Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive1


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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:20, 27 November 2008.

Millennium '73

 * Nominator(s): ·:· Will Beback  ·:·

Millennium '73 was a religious festival held at the Astrodome in 1973 that was billed as the "most significant event in human history" and which was attended by as many as 300 reporters. The article has over 400 citations to 90 sources. It is stable, covers the topic comprehesively, complies with WP:MOS, and has passed through a peer review (here). I'd hoped that this could be ready for the 35th anniversary of the event which started November 8, but it's better late than never. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The level of research is impressive, and the organization generally looks solid. I'm a little nervous by the list of items splashed on the big screen. (Although I'm tickled by the juxtaposition of "Realize heaven on earth" with "You will sit in your assigned places, please".) I'm also unclear on why we need the extended back-and-forth from the press conference. I'd be happier seeing it summarized, with two or three of the most important quotes provided. Scartol  •  Tok  11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The press conference was, in some respects, the most important part of the event. More than anything else, it shaped the coverage of the event, which in turn had such an important effect on the movement. It was possibly the last press conference the guru ever held. Almost all of the responses listed have been recorded in more than one source, which shows their notability. I've trimmed one that had been recently added which had only one source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reduced and summarized. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, please stop deleting sourced material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I summarized the interview as suggested. Is that a problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you deleted sourced material and dumped a copy of text from Divine Light Mission. This type of editing doesn't appear intended to improve the article. I'd appreciate it if you could please leave the editing to those who seek to improve the article rather than make it worse. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To Scartol: The slogans from the scoreboard add up to 107 words, which doesn't seem excessive for an illustration. At least one reporter said that the scoreboards were the most effective communication tool of the event. The content and tone would be difficult to convey in a summary. I trimmed the press conference by removing the opening statement. With one exception, each of the answers has multiple sources, indicating their importance. The list could be cut further by removing an entry with only one source. That'd bring it down to four exchanges. If bulk is a problem it can be reformatted with "Q:/A:" replacing "Reporter:/Maharaj Ji:". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the press conference exchanges down to four questions and answers, the four that have the most sources. I also reformatted the text to make it more compact. I think that material, with three or more sources each, is the most reliable and notable and it doesn't interrupt the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The Manavdharam ref is lacking a publisher.
 * The Melton Religious Practices ref is lacking a publisher
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - You may want to submit to WP:GA first, as the article is quite new (fist edit was in September 9, 2008) and there are still ongoing discussions in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no ongoing discussions. The last discussion ended over a week ago. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A week ago? That means current in my book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk page discussions, even those that are over 11 days old, aren't prohibited by the FAC criteria. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I mention "prohibition"? As I have said before during the peer review, the article is rather new and not mature for FAC. It may be a better idea to submit to GA first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, you also objected to submitting the article for peer review. Do you have any specific objections to anything in the article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I objected to the idea of an FAC nomination for an article written by a single editor in the opacity of a private sandbox. And I continue to object to an FAC nomination on the basis of the article not being mature or stable enough. What is the rush? Submit to GA and then in a few months you can re-submit the FAC process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * September 9 doesn't seem terribly recent to me, given that we're approaching November. Aside from that, I see no reason why an article should be forced to delay its FAC if there are no ongoing discussions/major edits. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See the talk page and article history. As I have said, the article is not mature in my opinion. It needs time and collaboration. Of course, you are entitled to a different opinion than mine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you just deleted a bunch of sourced material with no discussion. You also added a chunk of text copied from another article (without identifying it as such) that duplicated material already in the article. Can you please use the talk page, or this page, to discuss significant edits? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN? I thought you were interested in improving this article. Did you "discussed in talk" 99% of the article you wrote on your own? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make accusations. Copying a paragraph verbatim from another article, one which duplicates a quotations already in the article, isn't an improvement, and neither is the undiscussed deletion of sourced material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I'm curious; what will the article achieve by stagnating for a few months? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for "stagnation"., I am asking for allowing collaboration to shape this article, and that requires time and patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Time alone doesn't improve an article. What specific changes are necessary to bring the article up to FAC standards? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First you may attempt to bring it to GA standards. It needs work, and work requires time. In any case, there is no need for a back and forth between you and me. Let others comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already at FAC standards, in my view. If you see any part that needs work please discuss it rather than deleting sourced information or dumping copies of poorly written material from other articles.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The Image:Maharaj_Ji_Holy_Family_photo_cropped.jpg,  is still under FUR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved. There was a discussion at Non-free_content_review, with zero new comments for over a month and a half, and with one third-party independent user weighing in that the blanket copyright tag is being used correctly. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have relisted the FUR as concerns have not been addressed and there was a single comment made. Hopefully other editors will weigh in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. An excellently written article about an interesting piece of history. is to be commended for the excellent work he has put into this article and also for his extreme patience throughout the editing process in dealing with and addressing concerns of other editors. There are some very minor Harvnb issues that I will work on fixing. Closer and other voters reviewers may wish to be aware that an objector to this FAC,, has a conflict of interest with regard to this article. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * < Response moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73; please stay focused on the article here. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) >


