there are unreliable source then we can take that to WP:RSN, but we've already discussed most of these. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about RS, it is about balance and neutrality.Momento (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Please be specific so we can fix it. What is unbalanced or non-neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, your objection to having so many citations to Levine doesn't appear serious considering that you added material from Levine on five occasions last week.[5][6][7][8][9] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the over reliance on clearly sarcastic anti-GMJ articles, many quotes have been POV edited to remove positive material or edited to make them more negative, including Levine. Here are the five edits you refer to-
  • you included Levine's "He reportedly predicted that angels would drop flowers on the Astrodome, which might then fly off into outer space..." but you cut off the rest of Levine's sentence "...but a premie responded that the latter prediction was probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". Why?
  • you included the trivial "After the end of the program volunteers hurried to clear the field of the stage and carpeting in time for a football game the following day between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers" but didn't include Levine's important observation that the premies "worked smoothly, efficiently, happily into the early morning hours, without a word of complaint or a note of friction". Why?
  • you left out the opening question of Levine's press conference report "Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible? Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world". Arguably the most important question of the conference. Why?
  • you removed Krassner's absurd but illuminating comment " that the Divine Light Mission was part of a huge ClA-directed conspiracy to destroy political opposition" from Levine's report of the Davis/Krasner debate. Why?
  • I added more Davis for balance.
So there we have it, five edits where I have had to insert material that you didn't put in.Momento (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that 47 citations were too many, but 52 aren't enough? I don't understand why you say that there are too many Levine cites when you've recently added about 10% of them. Anyway, regarding these specific edits:
  • Many sources report on the levitation of the Astrodome. The assertion of Lila only appears in the one source, so it seemed less important in that context. We already mention Lila several times elsewhere.
  • We already mention the lack of friction in the next section. The material now appears repetitive.
  • There are many quotations from the press conference, but I chose to use only the questions and answers that had multiple sources. This article is loing and it seems like a reasonable way of limiting content.
  • I thought the CIA allegation was included in the assertion that the DLM was part of a government conspiracy. Again, there are many things that Krassner said in that debate, including the question about Maharaj Ji's masturbation. I suppose we could argue that much of it is "absurd but illuminating", however I thought it was something we can leave out. When i was drafting it the debate seciton was longer but it seemed like a good place to cut. Do you think we should include all of that?
If your complaint with the POV is just "too much Levine" then you should take down the tag. You can't add a source one week and complain about it the next week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is too much Levine and too much trivia in general.As you say this article is long and a reasonable way of limiting content would be to remove such drivel as " One rumor said that a newborn baby in Houston had cried out "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "The Lord has come" and then died.[71][4] Followers perceived the predicted appearance of Comet Kohoutek as another omen.[4][32][63] Some members believed that the comet was a spaceship on its way to Houston, while others saw it as the return of the Star of Bethlehem.[4] Members said its name meant "KO Houston Texas", as in "knock out".[72][4][63] An astrologer pointed to a special alignment of the planets during the festival.[4][32][63] One member used a Ouija board to contact Venusians who planned to attend purportedly "because they're from the planet of love and Guru Maharaj Ji is the source of love in the universe."[4][63]. It is all adequately covered with "Many members had "bizarre", "runaway expectations", the rest is undue weight given to the claims of, in some cases, one individuasl. Momento (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Levine accounts for fewer than 1/8 of the citations, 10% of which you yourself added. I disagree with your assertion that using one source for an eighth of the citations is undue weight. As for the particular text you copied above, it is all properly sourced and neutrally presented. Simply telling readers that there were bizarre expectations isn't sufficient. Since we ahve the sourced examples of the expectations we should share themn with readers so that they can make up their own minds. Please re-read WP:NPOV before you assert that this article violates that policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is this labelled as a "POV edit"?[10] All it does is split a sentence into two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you splitting a quote in two in the first place?Momento (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
For readability. Why did you label it a "POV edit"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Because originally you changed Levine's quote by claiming "GMJ reportedly predicted" when in fact it was "a follower that had reportedly claimed that GMJ". And you left out the second half of Levine's quote which was "although a premie has assured me that the latter prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing." The result of your edit is A) to suggest that the levitating claim came from GMJ when it came from a follower and B) remove Levine's qualifier that it was a joke. If this was the only incorrect edit in this article we could accept it as a mistake but this article is full of them.Momento (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The only difference between those edits is the word "but" and a period. How is that a "POV edit"? As for the levitaiton claim, it is attributed to the Maharaj Ji. Greenfield gives an even clearer attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No. You incorrectly claim that a follower said it "may have been" a lila when in fact the reporter was "assured me that the prediction is probably another example of lila, the Guru's divine game-playing". This could just be careless editing on your behalf but the clear pattern is that all your errors fall on the side of creating a negative POV of GMJ.Momento (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't the edit, but even so I think "may have been" and "probably" are virtually synonymous. Is the difference between them worth the NPOV tag? Now that that's fixed can we remove the tag? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Virtually synonymous? Probably = in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, (very/most) likely, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt. And "maybe" = perhaps, possibly, conceivably, it could be (that), it is possible (that), for all one knows". If you can't see the difference between those words, you haven't the discrimination to see the difference between a good Wiki article and this thing.Momento (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson. Now that that's fixed, is there any specific reason to keep the NPOV tag on the article?
There are dozens of similar mistakes that need to fixed. I'm making my way through the article correcting errors like the above and when it's fixed we can remove the tag. If you'd like to help you can fix some of your mistakes yourself.Momento (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm fixing any mistakes I find. But mistakes that we haven't found yet aren't reason enough for an NPOV tag. If there are no active POV disputes we can remove the tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Very little has changed since the NPOV tag was put on this article. I am starting to fix the many errors that show a pattern of POV pushing and it needs a lot more work before it reaches an acceptable Wiki standard.Momento (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason for the tag now being on the article? Please be specific so we can address your concern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a good example of POV editing. You have used part of a Downton sentence to support "some premies made "many rather bizarre, "cultic" predictions" but you left out that part of the sentence that says that rumor of "the possible appearance of ETs was spread in half-jest". You have put in half a dozen references to ETs without letting readers know it was done in "half jest". That's POV pushing by omission and this article is full of it.Momento (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you're the one who added the text, "many rather bizarre, "cultic" predictions".[11] To make an edit and then blame me for it is unhelpful. If there are no specific issues that need to be addressed let's take down the POV tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As is obvious from my statement above, I'm not objecting to the Pilarzyk/Downton paraphrase, I'm objecting to the fact that from day one of this article you were happy to use some of Downton's sentence but carefully omitted from the entire article Downton's important point that the ETs was rumors were spread "in half-jest". You mischaracterization of my comment is harassment. As is your badgering to have this NPOV tag taken from this lop sided article. Don't do it again.Momento (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If there is a POV tag up for no reason then I will continue to seek its removal, just as I'd seek to remove any invalid tag. As for the "'cultic' predictions" text, you added it so I think you shouldn't complain about it. This is like adding 5 citations to Levine and then complaining about having too many Levine citations, or adding hundreds of words and then complaining that the article is too long. Getting back to the topic, why is there a POV tag on the article? What specific problems are there that make this article violate WP:NPOV? Let's list them so we can fix them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Because it isn't neutral as my many corrections indicate.Momento (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What still needs to be corrected? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are no specific violations of [WP:NPOV]] I'll remove the tag. While I'm sure there are other small mistakes in the article (nothing is ever perfect), small mistakes don't necessarily violate NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Will, I don't see any viable reason for this article to have a violation of NPOV tag. I think this is a very good article that has been fully cited. It's not the fault of editors if the Millennium 1973 received negative press and writings by the NRM scholars. It is what it is and one can't expect to slant it otherwise. Therefore, I think the tag should be removed (please do the honors) :). Hey, I hope you're well, Will. Autumn is in full peak here in Vermont and we're having the most vibrant and breath-taking foliage that we've had in years! We've already had two hard frosts and that brings out the color even more. Sorry, it's not something that can ever be described in words. Best wishes and be well, Cynthia Sylviecyn (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Momento hasn't identified a NPOV violation despite requests going back at least to September 28, there NPOV tag appears unnecessary. I'm going to remove it. I request that anyone who restores it be ready to give a specific description of the NPOV violations before restoring it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Red herring. Per WP:NPOV: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Basically, an article can be POV even if fully cited. This article is a good example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please specify where this article violates WP:NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, there's no answer to the longstanding request for where the purported NPOV violation is in this article. Are there no outstanding POV issues? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
As you can see I am still correcting the POV bias. For some reason you didn't include Collier's eye witness account of why Millennium was called Millennium, an incredible omission. Likewise, GMJ's view on the ET rumors is an excellent counter balance to the media hype. And I will continue working on this article to redress the POV bias until it is fixed.Momento (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, how does this article violate POV? You haven't said. If you can't come up with a specific POV problem then I'm going to remove the tag. You placed it two weeks ago and have not given a clear justification for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
"The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions". As the edit history clearly demonstrates, you left out an enormous amount of important material that I am putting in.Momento (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Again I ask, what part of this article violates WP:NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Again: there is an inherent POV in then way that material is presented, the choosing of specific material at the expense of other, the lack of historical context, and so on. What is the rush? Take your time and work with others to fix the bias. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No rush, but this article has been here a month. If you still can't point to any particular passage that violates NPOV then your assertin that it violates WP:NPOV appears unsupported. Again I ask, where is the NPOV violation that justified adding the tag? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
My arguments are quite specific. In any case, from what I see, you and Momento are making good progress in balancing the article, so keep going until such time in which you both will be satisfied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's vague. Can you point to a passage that violates NPOV? If not, then where is the violation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you point to a passage that violates NPOV? If not, then where is the violation? The violation lies as per my argument. How many times one has to repeat it? -- The article fails NPOV, in then way that material is presented, the choosing of specific material at the expense of other, and the lack of historical context. Close to a WP:COATRACK than an encyclopedic and neutral article. Not all is lost, however, it is salvageable if editors attend to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Will, I've assumed, maybe incorrectly, that English is your first language. But since you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, it probably isn't. If so, you'll have to accept that people with a greater grasp of English words, grammar and usage and an extensive knowledge of Rawat will see that this article is very biased both in structure and source selection. I will continue to improve it.Momento (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks aside, can you please point to a passage that violates WP:NPOV? I've been asking you since 9/28. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack Will. I think most editors will agree that if you think "maybe" and "probably" are almost synonymous, no one will be able to explain more complex issues like bias to you. This is not the first time I have had trouble getting you to understand a perfectly clear argument. Here's me trying to explain to you that I don't think Collier "is the most reliable source we can use" and your totally opposite characterization of my argument.
  • Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned.Momento (talk), 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet after denying that that "Collier is the most reliable source available" three times just two days earlier, he wrote to another editor -

  • Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC).
I think every one will excuse me if I don't continue this endless argument with you Will.Momento (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
None of that answers the question: what part of the article violates WP:NPOV? Since you have not answered I take it that you do not think any part of he article violates NPOV and so I will remove the POV tag. You are welcome to restore it if you can point to a single violation of the policy that hansn't been fixed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why the threats? There are arguments presented that say this article is not close to be a neutral presentation of the subject. You obviosuly disagree, so what's new? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Not threats, just announcements. And no, there haven't been any arguments that say what specific text in this article in non-neutral. Can you answer the question? I feel like Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin. When I ask questions there are responses, but they don't answer the questions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done - {{POV}} tag removed. There is zero specific rationale given on the article's talk page as to any purported issues with WP:NPOV (or how to address this), merely a vague assertion. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Undone. There is no consensus for the removal of the tag as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
What arguments presented? There has been zero specific rationale given on the talk page for the tag, just vague generalizations. The burden is on the user that placed the tag, not the other way around. Therefore the tag should be removed. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There is something called WP:CONSENSUS, so what is the rush in removing a POV tag? Momento and Will BeBack are slowly addressing the issues, so it should not be long until such time in which the tag can be removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. But there was never any consensus for the tag in the first place. And as no one has explicitly given specific examples of purported POV, and the burden is on the user that placed the tag, and it has been seven days with still no specificity given, your restoration of the {{POV}} tag was inappropriate. Please remove it. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Jossi, please don't add a POV tag to this artilce unles you're willing to help idntify and fix the problems. You say that Momento and I are addressing the issues- why aren't you also addressing the issue? Please participate in the thread below, POV2, where we can address the problems you identified. If there are no responses we can start crossing items off the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


"I am the source of peace in this world"

  • Then in 1966, the night Shri Hans dies, Maharaj Ji hears a voice that says, "You are he, you are the one to go and take this Knowledge to the world," and Mata Ji weeps for joy, knowing that her husband "had indeed kept his promise that he would never leave her." Four years later, at the annual celebration of his father's birthday in New Delhi, Guru Maharaj Ji "reveals his plan" to a crowd of over a million people: "I declare I shall bring in the Golden Age of Peace to the whole world."
    • Levine 1974
  • When a 12-year old boy announced, "I declare I shall bring in the Golden Age of Peace to the whole world," not very many people believed him.
    • "History of Hans Jayanit", And It Is Divine, November 1973

Momento prefers another version of the same quotation. That's fine, but it's inappropriate to leave the citations to the other version. I'll go change the citations. Please be more careful with cites. And please don't say something is a misquotation until you've checked the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the quote provided in a translation of the speech from the 1972 issue of AIID.Momento (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's one version, though not the version printed in the Millennium AIID. Isn't that the more appropriate version, since this is about the Millennium? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If we're quoting a speech then a full translation of a speech would be a more accurate source than someone's paraphrase. Momento (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the 1972 AIID quote was accurate while the 1973 AIID quote is an inaccurate paraphrase? What's you're basis for drawig that conclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This article says " Guru Maharaj Ji delivered his "Peace Bomb" address to a gathering of 1 million people, at which he said...", it therefore follows that we should use his words from the speech not someone else's paraphrase.Momento (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and the 1973 AIID quote purports to be his words too. Anyway, I don't mind using one verison instead of the other. Just please don't change the text while retaining the citations to the old text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Why was "then-member" deleted?[12] Without that text the reader will have no idea who Collier is or why her statement has any bearing. We identify other people, such as Mahraj Ji, Bal Baghwan Ji, Bob Mishler, Downton, et al. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't identify reporters or the media they work for, or who are Christian writers or whose writings have been criticized by other scholars, all of which would help readers evaluate what they are reading.Momento (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It is unhelpful to reader to simply say, "Collier says..." without indicating who Collier is. I don't think we do so anywhere elese in the article. If we do we should fix it. We do say that "A reporter said..." or "a member said..." or similar expressions that indicate the role of the writer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead (2)

