Jump to content

Talk:Millennium '73/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A photo of Rennie Davis would be great! Do you have one? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • If you have the time and interest, the best single contemporaneous account was probably in Rolling Stone.[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've just summarized 28 quotations,[3] in addition to the quotes removed or summarized already.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: {{ArticleHistory}} at Talk:Millennium '73 has been updated to reflect this development. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Millennium_%2773/GA1&oldid=1084075265"