 * FYI, Cirt, in case you did not know: (a) FAC is a discussion, not a !vote; (b) In this discussion Sandy or Raul will look into the merits of the arguments presented: either these  arguments are sound or they don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting read but the prose is simply not good enough. Here are examples just from the lede and first few paragraphs.
 * The third paragraph in the lede is of dubious value information-wise but is also clunky. Since the text does not specify who these writers and observers are, the quotes are essentially meaningless. There's no flow in these five short sentences (including one in brackets).
 * That paragraph was drafted with the intent of demonstrating the notability of the event. I've moved the quotations down to the last section of the article, expanded them to attribute the views, and replaced it in the lede with a shorter summary of the notability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Media reports generally depicted the event as a disappointment. As Tony would say: spot the redundancy.
 * I fixed this by changing it to "scholars and journalists", which better reflects the content of the article.
 * Note the absurdity of the sentence "The DLM had promoted it as the dawning of a new age, but it failed to meet those expectations."
 * I don't understand. The event was hyped as being the dawn of a new age and when it was over it was the same old age. Many sources report on the failure of the event to meet the expectations of miraculous change.
 * He died six years later, and his youngest son, then just eight years old, succeeded him as spiritual leader and "Perfect Master" but because of his age his mother, Mata Ji, managed the affairs of DLM, with the help of her eldest son, Satpal Rawat. Needs to be broken down.
 * I copy edited and consolidated the first two paragraphs to reduce redundancy and improve readibility. We should try to keep the background as short as possible, as the material is already in other articles.
 * He noted that most were young people from the counterculture, and they accepted him as a "Perfect Master" despite his youth. Second half should either be "who accepted..." or "and that they accepted"
 * Fixed above. That text was copied in recently from another article.
 * 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. Who's Melton? The reader won't know before checking the footnote. Moreover, the sentence could easily be understood as Melton describing his own arrival and his own reception. Also, "open to his message" is redundant.
 * See above, same copied in text.

I think it's way too soon to bring this to FAC. The prose has to be polished significantly. Pichpich (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with these individual issues. Several of these problems came from a flurry of recent edits. I hope editors who seek to improve the article aren't making it worse instead. If there are any other writing problems please let me know so I can fix them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's Tony? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * < Conversation continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73 Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC) >

Comments I am still in the midst of reviewing this article (haven't gotten to sources or images yet), but I thought I would post my first thoughts. Overall, I think that the article needs to be trimmed of excess detail (see some examples listed below) and some areas need to be slightly reorganized for better flow.


 * The Rolling Stone quote in the "Background" section either needs to be deleted or better integrated into the article.
 * I've summarized the main point, which describes the mood of the nation towards the end of 1973, and moved it to the "rumors and expectations" section.


 * where they had a permit to gather in front of the White House and invited President Richard Nixon to attend the festival and receive Knowledge - Either in the text or in a footnote, we should indicate whether or not Nixon accepted the invitation.
 * No source mentions any response from Nixon. He certainly didn't attend, being preoccuppied explaining the 18 1/2 minute gap and dealing with a crisis in the Mid-East. That sentence is very long already. It might be better to split it and add a short  "did not attend" clause. I've done that and added the rest of the cities in the tour for completeness.
 * I almost deleted the Nixon bit entirely, but it's too interesting to omit. This was among the dark days of the Nixon Presidency. Meanwhile, the premies were singing on the sidewalk, offering Nixon inner peace through meditation and obedience to a 15-year old guru. It's a part of history that's too priceless to leave out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Promotion" section feels overly detailed to me. For example, do we need all three quotes from the posters and flyers? I would use just the long one. Also, do we need an entire paragraph on Blue Aquarius?
 * The different quotes include different specific assertions, each of which are remarkable. I've trimmed the two longer ones.