Will, could you provide me with the sources that say "the festival was held by Guru Maharaj JI". All my sources say it was held by DLM.Momento (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission and Guru Maharaj Ji..." can easily be sourced to Special Millenium '73 Edition' of the Divine Times, page 2: there Rawat (1) asserts that "This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission...", and (2) invites to join him (= Rawat) in realising the program of the festival.
FYI, at the time Rawat was associated with DLM (though not its administrative head), so if DLM holds a festival that includes Rawat. Expliciting Rawat is for readability so that the encyclopedia reader knows from the first sentence to whom the Millennium '73 article connects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So as far as Rawat was concerned the "festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission".Momento (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source for Momento.
  • When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself the new master and started his own teaching. His global tour in 1971 helped to establish a large following in Britain and the USA. In 1973, he held what was intended to have been a vast, much publicized event in the Houston Astrodome. `Millennium '73' was meant to launch the spiritual millennium, but the event attracted very few and had little wider influence.
    • Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions: a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8.
I'm not tied to the exact language, though it is sourceable. I'd made an alternate proposal omitting the implication the Maharaj Ji was the host, but Frances is probably right that we need to give some indication of the relationship of Maharaj Ji to the festival and the DLM. There are several discrete layers invovled in this: Maharaj Ji was the spiritual leader of the DLM, however the AIID statement implies he's merely an invited guest. He was clearly the main draw, but he wasn't in charge of the actual orperations. How about something like:
  • Millennium '73 was a free, three-day festival held at the Astrodome in November 1973 by the Divine Light Mission on behalf of its leader, Guru Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji was 15 years old and the leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time.
That captures the leading yet passive role of Maharaj Ji. The actual phrase might be wordsmithed: on behalf of..., to showcase..., to celebrate..., to provide a media event for..., as an occasion for the onset of a thousand years of peace courtesy of... Those are all accurate. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're heading in n the right direction. Foss & Larkin -"'The Divine Light Mission achieved prominence in 1973-74, receiving a substantial amount of coverage in the print and electronic media. Its festival in November 1973 ", Galanter "In 1973, the sect rented the Houston Astrodome for a celebration of world peace and religious rejuvenation, "Millenium '73", billed as" the most significant event in human history." Kent " On the application form for Millennium '73, the DLM's major media event of the early 1970s," Melton "After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,”.Momento (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It is clear the majority of scholars claim DLM held the festival and that Davis and BBJ organized it and Maharaj Ji himself says "DLM organized it". That should be reflected in the lead.Momento (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I posted the proposed language, which clearly says that the DLM held the festival. We could add a line later on giving more detail about the organization, though we should keep it short. Perhaps simply saying the BBJ and Davis were the main organizers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Where's the source for "on his behalf"? I'm happy to fix it if you're having trouble.Momento (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What would you suggest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission in November 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. The highlight of each day was the evening address by 15-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, today known by his given name Prem Rawat..Momento (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't include any information on the relationship between Maharaj Ji and the DLM or the festival. The current name of Maharaj Ji isn't so important that it needs to be in the first paragraph (we don't give the current name of the DLM either). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the relationship between Maharaj Ji and DLM? It was founded by Bob Mishler, Maharaj ji was too young to have any legal connection with it He didn't organize the festival, he was invited to speak at it and did.Momento (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Maharaj Ji was the spiritual leader of the DLM and the main attraction of the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Good. I've made the change.Momento (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I moved the information about the nightly address to the other prgram info, because it's more logical there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please stop edit-warring "The highlight of each day was an evening address by Guru Maharaj Ji..." (or similar) into the first paragraph of the lead section (10:14, 9 September 2008 - 22:08, 9 September 2008 - 23:32, 11 September 2008 - 21:22, 14 September 2008). I see no consensus for that here on this talk page, nor do I think that a good idea. E.g., it puts the fact that Rawat spoke in the evenings before the fact that the festival was billed "the most significant event in human history"... (etc) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert all material because you disagree with one sentence. It is far more important to inform readers of Guru Maharaj Ji's presence at Millennium than the pick out one description of several about the event. If GMJ had not spoken there, no one would have bothered to describe it and this article would not exist.Momento (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Momento, the version before your change already said that Maharaj Ji was the main attraction. Moving the more detailed program information to the first paragraph doesn't make the material more readable. The descriptions of the event and they way it was billed are indeed important - Maharaj Ji appeared aat many festivals, but this is the only one that was promoted as the most significant in human history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, we discussed and agreed upon the prior version. I don't understand why you made the change after agreeing to the previous version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't discuss or agree to the claim DLM was a "sect". Nor does agreeing to an improvement in one sentence signify agreement to all or indeed prohibit further improvement.Momento (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to revert this edit of Momento. He says that he wants to have Maharaj Ji's presence prominently featured, and it is in the previous version that he himself edited. What isn't so important is that his presence was in the evening, or that there was also a band. That can wait until a paragraph of its own, which covers the actual program of the festival. The first two paragraphs should give the most basic information of what the event was and why it's notable. Lastly, the RfC is still open on the name pronunciation, so continuous changes there don't help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You have removed the important info that Millennium was held by the U.S. branch of DLM. You have removed the important info that Davis was the vice president of the U.S. DLM. You have removed important context about the pronunciation according to the source. You have credited one person's opinion, Bob Larson's, as being from several sources. You have removed the fact that the pronunciation was confined to American followers. You have removed the important fact that GMJ took over the U.S. DLM as a result of the festival. And you have added that DLM was a "sect". And other material without discussion or consensus. Perhaps you can explain why you don't need to follow the rules you apply to me.Momento (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What is your source for it being held by the "U.S. branch"? The article still says that Davis was VP. There are three sources for the pronunciation, so it is appropriate to say "some sources". (But let's confine the pronunciatoin discussion to that section of this page). The fact that Maharaj Ji later took over the administration of the DLM doens't directly concern this festival. It is mentioned at the end, as part of the aftermath. I did not add that it was a "sect". Another editor added that it was a Hindu sect and I removed "Hindu". There are plenty of sources available for the term "sect", and I'd be happy to cite them. Or if there's another very short description that will clue in readers we could use that instead. Or we can go back to what we had before that helpful editor added it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
"After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity." from Melton. "Recent convert" is meaningless, "Vice president" is substantial. Again why did you remove "American"? You allowed "sect" to remain, why when it is just one of many descriptions? The sentence refers to "to changes in the DLM's structure, management, and message" and the greatest of all was GMJ taking over. I'll make the changes.Momento (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Melton doesn't use the term you're suggesting, "U.S. branch". Obviously the festival occurred in the U.S. BBJ was one of the main organizers - what was his role in the "U.S." DLM? As for Davis, the point of mentioning him is that he brought attention to the event. Almost every reference to him in that context mentions that he was a recent convert, which is not meaningless, while almost none of them mention that he was VP. That is mentioned later on, in the paragraph devoted to Davis. How does the change in administrative control in December relate to the festival in November? Do you have a source for the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Before you said that the appearance of Guru Maharaj Ji was the most important aspect, but now you've removed it from the lead?[13] I don't understand your reasoning for adding and deleting material. PLease xplain this deletion and give a reason for why it shouldn't be restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Melton is clear - after "beginning in North America, the Mission (It) rented the Houston Astrodome. Obviously referring to the Mission that began in the U.S. Millennium was full of recent converts but how many V-Ps were there.GMJ taking control relates to the words that precede it "The festival's failure, along with other factors, led to changes in the DLM's structure, management, and message". You're right, GMJ should appear in the second sentence but not as a leader of a "sect".Momento (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I think it's a silly point and the way you're presenting it is not far from original research, but if you really want to label it the "U.S. branch" of the DLM then go ahead. With Davis we can split the difference and mention that he's also a recent convert, which is what got the publicity. As for the mention of Maharaj Ji, how about we just go back to what we had before the helpful editor made his change. That would be: The main attraction was Guru Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji was 15 years old and the leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time. That gives him a prominent mention, gives the significance of the movement and his connection to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't insult me by referring to the point I'm making as "silly". The DLM article says " Rawat defied his mother by travelling to the UK and the US, where local branches of DLM were established and rapidly expanded".Momento (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
And I'm not interested in you offer to "split the difference". Davis didn't get the publicity because he was a "recent convert" he got it because he was famous and the spokesperson.Momento (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the edit, which I think is silly. I don't think it's a necessary or helpful distinction to make in the first sentence of the article. All through the article we mention that BBJ was a leading organizer, a fact which you've previously insisted on including prominently. OTOH, we barely mention Mishler. So yes, I don't think it helps the article. As for Davis, yes, he was famous for being the spokesman, so let's put that in instead, good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You are talking about the "silly point I'm presenting", that is "I am presenting a silly point" therefore I lack discrimination.Momento (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede: section break

Proposing to change (first paragraph):

...the Divine Light Mission. The main attraction was Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West at the time.

to

...the Divine Light Mission (DLM), prominently featuring Prem Rawat, at the time better known as Guru Maharaj Ji. He was 15 years old then, and leader of one of the fastest growing religious movements in the West.

(1) improved flow (I think); (2) avoids expression "main attraction" which reminds me rather of a show or another more wordly gathering (although that can be a subjective appreciation); (3) main character of the event in the first sentence; (4) no "surprise" link ([[Prem Rawat|Guru Maharaj Ji]] - readers are not supposed to be very acquainted with the subject in advance); (5) handled second remark of Ruhrfisch comments (peer review). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, except that I think "better known" is incorrect. The contemporary sources that I've seen, if they give an alternate name, give something like "Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji" or "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". I think that just saying "at the time known as" would be more correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "...prominently featuring Guru Maharaj Ji, also known as Prem Rawat" because it featured Guru Maharaj Ji, not Prem Rawat. Nobody called him "Prem Rawat" until long after the festival. If we were covering a boxing match in 1960 we wouldn't say that Muhammad Ali was a contestant, because he was then called Cassius Clay. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP: as far as I know the person prefers to be called Prem Rawat. Whether he is "known" as such is of secondary importance (in other words: WP:BLP, a policy, supersedes WP:NCCN, a convention), but we correctly indicate the more prominent name at the time.
Further, we say (e.g.) Fibonacci, whatever the guy was called when he wrote his most famous book (as it happens, that book refers to him as "leonardo filio Bonacij Pisano").
As for living people, see e.g. how Wikipedia translates "Bhagwan" (as written in the used source) by "Osho" here.
All in all a minor (style) issue: but as people seem to expect "perfection" from this article, better get it as right as possible according to policy etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course we want to follow WP:BLP, but I don't see anything there about post-facto name changes. Of course a major exception is Emperor Showa, who was called Hirohito in life. But that's because it is a tradition in Japan to rename emperors on their death and to only use the new name. There's no such tradition with gurus. But it's a minor issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"U.S. DLM" or "DLM"

What sources do we have that the festival was held by "U.S. DLM" as opposed to "DLM"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And what is the point of making the distinction anyway? Mata Ji, BBJ and GMJ were the administrative and spiritual leaders of the movement in all countries, weren't they? We don't say that earlier Hans Jayantis were held by the "Indian DLM", or that Hans Maharaj Ji founded the "Indian DLM". (At the end of the article, we do mention that the movement split later, but the movement hadn't split in November 1973). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, we're using both "US" and "U.S." Since this article also includes "UK", we might standardize on "US". Either way, but we should be consistent. I'll change them all to "US", but if someone wants to make them all "U.S." and "U.K." that's good too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
According to MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)#Acronym usage in article body): "U.S." - "UK", even on the same page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It's allowed, but it doesn't look good. The main point is to make it consistent between "U.S." and "US". There's no good reason to use both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Expectations section

I reverted a set of edits to the "Expectations" section.[14] Many of the edits added material that was already included elsewhere in the article. For example, the explanation of Hans Jayanti, or the jokes about the ETs. Others added material contrary to what the citations say, or deleted material while leaving the citations. Finally, I re-added and re-worked the section intro that Momento drafted.[15] that part has grown, so I don't want to hear about the article being too long. I again ask Momento to be more careful about the citations when adding or deleting material. Also, I request that he read the entire article before adding material, as he keeps adding things that are already there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You need only look at the "Verbatim Copying" section to see that you revised my text claiming "Boyle writes about" when in fact after several queries from me you admit "- it wasn't from Boyle's book". So please stop harassing me with your requests to be more careful about citations.Momento (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The citation in the text for that was always correct, "Boyle 1985". It just took me a couple of days to remember what that citation went to, which had been omitted from the list of references. It's not too much to ask that you be careful, is it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It is when you see how many errors of yours I have had to correct.Momento (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What errors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's take just the first sentence of this article. You wrote "Millennium '73 was a festival held by the Divine Light Mission and Guru Maharaj Ji (aka Prem Rawat) in November 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas". In doing so you claimed that Millennium '73 was "festival held by the Divine Light Mission" when it was held solely by "the U.S. branch". And that is was held by Guru Maharaj Ji , which it wasn't. That two errors in one sentence.Momento (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The Denver, Colorado DLM was called and considered "DLM International Headquarters" or "IHQ." It was also called "U.S. National Headquarters" but more often Maharaji himself referred to Denver as "IHQ," (most likely because he lived in the U.S.), hence so did everyone else call it IHQ. Denver IHQ was also called "DLM IHQ" when it moved its operations to Miami Beach in the late 70s, which corresponded with Maharaji's move to Miami Beach from Malibu so he could manage the DECA B707 project in late 1978 or early 1979. DLM was never considered a "branch of DLM." I worked at both DECA, as well as DLM IHQ in Miami Beach (where I worked in the Legal Dept. on Alton Road, Miami Beach). See Price Maeve's Divine Light Mission as a Social Organizaiton, which refers to DLM's "International Headquarters." Joe Anctil, DLM's spokesperson, always referred to Denver DLM as "International Headquarters," as did Michael Dettmers, and every other premie in the U.S. There are plenty of resources that refer to DLM Denver as IHQ. Btw, I never heard of DLM Denver referred to as a "branch," nor have I ever heard of any of the other established DLMs referred to as "branches," i.e., Australia, Europe, UK, or any other DLMs around the world. They weren't branches of each other, rather, the various DLMs were established as separate legal entities within their own counties, with no legal association to the Denver DLM IHQ. They were their own national headquarters, not branches. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. DLM is still the DLM, so thayt's not an error. We have a source that says it was held by the Guru, so that's not an error either. (See Hunt 2003, text posted on this page). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I can find a reliable source that says the stage was 300 feet high, therefore poking through the roof of the Astrodome. Our job as editors is to see the big picture, through multiple sources and provide our readers with an accurate and balanced article. It is not to promote and use only those sources that suit our POV.Momento (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and we include that in the article. Are there sources that we don't include that we should? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have put back the ET stuff from the "Media" section in the "expectations" section with all the ET material. And BBJ's ET quotes with his other quotes. The Downton material now ties it all together very well.Momento (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not helpful. The "Expectations" section includes things that happened before the festival. The material you moved includes things that happened during the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't keep making that change without consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
From day one of the article you happily used the first part of Downton's sentence "that some followers had runaway expectations" but now you don't want to use the rest of the sentence about "rumors spread in half-jest". Please explain your logic. Likewise you are happy to use some of Levine's, Morgan's and Collier's comments from people at Houston but, strangely, don't want to accept my choice of quotes from Levine, Morgan and Collier. Don't you find that really odd, I do?Momento (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Where have I complained about adding "half-jest"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Up in the POV section. But please explain your logic on why you can include Levine's, Morgan's and Collier's comments and I can not.Momento (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say you couldn't include material from those authors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor just added this:

  • According to Bob Mishler, the President of DLM, Maharaj Ji said that "The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here".[1]

What is the relevance of that to the Millennium '73? There's nothing in this article, or anything I remember reading about the festival, that deals with humans flying to other planets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OR - putting words in GMJ's mouth that may very well be Mishler's own (see below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a clear, unambiguous and attributed description of GMJ's view of where peace is to be established, that is in our own lives on planet earth. Not in a levitated Astrodome, not with ETs, not in UFOs, not with Venusians. All of which you included in the expectations section.Momento (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that GMJ has many views on where peace is to be established, but those belong in Teachings of Prem Rawat. I don't see how this concerns the Millennium '73 festival. I'll move it to the appropriate article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It directly concerns Millennium because it comes in this context. Bob Mishler about Millennium in an interview says "I was only expecting 20 or 25 thousand, but it was like calming a team of wild horses to stop the predictions of hundreds of thousands and the Astrodome taking off into outer space. To an extent, that sort of thinking is still with the premies, but not nearly as much as before. Many premies are having a broader and deeper awakening of practicality in terms of realizing this Knowledge and understanding what human life is all about. The question Maharaj J originally put to us was, "What is the aim of human life?" The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here". It sourced and it's relevant. Enough said.Momento (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No, not "enough said". You've not given any explanation for the connection between this quote and the festival. We have an entire article devoted to the views of Prem Rawat, and this is just another view. You've already said you think the article is long, so let's not add extraneous material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The core of Mishler's 1974 comments on "expectations" (in the Mishler & Donner interview), that is, the sentence starting with "People who came with expectations..." (my bolding) wasn't even mentioned in the expectations section, despite the expectations section already having two quotes from that interview. I grouped it a bit, left in still a rather large part of the quotes [16] - and am now suggesting to trim the Mishler quote in the expectations section: yes, maybe the ""What is the aim of human life?"..." paragraph could go: it isn't very clear on whether the answer to GMJ's question is GMJ's (I don't think so, so we shouldn't pass it as such) or Mishler's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. However I suggest moving the last part, about disappointment, to the last section, where we already quote Mishler and others on their feelings after the festival. I think it's best, to the extent possible, to keep this article in chronological order. The "expectations" section should be kept, in my opinion, for dealing with what people expected before the festival happened. I'd also remove the line The question Maharaj Ji originally put to us was, "What is the aim of human life?" , which isn't necessary in this context and which, as Francis points out above, may be Mishler's words in GMJ's mouth. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it again, it's really disproportionately long. It is by far the longest quotation in the article, even though it only appeared in in-house magazine and wasn't reported by the wider media. While Mishler's POV view is significant, it doesn't deserve that much space. What are we gaining over just quoting a few phrases of his? We'd already quoted him as saying he tried to put the brakes on expectations for the event, but he still thought it important. A couple of lines is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I ask editors to be more careful with citations. This edit [17] added material with an incorrect citation. If an editor doesn't know the page number then they should leave that field blank. Using incorrect references can screw up an article quickly. We saw that with Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this section can continue. Originally a biased titled "Millennium Fever" section, it focuses solely on a minority view, thus giving undue weight to a minority and violating the biased structure section of NPOV. If it can't be made too conform it will have to go.Momento (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Every viewpoint we have a source for is represented. GMJ, BBJ, Mishler, Davis, Collier, et al. Which viewpoint isn't included? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority viewpoint.Momento (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As found in what source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As noted by Pilarzyk (some premies) and Downton (some premies) and Collier (minority of premies). You have created a section called expectations and only used material about "some" and a "minority". It must be fixed.Momento (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We note those views already. As for minority views versus majority views, it is reasonable to assume, though hard to prove, that the views of the majority of Americans at the time were consistent with those of the media covering the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't assume you know what people are thinking, it is OR and unwelcome, particularly when scholars are clear to indicate it isn't the majority. The fault is in the structure your created. Back, promotion and expectations would be better merged. I'll have a look at it.Momento (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the DLM isn't the majority of the US or the world. The two sections cover different topics. "Promotion" covers what the DLM did to promote the event. "Expectations" covers what the DLM expected from the event. Both sections are long so merging them would not be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

POV2

  • there is an inherent POV in the way that material is presented, the choosing of specific material at the expense of other, the lack of historical context


There haven't been any further discussion on these topics in a week. I presume that all of the POV concerns have resolved. If there are no specific NPOV violations I'll take down the tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are negotiating NPOV with Momento, so the tag should remain until that is resolved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Will's willingness to negotiate should not be used against him. Will replied to all concerns presented, and asked for clarifications/sourcing to make sure nothing verifiable would be neglected. All other negotiators dropped out, the latest a week ago. I'd recommend to give it a few more days after this renewed call. If nothing substantive happens within a day or two, remove tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Momento hasn't been active on these threads for a week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

the way that material is presented

Resolved
 – No unresolved issues left.

Which is material presented in a way that violates WP:NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there's been no response on this tiem I'll assume we can cross it off. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
There don't appear to be any active problems under this topic so I've marked it as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

choosing of specific material at the expense of other

How about you start with something easy. You've seen fit to include comments from an astrologer, a woman with a ouija board, the rumor about the baby etc, why don't you include a comment from the tennis pro/author, the neuropsychologist, the wife of A.J.Russo? That would add some much needed balance, don't you think? Momento (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was starting with something easy. Can you provide more information on this material. I'm assuming that the tennis pro is Tim Gallwey. Who are the others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, Gallwey/Galloway and Bob Hollowitz are quoted in Morgan and du Plessix Gray, but I don't see where they say anything in particular about the festival itself. Hollowitz's actions at the press conference are interesting, but probably not encyclopedic. We can mention that they were in attendance. Can you point to specific comments or actions of theirs that are relevant to this article? I'm still trying to figure out who A.J. Russo is. His wife was at the festival? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Their comments were made at the festival and that is enough to warrant inclusion.Momento (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we could add a paragraph on things that members said to reporters, but not all of them are as well spoken as Gallwey so it'd be a mixed bag. Who is Russo? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I went through and found some material from Premies at the festival. See Talk:Millennium '73/sources. I don't see anything there that's obviously necessary to add to this article. Most of the substantive comments are about the DLM or the teachings of Prem Rawat, not Millennium '73. I can't think of a criteria to decide which to add, or why. Perhaps Jossi and Momento can explain what material about the festival that they think needs to be added. Since the article is already long, additional material needs a good justification and should be kept as short as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The first step to shorten the article would be to delete the drivel from the astrologer who is not talking about the festival in particular and the baby rumor etc. It's just sensationalist gossip that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The astrologer was talking about the festival, and is mentioned in several sources. As several sources also point out, there were amazing rumors going around. We report rumors when they are properly described as rumors and are a significant point of the story. Now, getting back to this topic, what is you and Jossi want to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Expectations is unbalanced because you have only included minority views. I'll give it a complete going over in the next day or so.Momento (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We cover the views of GMJ, BBJ, Davis, Mishler, and members. What views are left to cover? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

historical context

I'm all for addressing any problems with the article. Let's start with the last first. What do we need to add? More background on the movement or its personnel? More about the media perceptions of purported cults? More about the history of the Astrodome? Those are all topics that have articles of their own, so whatever we have here should be kept minimal - just enough to provide the necessary context for the event. One thing I noticed while reading accounts of the event were the references to Nixon and Watergate. And there was a big crisis in the Middle East. Does the article need more about the other events going on in the autumn of 1973? What historical context does the article need to scratch that one off the list? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a question about Nixon to the Krassner/Davis debate, and a question about the Middle East to the press conference. Do we need to add anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You need to include that GMJ was breaking away from his family and why.Momento (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That's already included in the the last paragraph. There is very little information in reliable sources on tensions prior to the festival. Collier speculates on the matter, but that doesn't seem like a sufficient source since it's just speculation on her part. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You've been happy to use less reliable sources. Melton also talks about GMJ's growing independence.Momento (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Which Melton? He's written on the DLM in several different works. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have added it on my own, but to address the request for more on the early split, I added this from Collier.[18]. While Collier wasn't close to the family before the festival, she became intimate soon after and so her insights, even speculations, on the motives of the main participants is more valuable than the average source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

insults

There should also be a section on the various insults used by the cynical media - precocious Third World account executive on the make, fat, chubby, etc.Momento (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
So our readers know where the press is coming from.Momento (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We already have quite a bit on the press and the respective attitudes of the media and the DLM. See the "media coverage" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Not enough and their attitude needs to be mention in the expectations section.Momento (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The "expectations" section covers what happened before the festival. The expectations of the press were pretty much determined by the statements of Davis, BBJ, et al. If we compile a list of epithets for Guru Maharaj Ji we can also add those to the Prem Rawat article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow Brigade

We also need a section on the Rainbow Brigade.Momento (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We already do. See "Event". Have you read the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have created a separate section like you did for WPC.21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We can just add a new subheading, since that entire paragraph is about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shri Hans Humanitarian Services

Need a section on this including origins etc, like WPC section.Momento (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV3

Both Jossi and Momento added the {POV} tag to the article today, but I don't see either of them discussing any problems with the article that violate WP:NPOV. If something needs fixing please discuss it. Otherwise this is just "drive-by tagging". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless and until any editors who have any complaints about this article's contents show a willingness to provide specifics that back up their claim(s) that the article is in violation of NPOV, then the tag should come down and stay down. And if this back and forth tagging of the article persists, then perhaps it's time to report this disruptive behavior to ARBCOM. It's clearly disruptive for anyone to continuously complain about an article's contents without providing specificity, and it's counterproductive to the process of writing an article. So far, I haven't read any valid arguments by these editors to support their POV tag. It appears to be more of a stonewalling than anything else. So, if this drive-by tagging continues without these editors contributing here in good faith, then they should be reported and perhaps blocked from editing. This is an excellent article that's well-written and well-sourced. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The structure is biased and so is the editing by WillBeback as per the removal of "According to Bob Mishler, the President of DLM, Maharaj Ji said that "The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here".Momento (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
What about the structure violates NPOV? Also, I didn't remove the text to whih you're referring. Does adding that text make the article neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed one obvious POV structure. The section titled "Expectation" is half rumors.Momento (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This edit includes the text Momento is talking about.[19] With that text added, how does that version violate WP:NPOV? Please be specific. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, now that that's fixed there aren't any outstanding issues left that you or Jossi have raised. I'm going to remove the tag since we've solved those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV misquote

"According to Bob Mishler Maharaj Ji said that "The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here".[2]" is a POV misquote, see discussion above in "Expectations section" (there it is explained in detail why this is a POV misquote). Don't put it in as an excuse to maintain the POV tag, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you that it may be a misquote. But for all we know half of the quotes in this article are misquotes. Pretty much all we can do is go with what our sources tell us. I'm more concerned that the quotation has little to do with the Millennium '73 festival in general, or even the UFO predictions in particular. Nobody said that the aim of life is travelling to different planets. It appears to me to be irrelevant to this article. However, if adding an off topic sentence will appease Momento then I'm willing to compromise. OTOH, I won't compromise on good writing. Material that is copied verbatim from writers, especially when they use unencyclopedic language or make unusual assertions, should be in quotation marks. I'm thinking of "wild rumors spread in half-jest". There's no excuse for adding that without marking it as a quotation. Let's please be more careful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless you intend to mark every quote written at a later date as "it was later reported" or "a reporter later wrote", you should not characterize this GMJ quote as "was later reported to have said". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momento (talk • contribs)
The problem remains that words that according to the source (the Mishler & Donner interview as published by DLM-related media) can only be attributed to Mishler are erroneously attributed to Rawat in the text version now several times re-added by Momento. That is POV-pushing of sorts, and should be removed on the spot per WP:BLP.
It becomes a bit difficult that the same person time and again inserting this POV in the article is a proponent of keeping the POV-tag on top of the page for no good reason.
How about this:
  1. Stop inserting POV in the article (the Mishler quote erroneously attributed to Rawat).
  2. Remove POV tag as there is no reason, obviously, to keep it.
? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, we do say "it was later reported" when appropriate. The quotation in question was reported long after the event, and there's no claim that it was made at the event. I'm going to restore that to make it clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is full of people saying what someone else said, why should this be treated any differently. It is relevant and sourced.Momento (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If you read the interview closely, you'll see that Mishler doesn't claim that Maharaj Ji said that. The text very specifically puts the quote from Mahara Ji in quotation marks. The material outside the quotation marks are Mishler's words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


This is just plain wrong:
  • Referring to the Astrodome taking off into outer space Mishler recounts Maharaj Ji saying "The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here".[3] .)[4]
It was not in reference to the Astrodome taking off into outer space. It was in reference to the question, "what is the aim of life?" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Here it is in black and white - Mishler talking about Millennium "I was only expecting 20 or 25 thousand, but it was like calming a team of wild horses to stop the predictions of hundreds of thousands and the Astrodome taking off into outer space. To an extent, that sort of thinking is still with the premies, but not nearly as much as before. Many premies are having a broader and deeper awakening of practicality in terms of realizing this Knowledge and understanding what human life is all about. The question Maharaj J originally put to us was, "What is the aim of human life?" The aim of human life is not to fly off to another planet. It is to establish peace right here in our own life, right down here". Momento (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that only the question ("What is the aim of human life?") is in quotes, not the answer to that question. In other words it can't be derived that Mishler attributes the answer to that question to Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
So the quote from Majaraj Ji is, "What is the aim of human life?" The rest is all Mishler. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AE? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. Thanks for your patience.22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

1970 Hans Jayanti

Where was the 1970 Hans Jayanti held? I thought it was India Gate, Delhi - currently the Millenium '73 article mentions a few times (attributed to several sources) that it was held at Haridwar - is there a difference in the sources as to where the 1970 Hans Jayanti was held? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • In November 1970 Guru Maharaj Ji, having quit school at the end of the ninth grade, inaugurated his international mission by riding through Delhi in a golden chariot with a retinue of camels, elephants, and devotees. The triumphal parade ended at India Gate in New Delhi, where a crowd estimated at a million and a half people assembled to pay homage to the Perfect Master. In addressing the crowd, Guru Maharaj Ji exploded what he called his "peace bomb" with the statement, "I declare that I will establish peace in this world."
    • CBY 1974
  • On November 8, 1970, Maharaj ji led an entourage thousands of followers through the streets of Delhi. Arriving at the India Gate he declared, "I will establish peace in this world."
    • Larson (1982), p. 206
We have at least these two sources that say Maharaj Ji delivered his 1970 "peace bomb" at India Gate. I think we can fix this by removing "Haridwar" and just saying that it was previously held in India (which we already imply in the "background" section). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Background from Reception section at Prem Rawat

I don't understand why this paragraph was copied into this article:

  • According to James V. Downton, many people were amazed at the mass following the 13-year-old guru attracted during 1971-73. He noted that most were young people from the counterculture, and they accepted him as a "Perfect Master" despite his youth. Melton describes his arrival in the West as being met with some ridicule, but agrees that he attracted an extraordinary amount of interest from the young adults open to his message.[5] Downton observed that from his early beginnings Maharaji appealed to his followers to give up the concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the "Knowledge" or life force, but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement.[6] [20]

Part of it duplicates material already in the article:

  • Followers adopted a "fairly rigid set of ideas about the coming of a new age" even though Maharaj emphasized, "giving up beliefs and concepts".

Did the editor who added this read the article first, or does he think it's so important it need so to be repeated? We already cover the arrival and astonishing growth of the guru's folling in the first paragraph, that this followed. I removed this material and added some of it to what we already had in the "background" section, but that was reverted with no discussion. Can the editor please justify this plagiarism and redundancy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The background section is better with that material. You can remove the other mention of Downton. And please, do not undo my edits, as I am trying as well as you are to improve this article based on comments made at the FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There was no comment that said we need to copy a paragraph from Prem Rawat without labelling it as a copy. The material is mostly redundant with what we have. GFDL requires that material copied from other be acknlowledged in the edit summary, plus common honesty requires that you don't pass it off as your own writing. I don't understand why you're suddenly making a flurry of undiscussed edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh? How many "undiscussed edits" did you made to the article while you were editing it on your own for months? Give me a break, Will, and allow me and others to mercilessly edit this article. Read the bottom of the page when you edit, which says: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. I am taking a break, will be back in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
At least I take credit for my own work. You're copying this stuff from other articles without even properly labelling it. That's plagiarism, dude. And deleting sourced material isn't a good thing. Please stop. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Marjoe

Marjoe's viewpoint was deleted from the article with the edit summary, "Not RS."[21] An article written by Marjoe is presumably a reliable source for his comments. I've started a thread at WP:RSN#Marjoe Gortner in Oui. It includes information on how Marjoe has a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Millennium '73

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Millennium '73's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Geaves2006":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to this, I'll again ask editors to please be more careful when editing in to prevent mixing up, orphaning, or otherwise causing citation problems. This articles uses the harvard citation template, and that should be used throughout for consistency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss edits

Editors are making lots of edits, including deleted sourced information, without any discussion on this talk page. Please seek a consensus before making significant changes or deletions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

More Downton?

It seems like every other edit has the summary, "more Downton". How much Downton is enough? I don't mind adding citations, but long quotes (and misquotes) are making the article much longer. Can we try to limit ourselves to matter that are directly related to the festival? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Downton is the major authority on GMJ, DLM and followers between 71 and 75. He should have been much more represented in this article from the beginning.Momento (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't about relations between the Press and Prem Rawat from 1971 to 1975. It's about the Millennium '73 festival. This material:
  • ...and many of the people who were antagonistic toward Maharaj Ji and the movement were ill informed and not interested in learning how Maharaj Ji's followers might be benefiting from his teachings. Downton gives an example of a woman who told him "'I can't stand the boy guru' but all she knew was what she read in the newspapers, she had never met or talked at length to a premie".
Has nothing to do with the topic of this article. I've copied it over to the Media relations section of Prem Rawat, where it is appropriate. I also have to complain about the misquoting, but I suggest we discuss that at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You have a section called "Background", that focuses on the back ground of Rawat, DLM, the US of A etc so why would you want to delete background material from the media section? It is important for the reader to know that according to, arguably, the most important scholar of Rawat, DLM in the early 70s the media was already biased against Rawat and co. Misquoting what?Momento (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Before you added that material we already had Downton cited for the negative attitude of the press. The attitude of the press before the event should go in the section titled "Before the event". As for the misquote, Downton does not quote the woman as saying, "I can't stand the boy guru". Please check the source again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I would have preferred that you would have put this material in but since you haven't, please help now rather than complaining____
I'm not the only one complaining: [22] Many of the recent additions have been poorly written, poorly quoted, or poorly integrated into the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite error

There is a cite error (ref name Geaves2006). And editors should stick to Harvard cites now, given the effort that must have gone into converting everything. Jayen466 22:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Millennium '73

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Millennium '73's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Melton1986":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Call to Millennium