 * I wonder if you could put the "Expectations and rumours" section in a bit more context? Downton writes that "millenarian beliefs had been germinating in the counterculture long before the arrival of the guru on the American scene, for many hippies were anticipating the "second coming" and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" - I think explaining this a bit more would help give some historical context to an event that can seem alien to our own time.
 * I'll double check and see if any of the festival or DLM-related sources talk more about it. Downton appears to be the main source for the millennial beliefs in this context. There are plenty of sources on the Age of Aquarious that don't mention the DLM or this festival, but it'd probably better just to link to those. This section already appears to be quite long.
 * I agree with the basic problem. Investigating the Age of Aquarius previously, I found that our own article doesn't deal with the common cultural theme sufficiently, instead sticking with the astrological aspects. I even wrote a note on the talk page back in July suggesting that the article cover it better, but there's no response. The millennial issue is complex and requires a lot of fine distinctions. While the Downton quotations are interesting, I wonder if they couldn't be summarized in a smaller space, with some of that space devoted to the Age of Aquarius and similar apocalyptic/millennial issues in the broader society. I'll try to post at least a sentence on the meaning of the "Age of Aquarius". --OK, I found a reasonable reference for the "Age of Aquarius" and have added a two-line paragraph to provide context. It makes some of the Downton quotation redundant, which I'll go back and trim later.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the entire article needs more background more people unfamiliar with the early 1970s and the counterculture. It is not clear, for example, why there was a counterculture in the first place. Sadly, this fact is not really common knowledge. See, Stonewall riots, for an example of an article that describes a small event in a large historical context. Now, while Millennium '73 didn't have the same impact as Stonewall, we can still set Millennium '73 in a historical context that will help readers. You mentioned above, for example, that it was during Watergate, however, you are relying on the reader to know all of this. I think some broad, historical strokes would really help readers understand the place of Millennium '73 in the culture much better. A paragraph or two would suffice here, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The historical context appears in many of the journalists reports, especially Watergate but also the Mideast crisis. I can add something, but it may require some minor reorganization of existing material. Background on the other events and themes of the era should logically go in the "background" section, rather than the "expectations" section. The Downton material on millennial beliefs within the Mission, and the new Age of Aquarius paragraph, should probably be handled in the same place, leaving "expectations" for expectations specifically about the event. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding historical context is like adding salt-there's plenty that can be available and a bit improves the flavor but too much makes the dish indigestible. I took the paragraph that I wrote, added a little bit more, and combined it with other text to make a "Millennarian beliefs" section to cover the general mood of the country and the movement. Since the article is so long already I hesitate to add more historical context, or even movement context. Is more salt still needed? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is much better. I've added a few links. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sophia Collier later wrote that a minority of members became "Victims of Millennium Fever" and that Bal Bhagwan Ji was the fever's carrier. The majority of the premies repeated his ideas out of astonishment, but some actually believed him - If only a minority of the members believed the items listed in the paragraph, we have to be careful about what we include. I am worried, for example, about listing anything that only one person believed. I would cut the sentence about the astrologer and Ouiji board.
 * I disagree. Though one source (a member) says that only a minority held these views, those are the views which got the most attention. The astrologer is cited in several sources, and is in the documentary. The Ouija board is in at least a couple of sources too, IIRC. Even if only one person made asserted communications with the Venusians, it was repeated widely.
 * Further, I should mention that this is not an exhaustive list of the rumors and expectations. These are just the rumors that received the most attention.
 * Separately, the article may not convey properly the weight of the TVTV documentary as a part of the public's experience of the festival. We only use it as a source once or twice, but it could be used to support assertions by reporters dozens of times. While the reporters may have had readership in the hundreds of thousands or more through syndication, the documentary was aired twice on the PBS network, back when there weren't many choices on television. And it, alone among all of the reporting, won an award. Getting back to the topic, the documentary has an on-air quote from the astrologer. (The New York Times article leads with the predictions from the astrologer.) The documentary shows an organizer suggesting that Comet Kouhoutek's trajectory was related to the event. That video lends considerable weight to the topics it covers.