The Call to Millennium represents the only official statement by DLM of its reason and hopes for the festival. At the moment this article gives the majority of space to everybody else's opinion of the aims and expectations except that of the organization that held it. It is vital to allow readers to read the majority of this invitation not just a snippet. The current summary is appalling.Momento (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
An uninvolved reviewer asked that the material be shortened, so lengthening it instead is contentious. We already give considerable space to the views of officials, including Rennie Davis, Bob Mishler, Bal Bhagwan Ji, and Guru Maharaj Ji, regarding the event. The material you added[23] contains material about ecology and social justice, which no one asserts was given any significant attention at the festival. Much of the rest are further attestations about the benefits of "Knowledge". Nothing that you added concerns the festival itself. That other material might be better suited to the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Will. The environment and social justice were prominent in DLM's thinking but the media, and you, would rather write about oiuja boards and dead baby rumors.Momento (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources for what? You can't possible justify including "One rumor said that a newborn baby in Houston had cried out "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "The Lord has come" and then died. Followers perceived the predicted appearance of Comet Kohoutek as another omen. Some members believed that the comet was a spaceship on its way to Houston, while others saw it as the return of the Star of Bethlehem. Members said its name meant "KO Houston Texas", as in "knock out". An astrologer pointed to a special alignment of the planets during the festival. One member used a Ouija board to contact Venusians who planned to attend purportedly "because they're from the planet of love and Guru Maharaj Ji is the source of love in the universe" and not including DLM's view as expressed in the official program. If you're worried about space the ouija board etc is already covered by "Scholars and journalists noted that some premies made "many rather bizarre, 'cultic' predictions" which reflected their excitement about the event as well as authenticated its significance." Momento (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The topic is the "Call to Millennium" You've asserted that ecology and social justice were significant topics a the festival. I'm requesting evidence of that fact, since I don't recall any sources saying that it was. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don 't misrepresent me, it's a form of harassment. I didn't "assert that ecology and social justice were significant topics a the festival", I pointed out that The Call to Millennium represents the only official statement by DLM of its reason and hopes for the festival and should be included in the article.Momento (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You wrote, "The environment and social justice were prominent in DLM's thinking..." That may be. If you have a source for that it'd help. But unless those issues were important to the festival then they're not important to the article. No source that I'm aware of mentions anything about social justice or ecology in the context of the festival, except for the Divine City, which we cover in the DLM article. The excerpt from the "Call to Millennium" covers those statements directly related to the event. This article is quite long already so we should only include additional material if there's a good reason. We can start a page at Wikiquote to include longer excerpts and quotations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire text of the Call to Millennium is relevant and vastly more relevant to the festival than a Ouija board and an absurd rumor about a baby. It is the official invitation and must have a prominent place. If you're concerned about the length feel free to delete the Ouija board, the baby and the astrologer since a) they are not official pronouncements and b) they represent the opinion of a single individual, not the official invitation of DLM. And I've always wondered why you listed all the media who attended. Have you done that with any other article about an event? That could certainly go. Do you have another argument for not including the C to M?Momento (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Call" material is already included and is already more prominent than the ouija board. The rumor about the baby is absurd, but not much more absurd then claiming that the festival marked the dawn of a new age or was the most significant event in human history. The satsangs of GMJ were the beliefs of a single individual, yet we report those too. As for the listing of attendees, it's a list of everyone notable that attended as a non-member. There's a separate list of every notable member who attended. It seems appropriate to me. What's the objection to the list? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You say "The satsangs of GMJ were the beliefs of a single individual, yet we report those too". So your final argument is that ouija boarders and astrologers are the same value as GMJ? I think this discussion is over.Momento (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I never said they were equual. I was just pointing out that an opinion isn't necessarily irrelevant just because it's only espoused by one person. An important factor is how frequently it is reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the lengthy addition to the "Call" section. Jossi is complaining on the FAC about having too much primary material in the article. And this discussion is resolved either. Much of this material that Momento's been adding may be more appropriate at the DLM or Prem Rawat teaching article, or in Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mishler

Why was this material deleted?

  • Bob Mishler, then DLM President, later said that Maharaj Ji got the idea to start a bodyguard unit after watching The Godfather.[7]

If we don't add it here then it should go in the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with Millennium. Momento (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll add it to the DLM article, which has material on the WPC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hobby Airport arrival

There are sources that describe the Hobby Airport arrival as a "phony". There is no indication that GMJ ever intended to fly into Hobby. The FAC reviewer asked for this material to be shortened, so I removed all of that. Let's keep it simple. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Levine

Please provide page number for Levine'74 for this He was also said to have predicted that earthquakes in New York and Denver, along with a dive in the stock markets, would precede the festival.[8][9] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong Levine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and why is he saying all these terrible things about God? by Dean Latimer.

What a disgraceful article this is. Nothing should be used from it.Momento (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is written from a point of such bias that it shouldn't be used as a serious source in an encyclopedia. Examples - Rawat is "a right jolly little saintlet -5'2", 180 Ibs."; "Donny Osmond and the Guru have about the same number and intellectual quality of fans", his followers are in a "comalike, obsessive fealty", "as blissful and untroubled as brained cattle. Indeed, they tend to bear the peaceful aspect of having been clubbed on the head by a plank, and then administered a solid dose of Demerol: foggy-eyed little goosesteppers for the most part," Rennie fell afoul of the Divine Light miasma" ; Rawat "is attributed the power of administering the Eucharist, a visible flash of light experienced within the communicant's head when He places His Lotus Hands on it. He transmits the power of provoking this hallucination to his anointed mahatmas, or "henchmen." The inclusion of any of his extremist rant is contrary to RS and NPOV as per "individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.[1] Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded if they are not representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance".Momento (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Dean Latimer isn't known as an extremist, so far as I'm aware, and we're not using the statements you've quoted. In fact, all we're just using that article as a reference for the number of chartered airplanes in 1973. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we need a separate section "Hostile media reaction" to list some of this tripe. Otherwise the readers will think the insults delivered are from serious journalists.Momento (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
What's so hostile about saying that seven planes were chartered in 1972? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Will, you have at least 5 other sources for the number of chartered jets, so why to use that piece, which is clearly inflamatory? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
That was probably the first source that popped up. I hadn't thought that the information would be so controversial. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources

I have checked a couple of sourced used and made some additions of material from these sources that were omitted for reasons unknown or unexplained. My intention is to check one or two sources each day, so as to ensure that these sources are best used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[24] seems like insertion of trivia to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not trivia, IMO. It gives some much needed historical context, and the person was notable enough to attract the attention of the reporter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It will be nice if you ask first instead of reverting first and then asking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we have a random comment from premie in there at all. Momento and I discussed this before. There are dozens of quotes available. I suggest that both of these be moved to Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, then we can remove them all, if that is what you think is better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Just the quotes that aren't about the event itself or closely related topics that aren't well-covered elsewhere. In particular, we already have articles on Knowledge and Prem Rawat, so quotes about those topics would be better added to those articles. Like I said, there are dozens of quotes from members and non-members available and it'd be hard to develop any objective measure for which to include. But we can create a nice long page at Wikiquote to include them all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that I see a tendency to remove quotes that are positive, coupled with a tendency to keep just the negative, sensationalistic ones. That does not work well for NPOV, does it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that you've had some time to review the sources, you should be aware of how much negative material is being omitted from the article. We're not here to evenly balance postive and negative comments. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. From what I've seen I'd say we include a large portion of the quotations that could be called positive, and only s small percentage of those that could be called negative, and have excluded entirely the most negative remarks of all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Miller

I disagree with the split from Miller. You used that source but omitted important material from it, which I added. I am in the process on checking each and every single source you used to assess what other material you chose to omit. I would appreciate an explanation on the omission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What material was omitted that you think isn't already in the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This [25] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not helpful. We already have text that discusses the expectations and the disappointment. What you added is just redundant. You've also added redundant material with this edit.[26] Please read the article before editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, please be careful with reverts - you undid a couple of corrections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I partially undone your reversion to your preferred version. My argument is simple: there is no need to split the quote from Miller, as to stay close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of writing an encyclopedia article isn't keeping together everything from each source. Otherwise, we would organize the article source by source, which would be ridiculous. Instead, we organize the article in a logical, chronological sequence. Miller makes various assertions. The first paragraph deals with disappointed expectations, and the last paragraph deals with the longterm outcome of the event, including the changing membership. So the logical place to include Miller's comment about membership is at the end, with similar assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is a discussion about editorial judgment. In this case, I would argue that the article is better served by keeping these together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What's your argument? Why is it better to lump together all of this from Miller rather than moving the membership related assertion to the paragraph that already discusses later membership changes? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It is pretty clear what I am saying: you cannot split a source when the source makes one statement together with another one, for a reason. Respect the source, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course we can use different assertions in different places. That source devotes about two sentences to the festiva and its aftermath, and it compresses different topics into long sentences, things to which we devote a few paragraphs. Using the different assertions in different places isn't disrespecting the source. This makes no more sense then saying we have to use only entire paragraphs from sources, lest we disrespect the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. The material from that source is one single sentence, and the sentence is self-contained. No need to split it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the article

If we are to refer to "the Indian branch" and the "Western branch".... it needs context to explain the split as well as when that took place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We cover enough about it already. That paragraph is there just to wrap up the loose ends of what happened to the movement and the leading members. Let's keep this article focused on the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It just needs one short paragraph and a wikilink to the article in which this is discussed. I am sure you do not need my help top do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you can't or don't want to work on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. What's the problem with the existing text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Source

Whoever add this source: Webb, Marilyn (November 22, 1973), "God's in his astrodome", Village Voice. Could you please email me a scan or the text? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The copy I have is poor quality. Whcih citation are you asking about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality is ot a problem, I have expertise in image processing. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Which citation are you questioning? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I am questioning, as I have said already in the FAC, that from just checking a few sources at random I found omissions and want to have the opportunity to check the sources against your use of them in this article. I have access to most of the sources used here, but the Village Voice article throws a blank, so that is why I am asking you, in the same manner that you have asked me in the past to the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's any particular question you have I'd be happy to try to answer it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So, basically you are unwilling to share the source material? If that is the case, please be upfront about it and maybe explain why is that you are unwilling to do so? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's any citation you are disputing I'd be happy to help resolve the dispute. But I haven't seen you say what is being disputed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you question a source could you please raise the quiestion rather than simply deleting it and calling it OR? I've asked you before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you referring to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
[Following the question DLM members tried to change the subject, but reporters called for an answer.]
Ah, I see. But Boyle's piece that you added when you restored the seemingly OR does not seem to say that. So what is going on? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
How would you summarize the three sources statements? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Parts of the press conference are also in "Lord of the Universe", which can be used as a fourth source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing on these sources, including that video, so I dop not understand under which arguments you keep readding OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You must be looking at different sources. The video clearly includes a DLM staffer trying to divert the question, and reporters demanindg an answer. That is consistent with what Levine, Gray, and Boyle write. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
No, Will. I am looking at the sources that you are adding in support of that material. Nothing there that describes "DLM members" doing anything of the kind. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone then asks about the Detroit incident, which led a reporter to be hit over the head with a blackjack by a man from the Divine Light Mission. The Maharaj Ji's aide says let's pass on to a more relevant question. Mayhem occurs, everyone at the press conference wanting to know more about the incident. (See the accompanying box.) The conference is shortly thereafter terminated.
    • Gray
  • Reporter: Guru, what happened to the reporter in Detroit who was badly beaten by your followers?
  • Maharaj Ji (after a brief hassle in which Richard Profumo, doing an imitation of Ron Ziegler, accuses the questioner of hogging the floor): I think you ought to find out what happened to everything.
  • As abruptly as he entered, the Guru suddenly gets up from his chair and heads for the door...
    • Levine
  • When asked about the incident at a press conference, the guru nervously sidestepped the question as his handlers attempted to catch the flak...
    • Boyle 1997

I think these sources, plus "LOTU" support the text. It is incorrect, and an inppropriate attack, to call it original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To address Jossi's concern, I changed the text slightly to make it closer to the sources. As Jossi correctly points out, the sources don't mention "DLM members". So I've changed it to "Following the question, Maharaj Ji's press aide tried to change the subject, but reporters called for an answer." I think it would be distracting in this context to name Richard Profumo or explain his exact job title and history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Finally we are getting there, but still not good. I will attempt an edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Your draft omitted the assertion in Gray that "everyone at the press conference wanting to know more about the incident", summarized in the article as "reporters called for an answer". By comparsion, I don't see the clear source for "accusing the questioner of hogging the floor". Is that from the documentary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A source for "hogging the floor"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Same source that describes Profumo: Levine.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so it is. Time to get reading glasses. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
everyone at the press conference wanting to know more about the incident is from a source; "reporters called for an answer" is not accurate and is your OR. Better stay close to the sources, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
We could add something like, "but attendees wanted an answer" which would be close to the source. You're right that reporters weren't the only attendees- there were also the fake journalists, though I'm not sure they were among those wanting to know more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership changes

  • According to one source, the US branch lost an estimated 80% of its membership by the end of the decade.
Firstly this has nothing to do with Millennium. Other important issues in the 7 years since Millennium were marriage, family split, encouraging people to leave the ashram, dismantling of DLM HQ. Secondly an Army Pamphlet 165-13 (1978, reprinted 2001) estimated 50,000 adherents in the U.S., of which 10,000 to 12,000 were considered very active.Momento (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
We have numerous sources that say the Millennium was a failure. We have first-person and secondary accounts of members leaving as a result of that failure. We have sources describing the bad press that the movement received. So it would be incorrect to assert that the Millennium'73 festival had no impact on the membership of the DLM in the US. Furthermore, Jossi insists on adding "the movement continued to attract large number of followers from the counterculture." I've proposed that we consolidate those by writing:
  • By the end of the decade, the US branch had lost an estimated 80% of its membership, though the movement continued to attract large number of followers from the counterculture.
Which includes both viewpoints. As for the Army pamphlet, I don't think that's a high quality source and we have many that dispute those figures. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Millennium may have failed to achieve it goals but it is OR to suggest it was the cause of an 80% drop in membership. The army pamphlet is of equal quality to the many you have used.Momento (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't suggest that the festival was the cause of the entire 80% drop. But there are multiple sources that say it was responsible for a drop in membership. The article on the DLM is the best place to give a full review of various membership claims. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why the "80% reduction" was deleted again, but until it's settled I've removed the "continued to attract large number of followers" viewpoint. I suggest restoring both, and placing them together, per the text above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not a childish issue of ti-for-tat. By the end of the decade is one thing that is unrelated to this article. OTOH, the assertion by Miller is directly related to the event described in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's add both, or leave out both. See WP:NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not about NPOV, Will. Is the cite you want to add directly related to this festival? If so, go ahead and add both. If not, then just restore what you deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The main points of the aftermath of the festival are relevant enough to summarize briefly in the last paragraph. Many sources describe the festival as the first of a sequence of events that led to rift and the change in membership. Upon review, I see we don't mention the closing, reopening, then final closing of the ashrams in the west. Let's add the proposed text above, which with citations from Aldridge and Lewis, and add a three-word sentence, "the ashrams closed", placed before the sentence starting "Beginning in 1982..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
First you demand moving non-related material to other related articles, and then you insist in adding material related to events that took place 10 years later. I would prefer, as you and others have argued before, to keep this article focused on the event itself and the historical context in which it took place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're wrong, but I'm flexible. Let's leave out both of them then. The DLM article article covers the topic, though it may need some improvements too. This material was just here per WP:SUMMARY. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not leaving that comment out of the article, as it is one entire sentence from a scholar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There are about ten thousand entire sentences from scholars that we don't include in the article. Please show me which policiy says that every time we use a source for an assertion, we must include every assertion contained in the same sentence, paragraph, page, or chapter. Sure, changes in membership after the festival are relevant, but we can't include just one viewpoint. If we're going to bring up the issue we need to indicate that there are contradicting viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The sentence in question is quite short and to the point, in which the scholar makes an assertion that can only be understood in its entirety. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
And his assertion is contradicted, more or less, but another scholar. Why would you think that only giving one scholar's view would be acceptable under WP:NPOV? What's the problem with including all significant points of view? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
If there is another scholar that makes his opinion known about the same event, it can be added as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical context

The article by Francine du Plessix Gray, which is used in this article contain material that can be used to frame the event it its historical context. I understand that the FAC suggested we work on this, so this may be a good starting point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The concern at the FAC was already addressed. What kind of historical context are you proposing adding - the history of the world or the history of the movement? Both are covered in other articles so whatever we add should be kept very minimal. What aspects of history, intenral or external, still need to be added, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I will take a stab at it in the next day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A stab at what? The FAC issue has already been addressed. The article is already long. Adding more without a good reason is not a good idea. Why do you think more context is needed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
At stab at historical context, from a source that describes the event. If it is too long we can always split. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Internal history or external history? The internal history is already described in the articles on DLM and Prem Rawat, so it would have to be relevant to this festival to be worth including beyond the paragraph we already have. As for splitting, Background context of Millennium '73 isn't likely to survive an AFD, so adding more information for the purpose of splitting it off is counterproductive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I will give it a stab in the next day or so. And will continue checking other sources in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The FAC issue has already been raised, and no one else here is saying that the article needs to be longer or have more context, so I'm wondering why you think it needs more and what you think is needed. I've just re-read Gray. There's no mention of outside events, so the only historical context from there would be internal. I don't see much in there though. She mentions some other aspects of the LDM, such as the ashrams, and other organizations, but we already removed at least one organizatoin which was at the festival because of an FAC request. The ashrams and subsidiaries are covered in the DLM article and not especially relevant here. There's more material about Rennie Davis, but most of it is unrelated to the festival, and would go better in his bio. The interviews with Galloway [sic], Cameron, Girard, Horton, and Hollowitz were conducted at the festival but they aren't about the festival and would go better in other articles. So I don't see any obvious material in Gray that still needs to be added here. We're trying to get this article stable for FAC, so edits without a good reason aren't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You had what is likely, months of working on this article on your own, so please afford others the opportunity to improve upon your work. FAC or not FAC, editing can continue and improvements made; articles that have achieved FAC status are still work in progress like any other article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You've had months to work on this article too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really, there is always time to work on articles, and it was you that rushed this into FAC, not me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really? This article was posted on September 9, it's now November 9. That's "months". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Davis' fast

At least two sources say that Davis was on a juice fasting during the festival. I'm a bit hesitant about adding that fact because it's a bit personal and it might suggest he was not at his peak. Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that material adds anything to the article. I would leave it out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Village Voice source

An article by Webb that appeared in the Village Voice, is used in this article but is not widely available for verification. I request that the full text of this source is shared in a sandbox at Millennium '73/sources so that the material can be verified by other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The sources is easily verified in the newspapers' microfilm archive. I didn't do anything magic to obtain a copy, though it did require more than sitting at home using Google. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Please conform that if its only available in the Village Voice archives in New York, and that their archive is the source you accessed. (Note that I still do not understand your reluctance to share the full text of that article with other editors. What is the the problem in doing that?) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It's also in Los Angeles public library,. and probably many other research libraries across the US. I already spent time, energy, and money getting it, and despite the fact that you're not disputing anything from it you still what me to spend yet more time. Since there's no dispute about the source, that's just a waste of effort. If you want to read the parts that we don't use then that's outside of the process of verifying the parts that we do use. There are over two hundred sources in this article I'd be happy to share with you the ones that are easily shared. But I'm not going to waste an hour on a source that isn't disputed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • PS: Worldcat lists 914 libraries that have content from The Village Voice:[27]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
        • You are not answering my question: Why are you not willing to share the full text of that source? What is is that you are reluctanct to do so? When you asked in the past to provide the full text of sources I had available, I obliged. So, what's the deal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
          • If it were a matter of clicking a few links and emailing you the material I wouldn't think twice. I don't recall ever asking you to transcribe a source. If you'd like to drive over here, borrow my copy to make a photocopy, then return it that'd be fine too. But asking me to do more work for undisputed citations is pointless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
            • It takes 2 minutes to scan and make a PDF which you can email. If you do not want to do that, well... it leaves me no other choice than to find a copy of it myself. I may say that I still find your reluctance to share the source quite puzzling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, The WorldCat link you sent is for 1955, 1956 and 1962. This article is from 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Check again - I believe that means the archives start in 1955, 1956, etc. I spot-checked one of the libraries, USC, which also carries the microfilm archive covering 1973. [28] Do you have a problem with going to a library to access a source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually have two excellent libraries a few minutes drive from were I live which I frequent, but neither have 1973 archives from The Village Voice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I had to travel to get it too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. I understand that it is too much for you to do a scan, so I will get a copy myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Text requested

  • Several associates of Davis from the left also attended, some as journalists.
Will: Can you provide the text from the source that supports this assertion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Krassner, Robert Scheer, John Sinclair, and Jerry Rubin were associates of Davis. Krassner, Scheer and Sinclair were there in some form of journalistic capacity. What is it that you're challenging? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you using the source to assert that these individuals attended as journalists? If so, please could you provide the text from the source that supports this assertion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Scheer attended the event as a journalist. The anchors of the news coverage at the radio station were also fulfilling a journalistic role. I'm not sure I understand what you're disputing here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Is that so hard to provide the text from the source upon which you made this assertion "attended as journalists"? Why your reluctance to cooperate? Should I wait until I get my copy of this article? Just let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you disputing - that Scheer attended or that he was a journalist? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I am disputing your assertion that "some attended as journalists" based on the source you used. What does the source say? Or is that one of your additions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This seems tendentious considering that the rest of the text clearly proves this information. But the key sentence from Webb is: "Among the press were some big deals of the '60s movement." She lists Rubin, Krassner, Scheer, "and some SDS folks", and then talks a bit about Krassner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Was it that hard? You could have saved all this back and forth. I will get the article myself, so I do not have to suffer through such an exchange again... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
If you'd asked the question more clearly, or had a legitimate reason to question the assertion, then it would have been easier. I still don't understand why you disputed the material in the first place, which seems quite obvious in the context of all the other material in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Journalists and observers

What is an "observer" and based on which source are we making that distinction? Also, Gotner's piece if included, needs the necessary context: (a) he was notable as a child preacher, and (b) A hand-core "adult" magazine commissioned Gortner to write a piece. Both these aspects can and should be reflected in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's unpack the mishmash list and assess why are these piled up in a section called "media coverage" as well:

  • a former evangelical minister who first gained a certain fame in the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s when he became the youngest ordained preacher at the age of four
  • activist for peace and personal empowerment
  • underground press TV, founder of TVTV
  • a Detroit poet, and leader of the White Panther Party — a militantly anti-racist countercultural group of white Socialists seeking to assist the Black Panthers in the Civil Rights movement.
  • American songwriter, folk singer, humorist, and actor.
  • No info (Journalist for the Village Voice)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's a list of everyone of note who attended who wasn't a member (there's a separate list of notable members who attended). Many of the individuals had interesting backgrounds, but they don't need to be discussed in this article. BTW, Oui was a softcore magazine, not hardcore. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My question is why are we piling them up under "media coverage"; it is misleading. Better would be to separate the non media-related people that attended and feature them in the section "Attendance" and provide some basic context for the most notable/interesting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, it will be good to clarify the re-lined names and the source(s) used for them that attest their attendance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of them were with the media, including non-journalists like Gortner. Several were anchors of the radio broadcast, so also attached to the media. A few were non-journalist authors, like Downton and Larson, but books are "media" too. The redlinked names are journalists who seemed noteworthy to me when I did Google searches. BTW, Leibowitz was a Rolling Stone staff photographer at that time. And it's John Sinclair (poet), as properly linked in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
David Felton was an editor at Rolling Stone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Media coverage is the name of the section, and as per the list above, it is misleading to pile them up in that section. I see no problem in moving all non-media coverage related names to the "Attendance" section, alongside other notable attendees. Do you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Who are you saying is "non-media"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article will be better served, by simply describing in the "Attendance" section that "notable people from the counter-culture such as X, Y, and Z, and other observers such as A, B and C (i.e Larson, Downton, Sinclair)". This will provide some useful context without adding much more text, and remove any misleading information that groups all these people under "media coverage". I think it is a reasonable proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. In many cases we don't know why the people were attending, and deciding who belongs to the counter-culture is a judgment call. Given the feedback at FAC, I'm thinking that this list might be better moved out of the text entirely and appended as a list of attendees (combined with the list of notable attending members). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, putting all these under media coverage is worse. Yes, maybe moving the list out would do. How do you intend to do that? On the footnotes? A sub-article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The only non-media person on there is Rubin. Anyway, a simple "list of attendees" at the end of the article would suffice. We should probably do the same for the list of publications too. If there are no objections I'll do that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) I tend to agree that the list is a little too long; bearing in mind the FAC comment, we should perhaps lose the redlinks. But I think the idea of putting the more notable figures in the Attendance section makes some sort of sense. Being referred to as the "youth culture event of the year", it was part of the general counterculture thing at the time. The list of publications covering the event, where we don't name the reporters, would suffice in the media reporting section (although that too could perhaps be shortened). Jayen466 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to simply moving all the names to a list at the end? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could also think about beginning the Attendance section "Notable attendees included ... [list without redlinks]. Reports of total attendance ..." I think it would flow quite well, and I'd prefer that to a list at the end, after "have celebrated Hans Jayanti again since 1973", which might look a little odd, especially since we have an "Attendance" section. Thoughts? Jayen466 20:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've made an edit to that effect; pls revert if unconvinced by the brilliance of this suggestion. (I've also put some sentences in past tense.) We could add little labels for each person, like "sociologist" Downton, etc. Jayen466 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
That looks fine. I added in the members which were already listed in the same section. Adding little labels would get too detailed. Some of those folks are hard to summarize in a word. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it will be too hard, and we'll not know until we try. I think that it is important and useful information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd object to anything that makes the article longer. Adding labels to the attendess would be trivia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed two labels, one that was just added.[29] It's not clear why this information helps the article instead of just making it longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's not go overboard with this argument "the article is too long". It is not, and if it is, we can always spin-off. Some labels are useful when there is no obvious relevance for including a name in a sentence, or when there is no article wikilinked to that name. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
But the name you added a a label to has the same information at the linked article, so it doesn't meet the criteria that you've suggested. And yes, a reviewer at FAC said there are too many facts already. You just wrote a short while ago that you "look forward to more trimming". There's no reason to add labels to these two observers. If we were quoting them it'd have a purpose, but in this context it's unnecessary trivia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Much better, and now factually accurate. Thanks, Jayen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In that same paragraph, perhaps better "Chartered planes brought followers from several dozen countries"; it may be tedious for the reader to share our frustrations about the contradictions between reliable sources as to the precise number of planes and countries. Jayen466 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we consolidate these into one ref tag?

  • with 20,000 a frequent estimate.[23][39][112][113][13][114][115]
  • Chartered planes brought followers from several dozen countries.[116][36][23][72][4][11]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Once the article isn't edited so actively consolidating refs would be a good idea. But It makes editing much harder so I don't think we should do so until after the FAC is complete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


As this is not disputed, do we need that many refs? One would suffice:

  • One analogy by Maharaj Ji that several reporters noted compared the techniques of Knowledge to a fuel filter:[49][100][4][36][30][34][109]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's hold off removing citations until active editing has slowed. While it may not be disputed by you, it may be disputed by others. Further, the fact that it was so widely reported is a measure of its notability, and the reason for its inclusion here. No single citation can be used for the assertion that it was noted by several reporters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking for removal, just a consolidation into one ref that would group them. It looks really weird as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Once the editing has settled down we can go through the article and consolidate all of the refs. For the time being there is too much chance of getting the citations mixed up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to more trimming as suggested in the FAC. Jayen, you are pretty good at this, would you give it a go? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced information should be discussed before major changes are made. But Jayen's proposals would be most welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a little under pressure with work this week but will gladly help once the worst is off my desk. Jayen466 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortened

To address comments at FAC, I pasted the current version of the article to a draft page and made significant cuts.[30] Generally speaking, I tried to minimize or cut material that wasn't relevant to the festival, that was overly detailed, that wasn't central to the topic, that belonged in other articles, or that otherwise seemed expendable. Are there any assertions that need to be added back? If so, why? If I don't hear any response shortly I'll add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I read it and I fundamentally disagree with your reductions, as it removes much of the context while keeping minutiae. I will give it a go today or tomorrow and we can compare notes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
On seconds thoughts, it would be easier and faster if you make reductions section by section. That way editors can comment on these as they happen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Any specific objections? If not I'll paste it in to replace the current version. We could then add back in material that we agree is necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Just do it in stages, one section at the time, please. Otherwise it will be difficult to comment and collaborate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's any section you're concerned about please say so. So far you haven't registered any specific concerns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Just do it in stages, one section at the time, please, so that we can evaluate the reduction in a simple and organized way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My experience with similar requests is that doing things "in stages" means they never get completed. I haven't heard any specific issues with the draft I posted so I'll copy it to the main article. We can go over it, "section by section", and see if anything needs to be added back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand your reluctance for an orderly debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
There are 16 subsections. If we work on 2-3 sections per day, we will be done in less than a week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the edit again. Despite asking you several times what you think needs changing all you keep saying is let's do it a section at a time. Saying that doesn't move anything forward. Now then, is there anything in the first three sections that needs changing and, if so, why? Let's try to keep the overall length the same or shorter, so if we propose an addition it should be matched by a reduction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This is nuts... You are simply being unreasonable and non-cooperative. You wrote the article in a sandbox, you then reduce it in another sandbox, and you allow no one to contest your edits. So be it. I will re-add any material that I see is needed, and remove more material that I see as superfluous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I've never refused to discuss. On the contrary - see how many times I ask for input. Instead of getting answers I got procedural responses. You appear to be proclaiming an edit war. I don't understand why you first asked to proceed in a logical fashion and are now declaring a free-for-all. That's not helpful or mature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone reading the exchange above will note that what I asked was reasonable. All I asked was to discuss your reductions one section at a time, but you refused. So I will start adding material that I see is important, and remove material that I see as superfluous, one section at a time, so that you and others can comment if these edits improve the article as per the FAC reviewers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new talk page section so that you can discuss your proposed edits, as you requested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Review:section by section

What changes need to be made to the Intro, Background, or Millenniarian beliefs sections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please revert back to the version submitted to the FAC, and we can discuss the changes than you believe need to be made to these three sections. I do not see any discussion about the changes you made to these sections; if I missed that discussion please place below some diffs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say further, that as the person that made a massive edit in one go, the burden is on you to explain your edits, and no the other way around. You may call this "procedural", but I would call it good editing behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Nobody asked for any explanation, despite my offer to discuss them. The article submitted to the FAC back on 10/27 has been substantially edited in response to input. I'm surprised that you'd suggest undoing all that and starting over again. Let's address the FAC input rather than ignoring it. We do all want this article to reach FA standards, right? If anyone doesn't please say so clearly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
??? Undoing all that? I am only asking to discuss your last massive reduction, a section at a time. Is that unreasonable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment, "Please revert back to the version submitted to the FAC". I apologize if I did. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Background

  • Re-added material about how the event was announced
  • Removed material about the teachings
  • Added see also sub-head for related articles for easy navigation

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. That announcements were move to "promotions", because the press release was promotional.
  2. We at least need to explain that the DLM's teaching was called "Knowledge", otherwise the many mentions of it later in the article won't make sense.
  3. Why did you de-link Hans Ji Maharaj? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. OK
  2. OK, but there ir can be kept simpler
  3. Because I added it to the "see also" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Millenarian beliefs

  • summarized long quote from Downton
  • Added a "see also" sub-head to Downton book
  • Added wikilink to Vietnam war
  • Reoder one paragraph

Next three sections, tomorrow, Insha'Allah ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a "see also" link, we can simply mention the book in the text, which would be less obtrusive. The WP article on the book doesn't talk about the millenarian beliefs so it doesn't help readers to point them there. We can also just link "counterculture". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've linked "counterculture". The Downton book is already linked in the citation, as are several other books. Readers interested in learning more can check the refs. The name of the book is unnecessary detail for the text of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

  • Reduced long quote
  • Re-added BeeGees drummer, as it is a notable fact given that music was central to this festival
  • Removed "Nixon is not known to have attended"

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. "Nixon did not attend" was added at the request of an FAC reviewer. Why did you remove it?
  2. Why did you remove "He will announce the founding of an international agency to feed and shelter the world's hungry. He will initiate the building of a Divine City that shall demonstrate to the world a way for people of all sorts to live together in harmony."? Those are explicit assertions about what would happen at the festival. If it's not quoted then it should be summarized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. I may have missed the FAC reviewer argument, but it seems a silly addition.
  2. That was a press release, and don't think that is so important to have a large quotation from that press release, and there was other information there that we donot include. We could attempt to summarize the whole thing if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2. It wasn't a press release, it was the "Call to Millennium", an invitation printed on a page of its own in the Millennium edition of AIID. The part that discusses what was going to happen at the festival seems particularly relevant. The parts that describe Knowledge in general seem less relevant to this article and more relevant to the article that discusses Knowledge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to summarize the "Call to the Millennium" piece, please include also some tidbits from this portion:

We have received the "Knowledge" — the gift which Maharaj Ji brings to this world. We are doctors and schoolchildren, grandmothers and construction workers, and we have shared an experience which has transformed our lives. Guru Maharaj Ji has proved to us that an age of peace is possible, now. [...] We proclaim to America and the world that Guru Maharaj Ji has shown us a practical way to bring peace to the whole world. The "Knowledge" which he gives is a direct and concrete experience of inner peace and joy. It connects us directly to the source of love, growth, and creativity within us, with our soul itself. It eradicates hatred, greed, and fear. It eases the pressures of daily life, and leaves us free to act unselfishly and effectively at all times.