 * These sources led with sensationalistic claims to grab readers' attention. That doesn't mean we have to. I note that your response focuses on the way the press reported the event - "these are just the rumors that received the most attention". That is precisely why we have to be so careful in what we include in the article - the reports were not thorough. So, here are some options: 1) Focus the sentences on the press - "The press focused on...."; 2) Move these details to the "Media coverage" section; 3) Remove these details entirely. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the section for better flow and to emphasize that reporters were focused on the rumors. It now does a better job of separating official predictions from unofficial rumors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is better. Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Event" section has some unnecessary details, in my opinion:
 * The DLM used its leased IBM System/3 computer to assign jobs to volunteers.
 * The Shri Hans Humanitarian Services treated minor injuries
 * I'm unconvinced that we need an entire subsection on the Hobby Airport arrival.
 * The Holy Family stayed in the Astrodome's six-bedroom "Celestial Suite", normally $2,500 a night but obtained at a discount.
 * The following afternoon the Astrodome hosted a football game between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Oilers that attracted 37,230 fans
 * Though a computer may seem mundane now, it was frequently mentioned in press reports. It was quite expensive, around $44,000 a year (that's over $200,000 in 2007), and it was viewed as remarkable that an Eastern spiritual movement to use one. The exact model is rarely reported, but there were only a few IBM computers back then. For the modern reader giving a link to the model is almost necessary to give the information meaning. (PS: I've hidden the model name to avoid distracting readers. It's still there in the link for anyone who's interested. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
 * But the article does not explain any of this to the reader - again, the article is relying on the reader to know far too much. I would suggest either explaining this or removing the detail. Without the explanation, the reader simply won't make these connections. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that, though the journalists made a point of noting the computer, none of them explicitly say, "Unlike in the future, computers in 1973 were rare and expensive." I could dig up sources which say that, but it'd be too much on a minor detail. While many reports on the DLM/Guru Maharaj Ji mention the computer, only one reporter mentioned it in the context of this event. I've deleted it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the first aid service, it has no other significance.
 * Several journalists give the Hobby airport arrival lavish attention. That may be simply because it was the first event of a festival that been hyped like no festival ever before. It may have been because it marked their first sense of disappointment, at being kept waiting (which they refer to again and again), at the unimpressive speech when Maharaj Ji finally arrived, and at the perceived effort to create a media event by staging the arrival. Even so, some of that is inside baseball. I've trimmed the details.
 * Again, if it is journalists focusing on this event, we should say so in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just that reporters focused on a minor event. This was the first of only four public appearances by Guru Maharaj Ji at the event and it was consciously staged as a media event. The arrival is covered in a mid-length paragraph, much of it quoting Maharaj Ji. I don't think it's excessive or distracting. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many sources dwell on the "Holy Family" staying in the suite, on its features and its cost. The main spokesman is quoted in more than one source on the cosmic significant of the suite's name and even its plumbing fixtures.
 * I'm not challenging the point about the name and the fixtures (that is clearly important) - I'm asking why we need to know that they stayed there at a discount. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd included that because it softened the expense, but since several reporters mentioned the cost but only one the discount it's a less important detail and I've deleted it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We could move that, but I think that the fact they had to hurry up and leave for a game the following afternoon is relevant to the general schedule. The names of the teams is not important, but the paid attendance figures are relevant and segue into the discussion of attendance at the festival. Removed teams.
 * That they had to hurry up and leave is fine - the number of fans and whatnot is irrelevant information. It is this kind of excessive detail that bogs down the article and makes it difficult to read. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be opposed to mentioning the football game attendance in the next section, as a contrast to the festival attendance? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it further and combined the grafs. You're right, it reads better without the game attendance. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The beginning of the "Program" section repeats information regarding the themes of each day found in "Day 1", "Day 2", etc. I would recommend removing that information from the "Program" section and concentrating it in each day's section.
 * Agree, that's just unnecessary repetition. A complication is that early sources, from the summer before the event, list a set of planned themes. Then the actual schedule includes a "topic" for each day, which are slightly different. We don't know what happened in between, or even if a "theme" is the same as a "topic". So that's why I added both.