I think that material is important as it give context about who makes the proclamation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That material appears more relevant to Teachings of Prem Rawat. What does it have to do with the Festival? ·:· Will Beback ·:·
You were the one that brought that source, not me. This was your original selection from that proclamation:

Peace is needed. And peace shall be obtained. ... Guru Maharaj Ji will ... present to the world a plan for putting peace into effect. He will announce the founding of an international agency to feed and shelter the world's hungry. He will initiate the building of a Divine City that shall demonstrate to the world a way for people of all sorts to live together in harmony. And he will start a campaign to spread the Knowledge of soul to all mankind.

Context, context, context. So, summarize the source if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
"Context" appears to mean "off topic". The topic of this article is "Millennium '73", not "Knowledge". I don't think we should add any more context than is necessary. We already have a brief description of Knowledge, and a link to an article mostly devoted to the topic. That's sufficient context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Are we still reviewing 3 sections a day? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Time permitting, Will. I'll do my best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's finished in a few days, as you'd said, then there's no problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Will, no pressure, please. I will do the best I can time permitting and address the numerous issues still pending; it may take a week, it may take more time. As I said in the FAC review, regardless of the GA or FA status of this article, I intend to continue improving it: as you well know, GA or FA status does not preclude adding or removing material, or otherwise improving articles. So again, if you are in a rush for whatever reason, just be aware that I am not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You said it would take a few days. What's the hold up? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll be back in a few days and I will continue to improve this article when I'm ready.Momento (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome. But please read the feedback at the FAC nomination before making changes. In the past, some of your edits have run contrary to the views of the uninvolved editors there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Call to Millennium"

Josi keeps adding,

  • said to be written by "doctors and schoolchildren, grandmothers and construction workers" which received Knowledge

to the the sentence on the "Call to Millennium" in the promotion section. First, it's not really relevant who wrote it. Second, it doesn't say that they wrote it, it simply uses the word "we" over and over in different contexts. Third, it also includes, "We have fought crusades. We have held inquisitions." Fourth, a reviewer at FAC asked to reduce quotes. Since this text adds nothing to the understanding of the festival, and since it is misleading and incomplete, I removed it. Unless Jossi can find evidence that this one page document was actually written by schoolchildren, doctors, and construction workers, (as opposed to crusaders and inquisitors), and can make a case for its relevance to the promotion of the festival, then it should be left out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing

I've reverted Momento's edits that added two quotes to the article. One was a duplicate of a quotation already in the article once:

  • Another said "I never saw a premie lose his temper or say an unkind word. They were cheerful, friendly, and unruffled, and seemed nourished by their faith".

There's no reason to repeat it again. The other quotation:

  • A premie commented to one reporter, "What do you expect him to do, travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey?"

Was not part of the press conference (where Momento placed it), and was just a random quote from an unnamed premie. Because of the many reporters along with many "blissed-out" followers, we have dozens of random quotes to pick from, some of them quite memorable. Vassyana, who is no stranger to this topic, thinks there are too many quotes already. This one tells us nothing about the festival so it is not necessary here. Let's keep our eye on improving this article, rather than making it worse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-inserted the first quotation without the duplication. So it now reads "The New York Times reporter wrote "I never saw a premie lose his temper or say an unkind word".[17]

The second quotation is in response to Morgan writing "The question of his emerald green Rolls-Royce, his Mercedes 600, his houses in London, New York, Los Angeles and Denver, and his private wealth and jewelry keeps coming up. "What do you expect him to do," a premie said, "travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey?" So I have re-inserted it because there is plenty of material about what the reporters thought of the Q & A but precious little about what the followers thought. I have added a preface so now it reads "In response to the question about selling Rawat's Rolls Royce, a premie said "What do you expect him to do travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey?". It is now happily linked to the press conference question. A reminder Will, you constructed this article all by yourself and dropped it here with 71,000 bytes. For 3 months many editors have made hundreds of changes trying to help improve this article. If we make a mistake, please don't characterize it as "unhelpful" but do what most of us do, help make the article better.Momento (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add the donkey quote to the press conference, because there's no indication it was said at the press conference. Placing it there is misleading and, yes, unhelpful. If you really think it's worthwhile, and if you go convince Vassyana that this article needs more quotations, then the appropriate place would be "attendance", where the attendees are discussed. As for the part about not losing temper, Maybe it was Jossi who was adamant that quotations had to be kept together. Can you please go talk to him about this and get him to agree that quotations may be split? That'd be a help all the way around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
What has the oiuji board and the astrologer got to do with Millennium? Nothing, just random comments about Millennium that were reported in a Millennium article. What has the donkey got to do with the press conference? Something, because at least it was in response to a question asked at the conference. Are you going to take the ouiji board and astrologer out.Momento (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Both of those are directly related to the festival. A member, using a ouija board, conacted Venusians who announced their intention to attend the event. The astrologer said that the event was scheduled to coincide with a special alignment of the planets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Press conference

Per the FAC, in which an uninvolved reviewer said that the Q&A was too long, we cut it down to the only those questions that are most frequently cited in sources. Without any discussion, and in contravention to that FAC discussion, Momento keeps adding questions from a single source. That's not helpful and doesn't bring the article closer to FA grade. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased an uninvolved editor said the Q & As were too long. That's why I replaced two wordy Q & A with two more concise ones. Popularity of cites isn't a good way to go because editors find cites for the questions they want to include.Momento (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT calls on us to give proportional weight to items of varying importance. No editor can find sources that don't exist, or make them up, so that argument appears spurious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you said we should "give proportional weight to items of varying importance". Ramparts, Creem and others will need to be greatly reduced.Momento (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the material in the article. Matters that are referred to in many sources should be given greater weight than those mentioned in fewer or only one source.
  • NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
Minority views should not receive as much attention as majority views. By extension, quotations that are noted frequently are presumably more notable than those that are recorded less often. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Millennium '73/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I am a little apprehensive, having read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive1. However, I have faith in the editor of this article due to LaRouche criminal trials. On first pass, I am overwhelmed by the article.

  • Do you feel all the detail in the article helps the reader's understanding of the situation? For example, the list of all the slogans? The excerpts from Maharaj Ji's press conference?
  • Do you feel that all the quotations and blockquotes are necessary?
  • Do you think you may have gotten caught up in this subject, and need to winnow down the important from the excessive detail? The lead is very short, compared to the overwhelming detail of the article.
  • Is it best to repeat Event in so many section header?

—Mattisse (Talk) 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You have faith in "the editor of this article"? Exactly. This article was written by and according to WillBeback's anti-Rawat POV and everyone else has been playing catchup ever since. The "Expectations and rumors" section is a disgrace, 20,000 people attended and a whole section is devoted to half a dozen crazy people. A ouiji board operator? An astrologer? Where are the other 19,990 people represented? A good start would be to greatly reduce the material provided by clearly biased and antagonistic magazines like Ramparts, Penthouse and Argosy.Momento (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting and I will look at the specific issues you address. I say I have faith in the editor, as the LaRouche article was similarly controversial, but the issues were eventually resolved through compromiste. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for lagging in my response. It may be a day or two before I can focus on this, so I appreciate the patience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about LaRouche, but when you say you have faith in this editor I believe you are actually saying you have faith in all the other editors involved, that they will spend the dozens of hours needed to turn this repellant hodge-podge of ill-informed opinions into something readable. It won't happen any other way. Sorry to sound so irritated, but we have been through months of this with the other Prem Rawat-related articles. Wavy Gravy? Sheesh. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did mean that, as I did not pay attention to much of the editing that occurred in between. Thanks for clarifying that. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The major outstanding issues raised by uninvolved editors at the FA nomination concerned the general writing, which they felt wasn't up to FA standards, which call for "brliiliant prose". Regarding this GA Review, the I think the text is up to the lower GA standards of being well-written. The next GA criteria is factually accurate and verifiable. Virtually every sentence is cited (there were even complatins that it was over-cited, but that's a separate issue). The third GA criteria is "broad in its coverage", without going into unnecessary detail. That is what Mattisse seems most concerned about. I'll address that below. The other criteria are stable, neutral, and illustrated, and I believe it meets all of those.
  • On the matter of quotations, opinions apparently differ. User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA encourages the use of quotations. But it's also possible to overdo them. To answer Matisse's questions, I do think that the scoreboard slogans and press conference exchanges do aid the reader's understanding of the topic, and are important. Reporters said that they found the scoreboard slogans to be the most effective communications at the festival, and presumably that's why they reported so many of them (this isn't a complete listing). As for the press conference, it's arguably one of the most important single events in the subject's life. It was also the last one he held, at least for some years. Several sources describe the failure of this festival as the turning point in the U.S. movement's history, and both an internal source and reporters describe the press conference as having a major effect on the press coverage. Some of the individual responses were quoted over and over, in some cases years later. It's hard to paraphrase either the slogans or the press conference exhanges and still capture their exact meaning and tone. The press conference material was shorter, but another editor keeps adding more. One thought I hd would be to move the two press conferences into sequence, as parts of the second and thrid days, rather than placing them towards the end. That might give the article a better flow.
  • Yes, I'm sure there are too many details in the article. But with so many facts available, and considering the importance of the festival ("the most significant event in human history"), it is hard to decide where to cut.
  • ”Event” was in two headings. I replaced the main heading with "Millennium '73" which isn't ideal either.
  • Regarding the issues raised by involved editors Momento and Rumiton, the sources were vetted during the FAC, and they were all deemed reliable. The "exectations and rumors" section summarizes what the heading implies. The extraordinary expectations for the festival inevitably led to disappointment when they weren't fulfilled. I'm not aware of any other festivals in which Venusians were predicted to attend, and the prediction that ETs would attend comes up over and over again, including in comments by organizers. Wavy Gravy is a notable attendee and we mention all notable attendees.
  • In conclusion, guidance from an uninvolved editor like Matisse on which details to trim would be most welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • On further review, I see that all of the block quotes are from Guru Maharaj Ji except for the first and last. The first is from an unnamed reporter describing the harmony of the Rainbow Brigade, and the last is a named scholar assessing the effects of the festival on the movement. Both of those can be summarized and briefly quoted. That would leave only four block quotes: the three satsangs and the press conference. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and trimmed the first and last blockquote, reducing the number of blockquotes to the three satsangs by Maharaj Ji. I've also trimmed a couple of the slogans and one of the press conference exchanges. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again we see Will's POPV editing. In the interest of brevity positive material is removed, they "worked "smoothly, efficiently, happily ... without a word of complaint or a note of friction"...and..."seem a remarkably contented lot. ... They are supportive of each other, much given to massaging one another's backs, cheerful, kind, loving". But the crap remains - "An astrologer told reporters about a special alignment of the planets.[32][19][63] According to the media, one member purportedly contacted Venusians and said they planned to attend "because they're from the planet of love and Guru Maharaj Ji is the source of love in the universe". And if you want to remove a quote from the interview in the interest of brevity, I suggest you remove this stupid question "Q: Why don't you sell it and give food to people? A: What good would it do. All that's gonna happen is they will need more and I don't have other Rolls-Royces. I will sell everything and I'll walk and still they will be hungry" and re-insert what you removed which is far more important.Momento (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The astrologer and the ouija board are both well sourced and relevant. However, if it will promote consensus I'd be willing to remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Souced yes, relevant no. It is more important to know how the majority behave than two extremists. So yes, please remove those unrepresentative comments.Momento (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Comments - We need not get into personalities of the editor. All this can be resolved without that. It seems, Momento, that you are making some good points regarding the article style, and without having looked specifically at the article in view of them, they sound like the sort of wording I would object to also. Regarding User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, much of the advice is wise, but not anything pertaining to an excess of blockquotes. As for the details, the essence of an article such as this is the summary style. Distill the "details" into some statements. Too many details confuse the reader, and, in my case, usually make me reluctant to read the whole article. Sometimes, when there are too many details, it is a result of the editor wanting to "convince". I am fairly aware of current events, yet I have never heard of this event. I find it hard to believe that this is "the most significant event in human history" somehow. Perhaps it would be better to distill exactly what was important about it, other than that it occurred. What about this event impacted history from our perspective today? (I am not saying that because I have never heard of this event, that it must not be important. I knew very little about LaRouche but I was convinced by the narrative. Do the same here.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse you made it very clear from the start that this was about personalities. Remember "I have faith in the editor of this article". Perhaps you might like to say you have faith in me?Momento (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have faith in Will Beback because of my personal experience with that editor both during the GA and FAC process. However, that does not rule out having faith in other editors. I have no experience with you, Momento, but your suggestions are good ones. I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. Ideologically, I am neutral. My concern is an article that meets Wikipedia standards. I am allergic to POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Good Mattisse. 13 year old Rawat said that his father's birth was the most "the most significant event in human history". Alluding to the common Indian understanding that the Guru is the most important thing in the devotee's life and that his guru is the Satguru. Others have construed this to mean that the Hans Jayanti festival that commemorates his father birth is "the most significant event in human history" and it's just a short step to claim that the Millennium festival was "the most significant event in human history" and now this bit of misinformation appears in the lead. If you're serious about gaining GA status, a good goal would be to halve the length. Wavy Gravy is typical of this article, a silly inclusion to make it all look silly (and a photo from 2006 at that). Why no photo of Rennie Davis, isn't he 100 times more relevant than Wavy Gravy.Momento (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A photo of Rennie Davis would be great! Do you have one? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • [E/C] Wavy Gravy is notable in this context because he was noted as one of the guest commentators on the local radio station's "bliss-to-bliss" coverage of the event. We don't have any record of what he said. I'm not familiar with the Starwood Festival, but I suspect that Wavy Gravy was more significant as a person in the 1970s than he is today. We have a photo of him in the article simply because he's one of the few attendees with an available photo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wavy Gravy - This does not seem to me, at first glance, to be notable enough to be included, unless this whole event was a purely local happening. If you want to assert that this event was important world wide, then resorting to Wavy Gravy diminishes this claim, in my eyes. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The article now lists everyone who is known to have attended who has a Wikipedia article. Are you saying that listing the notable attendees is overkill? Aside from having a WP bio, and being mentioned in contemporary press reports of the event, what standards should we use for deciding notability? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Wavy Gravy is still famous among baby boomers, he's a member of the board of directors of SEVA charity, and he's most notable because he was an organizator of Woodstock Festival and in charge of security, which worked out quite well. He's far more notable and well known than either Prem Rawat or the Millennium Festival. The article is about an event that took place in 1973, Wavy Gravy was a pop culture figure during that time. He belongs in the article. He even had Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor named after him until 2003. I trust everyone here knows what Ben & Jerry's ice cream is. :) Leave his photo in.Sylviecyn (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment

Further comments by User:Momento moved to article talk page Talk:Millennium_'73#Comments_by_Momento as more relevant for discussion there. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • General comments regarding the article should take place on the article talk page. Momento, I have moved the rest of you comments there, so that this page may remained focused on my evaluation of the article for GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • This article has a good lead. If the article stuck to the lead, then it would focus on the Millennium '73 event itself, and not get sidetracked into peripheral issues. Sections such as a discussion of "Millennarian appeal" seem unnecessary.
  • Much of the article appears to be on general subjects related to the movement, and not specifically on Millennium '73. Are sections on "Rainbow Brigade", "World Peace Corps", etc. necessary or focused on the topic, that is the event?
  • Could some of the information be condensed? Do all the quotations and references pertain to what was said and done at this event and not background statements of Prem Rawat or others regarding his teachings etc.?
  • I am not convinced that either the presence of Wavy Gravy was important enough to be mentioned, as justified by the text or references. Nor that his presence jusifies a picture of him on the page. What impact did he have on the event itself, which is he subject of this article?

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.
  1. The "Millennarian appeal" section was added as a result of feedback at FAC. An editor there asked for more background. I get the feeling you're asking for the opposite - less background. Personally, I wouldn't object to either deleting the section outright, or moving it to the DLM article. This isn't a standalone article so it doesn't need to say everything about everything, but at the same time it should include enough information for readers to understand the topic and its context.
  2. The Rainbow Brigade existed solely to prepare for the event so it is directly connected. "Soul Rush" was also created just to promote this event. While the "Blue Aquarius" band existed before the event, this was their most visible and extended involvement. The World Peace Corps were very active at the event, and feature prominently in many of the accounts. For that reason they are an important aspect of the festival.
  3. With the exception of parts of the "Background" and "Impact" sections, which are first and last, and the "Millennarian appeal" section, every detail and source directly concerns the festival.
  4. We can remove the "Wavy Gravy" picture if folks find it a problem. As I wrote above, it was included just because it's one of the only pictures available of an attendee. Regarding the mention of him, he did comment on the festival as part of the radio coverage, but we don't know what he said. I don't object to deleting reference to him, though I don't see how it would improve the article substantially.
I'll go ahead and delete reference to Gravy and delete the "millenarian appeal" section. If someone wants to add it back we can discuss it further on the main talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • I appreciate that you are "caught in the middle" regarding what to include. Perhaps a sentence or so about the Millenarian appeal, as it is in the title of the event. (In retrospect, the millennium seems much like Y2K, almost a non event!) Also, the photo of Wavy Gravy perhaps depicts the atmosphere of the event and justified on those grounds rather than the importance of that particular person?
  • Perhaps the heading could be clarified? For example, the sections under "Millennium '73" have no meaning independently. I can't think of an umbrella title off hand that would give the reader some clues as to what these subsections are about. Also, repeating "Millennium '73" as a heading, when it is also the title of the article, violates on of the rules on headings, that they should not repeat the article name. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes eras don't exactly coincide with calendars. It's not too late for the millennium! The single sentence from the "millenarian appeal" section that seems the most relevant is this:
  • Sociologist James V. Downton wrote that the millennarian appeal of the DLM prior to the festival sprang from a belief that Guru Maharaj Ji was the Lord, and that a new age of peace would begin under his leadership.
But I'm not sure that we can add just that without adding additional caveats abd verbiage, which may get us back to where we were.
Regarding Wavy Gravy, I'm fine either way.
As for the headings, the article is basically divided into three parts: before, during, and after. The middle part was titled "Event". How about "The Festival"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope we're careful about not losing accuracy as we revise the article. The event wasn't billed as "one of the most significant events in history", any more than Barnum and Baily Circus is billed as "one of the greatest shows on earth." The latter is billed as "The Greatest Show On Earth" and the former was billed as "the most significant even in human history". There was no waffling, it was an absolute claim, and is reported (perhaps in astonishment) by many sources. Is there perhaps another way of fixing this that doesn't make it incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • But how much credence is given to "claims". Do "claims" belong in the lead, which is supposed to be NPOV? Or are you saying that the "claims" are what is notable about this event? I am getting confused. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The extraordinary claims are indeed part of the story. If they had said they expected 15,000 people at a uninteresting religious festival, then it might have been seen as a success. Instead, organizers predicted as many as 400,000 attendees at an event expected to be the dawn of a new age, etc, etc, etc. Their outsized expectations led them to commit all of the U.S. movement's resources. They invited at least hundreds of reporters, as many as 300 were drawn by those extraordinary claims. The festival was a huge and very public failure. The members were disappointed and disillusioned. The debt led to major changes in the movement's plans. So without the claims it's a different event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have the time and interest, the best single contemporaneous account was probably in Rolling Stone.[31] Even the R. Crumb comic strip that illustrates the article seems well-researched. (Note that it's about twice as long as this article, but undoubtedly better written!) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
400,000? 144,000? Venusians? As Collier said the media doesn't have a sense of humor. As Mishler and Davis both say "we expected about 20,000" but the media does like to sensationalize and some scholars repeat what they read.Momento (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If we exclude scholars and the media as sources then what sources are we going to use for this article? Davis said one thing to Collier, but he said other things to journalists. I need hardly remind you that, according to Collier, Mishler and Davis said other things too. But this article is conservatively written, so we don't include many remarks even though they're reliably sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"the photo of Wavy Gravy perhaps depicts the atmosphere of the event and justified on those grounds rather than the importance of that particular person?" How is that possible? The photo is from 2006! As for the "billing", I have addressed that issue at Millennium talk.Momento (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"Billed as"? My dictionary says "to bill something as" is to describe something in a particular, usually promotional way, as a means of advertisement. Clearly, the poster advertising the event bills it as "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". Complete with date, venue and admission. We could write in the lead that "the poster advertising the event billed it as ""a thousand years of peace for people who want peace" but for brevity we can leave out "the poster advertising the event". We know the truth, we should state that, not repeat a sourced error.Momento (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We only have one [image of a] poster, but that doesn't mean that only one poster existed, or that it was the only piece of promotional material issued. There's no evidence that the "most significant event" quotation is an error. It is repeated by many sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse: You edited this text:

  • Later writers included it among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s.

and asked this question:

  • historians? who do you mean by writers?

The earliest draft of that text said:

  • It was called the "youth culture event of the year"[5] and is listed among notable events of the 1970s.[6][7]

The sources (5, 6, 7) are:

  • Foss & Larkin 1978
  • Allen 1979
  • Carroll 1990 p248

Foss & Larkin are sociologists or scholars of some sort. Allen is a newspaper columnist. Carroll is a popular historian.[32] Given that broad range, "writers" seemed like an appropriately broad term. The 1973 material is now gone, so that leaves the columnist and the historian. We can't say "some", or folks would really call that a weasel. I still can't think of anything better than writers. "Later commentators" would also cover it, but it is an improvement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse asks whether: "...the detail in the article helps the reader's understanding of the situation? For example, the list of all the slogans?" Some of those slogans are helpful since they encapsulate the message - and the spirit - of the event very succinctly. I've come across three more notable ones which, IMO, deserve consideration for inclusion:

"Truth is the target/The mind is the bullet/Ready. Aim. Fire."

"Yea all kings shall fall down before him/ All nations shall serve him,"

"REALIZE."

from http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/1974-01-01/feature3 (I'd add them to the article myself, but the formatting for adding citations is a bit beyond me. Any volunteers?) Revera (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is not bad -- but I suspect has far too many quotes which are not individually important. Also the reflist is in an unusual format, making it difficult to verify specific claims as easily as I would like. And I am uncertain that what turned out to be a relatively minor event gets a relatively long article. Collect (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't found any guideline that really addresses the issue of quotations. Even so, I'll work on summarizing more of them. The citations are formatted to make it easier to check references - just click on a blue links in the reflist to go straight to the work in the references list. As for the importance of the event, perhasp the intro doesn't do a good enough job of explaining that. Aside from the claims of being the most important event in human history, and the dawn of a new age, it attracted 300 reporters, many of whom wrote long articles about the festival. It has been listed as among the most important events of the decade by a journalist and a historian. It was pivotal in the history of a movement that, before this festival, was called the fastest growing new religious movement in the country. After the event, the movement was saddled with heavy debt, bad press, and disillusioned members. So the article is long because there are so many sources that cover it in such detail. There's no part of the that would be logical to spin off, so this is a complete account. WP:PRESERVE calls on us to preserve information, so we need to avoid cutting too much.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no hard and fast guideline on quotations. I have looked before. Just remember that quotations are primary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that in WP:PSTS. It seems more logical to say that a quotation from a primary source is a primary source and a quotation from a secondary source is still a secondary source. That's not to say that we can't reduce the number of quotations in this article. But I don't think it's a matter of primary versus secondary sources. Getting back to the GA criteria, which ones does this article fail to meet? Are we there yet?   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just summarized 28 quotations,[33] in addition to the quotes removed or summarized already.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse has indicated that he is withdrawing from reviewing articles. There's no provision for this in the GA process, so I'm marking this as a "fail". I'll resubmit it to GAN shortly.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: {{ArticleHistory}} at Talk:Millennium '73 has been updated to reflect this development. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Momento

(moved from Talk:Millennium '73/GA1)

So Wavy Gravy gets in with a photo and we need to hear about "One rumor said that a newborn baby in Houston had cried out "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "The Lord has come" and then died. Journalists noted that some followers perceived the predicted appearance of Comet Kohoutek as an omen, as a spaceship on its way to Houston, or as the return of the Star of Bethlehem" but not a word from Tim Gallwey, who does have a Wiki article - "Gallwey 35, is a California tennis pro who was once ranked seventh nationally, and who graduated from Harvard in 1960. In 1971, he heard that Guru Maharaj ji was speaking in Carmel. "I went because he was a 13-year-old from India with six million followers, and I wanted to see a saint," Gallwey said. "When he said, 'I can show you. God,' I concluded he was either a fraud or a prophet. But what if it were true? I canceled a day of classes and followed him to L.A. He was answering questions in a group, and I asked him by what authority he spoke. He said, "If this knowledge fully satisfies you, you will know by what authority I gave it, and if it does not satisfy you, you will know that what I gave you was not pure water or that you were not really thirsty." Gallwey took the knowledge and felt peace. "I wasn't worried about whether I was giving a good lesson or what my girl friend thought of me," he said. "Then I spent two months meditating in India, and I returned believing beyond a reasonable doubt that Guru Maharaj ji was the lord on the planet again. He had so many opportunities to present a more convincing image, but I could never catch him pretending. The first time I saw his devotees put garlands of flowers over his head. If he'd wanted to present a convincing image, he would have thanked them and worn the garlands, but instead he brushed them aside. I could have done better myself. All Americans are trained to see through con artists. Harvard trained me to tear down every belief and construct and see the irrationality of it. But what to think of a kid who gicks up a can of shaving cream and starts squirting people with it? And I'm supposed to think he's the perfect master? But he's merely saying, 'If tbat puts you off, how much do you really want this knowledge? Now Gallwey lives in an ashram and has written a bock called "The Inner Game of Tennis." He practices celibacy, which he calls Aquarian Age birth control. "Like anybody," he said, "when the urge came I looked for ways to satisfy it, but the urge just isn't coming. It's not a conscious effort; I just don't feel the need. In an ashram, there are 20 or 30 people; if they were all going to bed with each other, it would be havoc. You stop wanting to; there's a higher desire. There was that moment, but it's only a moment. Meditation is permanent; it's more blissful than orgasm." from Oz in the Astrodome NYTimes By Ted Morgen is a veteran Journalist who lives in New York.

Dr. Robert Hallowitz is a 29-year-old neurophysiolegist and a research associate at the Laboratory of Brain Evolution Behavior at the National Institute of Mental Health in Washington. A short, intense, bright-eyed man, he talks as if he were delivering a lecture. "In March, 1973, I came into contact with Guru Maharaj ji. I had a skeptical reaction; I couldn't accept him as a godhead. But with my clinical background, I saw that something was really moving the devotees in a positive direction. During a four month period I sat down and talked with nearly 100 premies. The common denominator was that they came from what we call the social dropouts. By all Establishment Standards they had been living desperate lives, unproductive and antisocial. I was impressed because I know that when encounter groups and other forms of therapy deal with this type of despair, the recovery rate is minute. It was visible on the faces of these premies that they were experiencing a radiant and intense peace. And it was infectious; I began experiencing the saure thing. I felt marvelous. I said, I don't know who Guru Maharaj ji is, but he's giving a valid experience and I want it. Since then, I've had experience so intense as to be beyond my capacity to imagine, and if that's suggestion, it's very strong. I've come to the point where I know there is a Supreme Being and He is one with that 15-year-old boy. Hallowitz is convinced that the guru's teaching is consistent with recent brain research, and that meditation techniques provide a way for man to control an imperfectly designed brain away from fear and stress and toward pure thought and inner peace. Because of his evolutionary inheritance, Hallowitz says, man is burdened with a primitive orientation towards fear and survival, which sets the tone of individual and institutional behavior, starts wars, and destroys civilizations. Scientists are already studying the physiological effects of meditation as a way out of this bind. They have found decreased heart rates and oxygen consumption, increased galvanic skin response and low-frequency alpha activity that may be correlated with states of subjective relaxation. Hallowitz believes that receiving knowledge from the guru "involves a lowering of response to stressful situations, a heightening of capacity for pure thought, a scaling down of body processes, libido, appetites and sleep requirements - it changes the organism's perspective of the environment; we no longer view the environment as stressful, we are no longer draining our vitality. What I'm saying is that meditation brings about physiological transformations that have tremendous implications for our physical and emotional well-being" from Oz in the Astrodome NYTimes By Ted Morgen.

As I said before this article needs a total rewrite.Momento (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Momento, we've been over this several timers before. Those quotations don't concern the event itself. As you may recall, I prepared a page including all of the quotations by premies and others at the festival. Talk:Millennium '73/sources. Those quotes are all over the map. You're picking out two that are relatively sane, but there are others that shed a different light. As for this thread, we're just here to discuss whether the article meets the GA criteria. The only aspect of the criteria that the reviewer has mentioned which might lead this article to fail that criteria is an excess number of quotations and/or detail. I don't see any other criteria that this article would have a problem with. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
So the "quotations must concern the event itself". Well at least a real Gallwey and a real Hallowitz spoke to a real reporter at Millennium. The rumored and unidentified new born baby didn't mention Millennium or attend. So can you explain why you have decided that the words of a famous author and neurophysiologist who attended the event are not worthy of inclusion but a rumored and unnamed baby that talks and then dies is? The baby didn't mention Millennium and the baby didn't attend.Momento (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The quotations from Galley, Hallowitz, Horton, and Cameron are well-suited to the articles on the DLM or on Maharaj Ji's teachings, and I wouldn't object to adding excerpts of them there. The baby rumor was reported as part of the millennial expectations leading up to the festival, especially in Houston. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
So the baby quote has nothing to do with the Millennium event. Good. But then again it has nothing to do with Millennial expectations either. Unless you believe there really was a baby. But, of course, there wasn't a baby and therefore there wasn't a quote, it is all made up.Momento (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No one is asserting that the baby actually existed. The issue is that followers of GMJ had "bizarre" expectations for the festival, as described by journalists and scholars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That is your OR. No scholar mentions the baby. It is a joke that has nothing to do with the event?Momento (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This thread is to discuss the GA nomination, not general content issues. I'll simply say that the matter is not described as a joke in sources, and the scholar who said that there were "many rather bizarre, 'cultic' predictions" was Pilarzyk. At your request, we've deleted two of those predictions already. To delete all of them would deprive the article of context so that readers can understand what kinds of rumors and expectations were current. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the above. This article right now is a deplorable joke. All the rumours and "expectations" need to be deleted right now. This is pure tabloidism, and especially insidious as it touches on the reputation of a living person. If nobody else does, I will delete them tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I believe these deletions alone will push the article a long way towards GA standard. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't be disruptive. The material is well-sourced and relevant. It was not reported in tabloids, and it's not clear how it has anything to do with any identifiable person's reputation (except perhaps Bal Bhagwan Ji, who is described as the "carrier" of the expectations). Getting back to the GA standard, I think the article already meets it. If Mattisse has any specific suggestions on changes I'd be happy to here them. That editor does seem to say that the lead is too short, and I'll try to add a little more to it to address that concern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed several quotes that do not refer to Millennium as per Will.
Please don't accuse me of being disruptive when I am only trying to find a way to fix such an appalling article. If you don't think this article touches on the reputations of several living people then you reading it very strangely. OTOH if it is intended that the absurdities referred to are to be disconnected from the reputation of Prem Rawat, then the article needs to state that more plainly. Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this article violates WP:BLP then please explain exactly how so that we can fix it. Summarizing reliable sources does not violate BLP, even if the information is not complimentary. This article is conservatively written, with many even more outlandish remarks and actions. Let's reserve this thread for issues directly related to the GA nomination. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction should summarize the article. It should not include quotations that don't appear later in the text. The phrase, "most significant event in human history" appears in many sources, so it's not necessary to quote one particular version. The material from Collier is not suited for the intro, and perhaps should be removed entirely. For those reasons I reverted a couple of edits that moved material from the text to the intro.[34] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Billed as"? My dictionary says "to bill something as" is to describe something in a particular, usually promotional way, as a means of advertisement. Clearly, the poster advertising the event bills it as "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". Complete with date, venue and admission. We could write in the lead that "the poster advertising the event billed it as ""a thousand years of peace for people who want peace" but for brevity we can leave out "the poster advertising the event". And the material for Collier is fundamental to the lead. Could you imagine anything more relevant to the reader as they read about this bizarre event than to know that the star of the show only went ahead with it because he was legally a minor and wanted to delay the family split until he was 16?Momento (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to including the 1000 years bit. It's the Galanter quotation that is unnecessary. As for the Collier part, that's a view of one obeserver, not commonly held by scholars and obeservers. It's worth including in the article, but it would be excess weight to put it so prominently. Furthermore, it's inappropriate to move things from the text to the intro, because ideally the intro simply summarizes the rest of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is full of single source quotes. And most scholars agree that the increasing independence and resulting conflict started before Millennium, so Collier's claim, whilst unique, is supported by scholars.Momento (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Momento, can you refresh my memory? Which scholars support Collier's speculation about why GMJ left the planning to BBJ and Mata Ji?   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If you object to it going into the lead, I will put it in the background section in the mean time.Momento (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whose side I am on in this discussion, but from the point of view of a Good Article, this one has far too many quotations for statements that do not need to be quoted but should just be worded in plain language. The quotes give it a hokey and POV feel to the article, I think, when the article should be a professional, neutral description of an event. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. All the hokey, trivial, and often contradictory quotes have been put in to make the central figure (Prem Rawat) look absurd. The controversies can be reported neutrally. Neutrality is a long way off right now, but let us not give up. It must be achievable. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, I think that there are so many quotations because it's less contentious to quote someone than to rewrite their view. I'll take a scan over the article and see if I can do that without creating fresh problems. Rumiton, can you point to any particular section that doesn't use the neutral point of view? We should just be reporting what folks have said about the event. Since the majority of things said about the event have been engative, there's no way around having negative material in the article. That doesn't mean it isn't neutral.   Will Beback  talk  17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But remember, quotations are primary sources. The primary sources cannot be NPOV. You need WP:V statements about the event itself. Quotations by participants can only be use sparingly as an example and should not be used to give WP:UNDUE. The article needs to be written in the editors own words and should not be trying to "make a point" but to describe this event. Millennium '73 may be an interesting cultural event, but that needs to be shown why in a balanced manner. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Crowned Lord of the Universe

It has been established here that this so-called title is a mistranslation of Balyogeshwa, which means something like "boy-king of unity." Who is this source "Khalsa" who makes this extraordinary and absurd claim? Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Who established this fact? Wikipedia editors? I don't recall seeing that discussion. Aside from this source, a peer-reviewed journal, we have other sources that say he was crowned at the event, and that he was called "lord of the universe" at the event. Please share your sources that say he wasn't crowned "lord of the universe". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it was Jayen who pointed out this piece of misunderstanding some months back. And Lords (of the Universe or anything else) are not crowned. It is the king part that calls forth a crown. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Maharaj Ji was crowned with the crown of Krishna (according to many sources). One of Krisha's epithets was Jagannath, "Lord of the Universe". I don't understand the relevance of Balyogeshwa or kings, neither of which are mentioned in this context in the sources I've seen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good Heavens, Will, you throw these opinions around as if you don't care what the truth is. Jagannath is not an "epithet", it is a personified aspect of Krishna, the aspect of kindness and compassion as it happens. Nothing to do with universes. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Dr. Sidhartha Kanungo on this Indian government website, Jagannath means 'Lord of the Universe' [35]. The quote is Etymologically, the word Jagannath means the Lord of the Universe. If you read the rest of the article, you will find that 'kindness' isn't mentioned. I think the definition of 'epithet' relevant here is 'A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person'. So nothing wrong with the use of the word. --John Brauns (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that reference. I only know what I read. If Rumiton has better sources it'd be helpful if he provided them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I've trimmed the quotation from Khalsa that said "crowned as 'Lord of the Universe'" per Mattisse's request to reduce the number of block quotes. Though verifiable and relevant, there are many details in this article. It might be worthwhile to include in the biography of Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's out, then fine, but it was reaching way too far. See the article Jagannath and edit it if you believe your sources are better. A title bestowed out of love was being twisted here to make it appear sinister. Rumiton (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Quoting a scholar published in a reliable source isn't "reaching too far". There was nothing wrong with that material except that this article has more than enough good material even without it. There's nothing sinister about being crowned Lord of the Universe. "Lord of the Underworld" or "Prince of Darkness": now those would be sinister titles. ;)   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"The most significant event in the history of humanity" was the original billing

At present the intro has a misquote. The actual phrase used did not include the words "one of ..."

See the following links for citations -

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917390,00.html

http://www.eai.org/eai/titleOrderingFees.htm?id=1391

http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/news/1973/nytimes091273.html

Suggest removal of the words "one of" and the pluralisation of the word "event" which significantly diminishes the notability of the claim. Revera (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and made the same point above. I've changed the text to match what all of the sources say.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Although you've been busy removing a lot of quotes, Will, I'd argue for putting that particular phrase in quotation marks, just for clarity. After all, it's not the kind of thing that gets claimed every day! Also re those sources (Time, New York Times at least) - I think they're worth adding to the 'external link' section. Any objection? Revera (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of any way of paraphrasing it that captures the full meaning. We shoudln't link to that copy of the NY Times article because it's a copyright violation, but I've added a link to the NY Times archive page. I'm not sure that the Time article adds much to this topic. It'd be better as a source for the Prem Rawat or DLM articles.   Will Beback  talk  12:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Why the need to paraphrase? And if the quote "the most significant event if the history of humanity" doesn't appear later in the text then, surely, it should!
Intelligent readers (editors too!) would want to ask why this event was touted as being more noteworthy than, well, ... anything that had ever gone before in the history of humankind.
Without wanting to insuIt any of the editors who have tried to present a full and valid documentation of the life and history of Prem Rawat - that is a question which still hangs over his record on Wikipedia. Isn't it about time that was addressed? Revera (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • FAC?. The quote issue is very important for FAC and to some degree important for GA, as its standards are lower. Choose the quotations to use for the article carefully. Use only the most important ones that convey a meaning that cannot be paraphrased. Will Beback, remember, if you are thinking of FAC, the editors there are very strict about this. And, except for unusual circumstances, quotes do not go into the lead, which, by definition, is a summary (specially true for FAC). That is all I am saying. But you guys write the article the way you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
pardon my ignorance, but where can I find out what 'FAC' and 'GA' mean? (I tried the search field , but WP gives quite a few meanings) Revera (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! Both GA and FA refer to awards Wikipedia give for articles that fulfill certain article quality criteria. Will Beback originally submitted this article for Feature article candidate (where it was not promoted to Feature article status). It is now submitted as a Good article nomination. And I am the editor doing the GAN review. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt explanation. One of your links referred to "a meaning that cannot be paraphrased" - would you say the quote discussed here deserves further investigation? Revera (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Quotations
  • "Give me liberty or give me death!" That might be considered a quote that cannot be paraphrased with the same effect. (He said that he would rather die if he could not be free - this does not have the same drama or unique phrasing. Furthermore, it is a famous phrase.) Quoting Mohammad Ali as saying of his fighting style: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" might be another example of a quote difficult to paraphrase with the same effect.
  • The issue of how many and which quotes is an editorial judgment. That particular quote may be important to the article. It depends on what point the quote is making. There is an essay on quotations Wikipedia:Quotations which notes that an article can be too many quotes, until it becomes Wikiquote. The Manual of Style only talks about the formatting and referencing of quotations.
  • Pieces of quotes, such as "the most significant event if the history of humanity" can be taken out of context in an article. When pieces of different quotes are used together, the result may be WP:SYN which can be considered WP:Original research. Also, too many quotes give undue weight, for example, by promoting a particular point of view, or by making a person seem ridiculous by providing many silly quotations. Also, using too many quotes means the article is not an encyclopedic article (i.e. a summary of available information written in original wording). For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica (which Wikipedia is emulating) does not use quotes in its articles. But, in any event, too many quotes make the article look shoddy, as if the editors have not bothered to translate the meaning of the quotes into their own words.
  • My own opinion is that quoting "the most significant event if the history of humanity" is unnecessary. Why can't you say so-and-so that that Millennium '73 was going to be the most significant event in human history (with a reference to source). The wording itself does not seem extraordinary and it can be easily paraphrased. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a good paraphrase, I don't know why I didn't think of that. I've added it to the intro. FYI, there is no context for it- every source I've seen quotes it that way, no more and no less.   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've found the source " Davis' first assignment was to put together Soul Rush," a three-day rally held last week in the Houston Astrodome and modestly billed by Davis as "the most important event in the history of the world." (The New Republic November 17, 1973 God in Houston The Cult of Guru Maharaji Ji by Jonathon Rawson).Momento (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Collier also states that BBJ (Rawat's brother) came up with the quote. It's my opinion that the quote "the most significant event in human history" must be in this article and qualification of it is unnecessary because DLM promoted the Millennium '73 festival that way. It cannot be paraphrased. It doesn't matter who thunk up the quote -- they were all working on behalf of DLM and DLM promoted the event. It's not OR to put a quote or two in an article if they are well-sourced.
Also, there ought not be any concerns that the quote will be taken out of context, because it is perfectly in context and must be taken literally and need not be explained. Why? Because it is/was the belief system of this NRM that Millennium was "the most significant event in human history," because Prem Rawat, (who premies believe to be the Lord of the Universe said so in his invitation letter to premies, so to omit it is depriving the reader of real history of the NRM and Prem Rawat. Hope this helps!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the kind of quote that is POV and should not be used, unless to give an example of biased sources. This source is biased and it is a third party source. If you are quoting someone, you must use the original. " Davis' first assignment was to put together Soul Rush, a three-day rally held last week in the Houston Astrodome and modestly billed by Davis as "the most important event in the history of the world." Is not the phrase "modestly billed by Davis" meant to be sarcastic? Therefore the source of the quote is from a biased article. If you find the original, such invitation letter to premies then you can use the quote if you think it is important enough. However, you cannot use a quote from a third source. (This just came up on FAC recently. It turned out all the third party sources of the quote were wrong when compared with the original. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akutan Zero for an example. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, are you saying that an article that is sarcastic or cynical is biased and should be used with caution?Momento (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am. In my view, this is not an article to portray the subject in anything but a neutral light. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if that's the case, we should eliminate a quarter of the references, since they are clearly biased.Momento (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Momento, you may not understand out policies. WP:V does not require neutral sources. WP:NPOV does not require that sources be neutral, only that we present their assertions in a neutral manner. It requires presenting all significant viewpoints, even those of people who are biased for or against a topic. I haven't seen anyone point to a passage that doesn't have the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading it in context, Rawat isn't saying Millennium is "the most holy and significant event in human history". He's saying that the celebration (Hans Jayanti) is the most holy and significant event in human history, and this year it will take place in America. Later in the invitation he describes MIllennium as a "Divine Festival of Peace", Millenium '73.Momento (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Then you are showing the dangers of attributing a quote to anyone on the basis of a third party source. This is why I dislike that practice. It is not legitimate and is often used to present an image in the light of the third party, which often is not neutral. In the example I give above in the FAC article, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akutan Zero, the intent was not to present a bias, but nonetheless the quotes repeated in third party sources combines quotes that, in the original, were not combined and therefore were inaccurate. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento is incorrect to say that New Republic is the source. This is repeated in numerous sources. Note that Dreyer gives a different version. However, Levine seems to be quoting from the pres release, which as far as "billing" and promotion goes is problably more authoritative than remarks by Davis.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean "The New Republic" was the source, as my edit note says "Davis did it".Momento (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. What's your source for Davis's remark if not The New Republic? It's not surprising that Davis would use different words than the wording in the press release. Davis was very loquacious and was quoted saying a lot of things in 1973. There's no reason to doubt that he sincerely believed what he said.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Who knows? I'm wondering who said it first because it is different from what rawat said.Momento (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just last week a true believer arrived in our offices to remind us of the most significant event in history: the Perfect Master's return bout with the world to be held at the Houston Astrodome on the eighth through the tenth of November.
    • Rolling Stone October 11, 1973,
  • While these auspicious astrological configurations formed in the heavens, a three-day festival called Millennium '73 and billed as "the most significant event in the history of humanity" was taking place in the Houston Astrodome.
    • Morgan 1973
  • A short time later I received a press handout in the mail from the Divine Light Mission announcing "for immediate release" . . . the Millennium. The rest of the release was equally forthright, explaining that during the three-day "world assemblage to save humanity" at the Houston Astrodome, Maharaj Ji would reveal a "practical plan" to save mankind and would kick off a thousand years of peace on earth ("for people who want peace"-a small copout I ignored at the time). I could be one of tens of thousands of people attending "the most holy and significant event in human history," bearing witness to "the dawn of a New Age."
    • Levine 1974
  • American journalists witnessed the same phenomenon last November when the Divine Light Mission staged "Millennium 73," a sort of God-in at the Houston Astrodome that Davis soberly billed as "the most significant event in the history of the universe."
    • Kelley July 1974
  • After some preliminaries, Rennie Davis appeared and launched into one of many ultrahyperbolic raps we'd hear from him in the next month. He touted the Millennium, happily proclaiming that it would be the "most profound and significant gathering in this nation's history." It would offer us the opportunity to "realize the vision of the Pilgrims." And would put humble Houston into the all-time Hall of Fame: "This city is goIng to be remembered through all the ages of human civilization." Yes, said Rennie, "It boggles the mind. A perfect master is again on this planet."
    • Dreyer 1974
  • Advance billing called it "Millennium '73," and went on to describe the coming attraction as "The most significant event in the history of humanity."
    • Baxter 1974
  • Expectations for "Millennium '73," billed as the "most, significant event in the history of humanity," were too high.
    • Rudin & Rudin 1980
  • It was touted as "the most significant event in the history of mankind."
    • Whatever Happened to Guru Maharaj Ji?" October 1983

So this counts as widely cited as a significant quotation, repeatedly quoted in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I will just say that the quote in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akutan Zero appeared in widely published "reliable" sources. However, they were wrong. Sources often use the same material and one misquote then is repeated exponentially across publications. It just takes one error in the beginning to have something widely circulated as "fact". Where did the American journalists get their facts originally? This is where you need a press release or something from the source. Third party quotes are not good enough. The fact that the quote is repeated, even in so-called "reliable sources" means nothing. The closest you can get, besides the source itself, is an interview in a reliable source containing the quote. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The quote is repeated in numerous reliable sources. There's no reason to believe it is incorrect. Certainly any "fact" can be wrong, no matter how widely reported. (Until 1989, all the world, even his family, thought Billy Tipton was a man. Then he died and was found to be a woman. But if Wikipedia had a biography of him in 1980 it would have said he was a man.) But Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We can verify this quote according to Wikipedia standards. While Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akutan Zero is an interesting case study, we're only looking at meeting the GA criteria at this point. I'm not sure where we are in that process any more. Which criteria does this article fail to meet?   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is not just about verifiability, it has to satisfy other criteria. If an editor inserts something that isn't true simply because someone said it, it is an issue of POV pushing. A case in point is "According to reports before the festival, the three themes of the festival were to be, "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji", "Guru Maharaj Ji is Here", and "The Messiah Has Come".[18][80] We all know this is incorrect (the official program contradicts it) but Will has insisted it stays on the grounds of verifiability. That's why there is a Wiki policy "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".Momento (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what is "true". I only know what I read. Let's stick to the topic at hand, the "most significant" quotation. If you want to discuss the daily themes, start a new thread please.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this thread illustrates the perils of "only knowing what you read," especially on a subject which has been widely and facetiously reported. Let's try to make this article as intelligent as we can. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's use some common sense here and see where we get. 1) The quote "Most significant..." is written about in numerous reliable sources, including the New York Times and the L.A. Times, where those articles state, "Was billed as...'the most significant event in human history.'" There's absolutely nothing ambiguous or POV pushing to report here what those newspaper articles reported, including the article by Ted Morgan (NYTimes); 2) Rennie Davis was a member of this NRM and worked for Divine Light Mission to coordinate the festival. The press was invited by DLM to cover the event and was invited into the event (also reported in news articles) for the same purpose, by DLM -- all these issues are covered by the writers of those articles. 3) It's not the job of an editor here to do the level of research Matisse is suggesting because the reliable sources provide the information to back up the claim that the quote was used to promote Millennium '73. Nothing else is required, based on my reading of policy guidelines. 4) It's not POV pushing nor is it applying undue weight to include the quote and associated claims made by DLM and Rawat about both the festival and himself (Guru Maharaj Ji). Anyone who invites the press to cover something cannot control what the press will report. It is what it is. The festival itself was controversial because the claims made by DLM and Rawat were extraordinary by any logical standards, and because the festival was a financial failure. Those claims were written about by reliable sources. It's not the fault of the press that they didn't cover the event to the satisfaction of DLM or Prem Rawat. The bonus is that editors can be confident that the press reported the facts, and the source Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (which is sort of a primary source but was published by Bantam Books) back up what the reliable sources say, including that Rawat was referred to as "The Lord of the Universe." Sylviecyn (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mishler & Donner 1974
  2. ^ Mishler & Donner 1974
  3. ^ Mishler & Donner 1974
  4. ^ Mishler & Donner 1974
  5. ^ Melton J. Gordon, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Routledge, 1992 (1st Edition), ISBN 0-815-31140-0, p. 217
  6. ^ Downton, James V. (1979). Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5.
  7. ^ UPI 1978
  8. ^ Collier 1978, p. 154,162
  9. ^ 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=Talk:Millennium_%2773/Archive_1&oldid=1084075250"