 * You want to be the richest man in the world? I can make you rich. I have the only currency that doesn't go down ... People think I'm a smuggler. You betcha I am. I smuggle peace from one country to another. This currency is really rich. But if you think I'm a smuggler then Jesus Christ was a smuggler and so was Lord Krishna and Mohammed - This is quite the quote! However, it would be better to include a quote that describes the theme of the satsang - does this quote do that? Can you say, using the sources you have, that this quote encapsulates the theme of the satsang? If not, perhaps a different quote - that does encapsulate the theme of the satsang - would be better.
 * As far as I can tell, there was little connection between the stated topics and the satsangs by Guru Maharaj Ji. I believe the topics may have referred in the most general way to the topics of the other speakers. I should mention that the availability of quotes is quite limited. The journalists say they found them boring and most of them only report short excerpts, lines, or even just phrases. The three satsangs quoted in this article represent the best reporting.


 * His satsang that night included this story, reported by several journalists - Why did they report it? Did they say anything about it that would explain why they thought it was important?
 * See above. It's hard to say why they chose one remark over another, though presumably they found some to be more quotable. This allegory is one that he also told in other venues (substituting Batman for Superman). Maybe the intro can be rewritten so it doesn't leave readers with the same question.


 * Singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III visited the festival and later remarked that while the premies inside were looking happy, the ones outside were arguing with Jesus Freaks and Hare Krishnas. Wainwright has said that Maharaj Ji partly inspired the song "I am the Way" - This just seems randomly inserted.
 * I've split it up.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One mother explained how her son "was pampered, spoiled, left without the ballast a rough life can provide. He was confused, seeking, he started taking marijuana. Then one day he changed. He came home with the Knowledge. I saw heaven within him, he was so happy ... And I received the Knowledge myself. ...Look around. These youngsters are so well-behaved. Why does the press have to take pictures of the kooks? I think Guru Maharaj Ji is doing a wonderful thing." - I'm not sure we need this long quote. It is pretty obvious that some of the parents are going to think their children's involvement was positive and some negative. A shorter sentence to that effect would be fine.
 * I've summarized it.


 * Jacques Sandoz, a Swiss filmmaker and follower, also filmed the event with five Panavision cameras for a DLM-sponsored project - I don't know why it is necessary to include this. The reader has no way to understand its importance. What did the DLM do with the video, etc.? If we can add more information on this film, then we can include this fact.
 * It's not of major importance. Five Panavision cameras and their crews wouldn't have come cheap. Even with volunteers, the rental and film would have cost quite a bit.  I haven't found any evidence that the movie was finished. The same in-house production company, Shri Hans Films, had earlier produced a film that was frequently shown by the Mission, but that's the extent of the significance. Since it was an in-house group, it's a poor fit in the "media reception" section anyway. I've removed it.


 * The tiny paragraph at the beginning of "Debt" is awkward - could that be integrated into the larger paragraph that constitutes that section?
 * I've joined them and re-split the paragraph at the mid-point, Now, the first part deals with the cause and amount of the debt, while the second deals with the payments.


 * The festival had a major impact on the movement. Expectations had been raised so high that they could not be fulfilled. In addition to the disappointing attendance, bad press coverage, and high debt, the event failed to achieve its other goals such as achieving world peace or world transformation - This last bit almost sounds sarcastic. I think a rewording is in order.
 * The Mission promised a practical plan for world peace and the dawn of a new age. While the debt and bad press were lamentable, the failure to deliver on those grand promises is what caused the most profound disappointment. However we don't need to reiterate the bad press, low attendance, and high debt that have already been described. Here's a re-write.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That paragraph now reads terribly: The festival had a major impact on the movement. It did not achieve its goals of achieving world peace or world transformation. Expectations had been raised so high that they could not be fulfilled.[178][179] and as said below, we need to attribute opinions rather than asserting them as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've redrafted it again. Lest anyone think we're presenting a fact, it attributes to journalists the POVs that world peace, the arrival of ETs, or the levitation of the Astrodome did not occur, despite predictions to the contrary. If these facts are in dispute we can attribute the "opinions" with more detail. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article presents the predictions of the Astrodome levitating and extraterrestials arriving as "wild rumors half in jest" earlier, I'm not sure that it is fair to say that they failed to do these things. What about this: According to reports at the time, the festival fulfill its promise of establishing peace or world transformation and its failure to meet the high expectations of its attendees, along with the debt and bad press, led to significant changes in the movement. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the rumors and the official predictions. The dawn of a new age and a 1000 years of peace were official predictions. The problem with your suggested text is that the assessment of the event's failure and its impact on the movement were largely made in later scholarly articles, not in reports at the time. It'd be more accurate to say, According to later assessments, the festival did not fulfill its promise of establishing peace or world transformation and its failure to meet the high expectations of its attendees, along with the debt and bad press, led to significant changes in the movement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I reread that sentence, I don't see what "According to later assessments" or even "According to reports at the time" add to the meaning. Adding a dated attribution would be necessary if views changed over time, but even the immediate journalistic reports called it a failure and that assessment never changed. Of course, it's only later sources that connect that failure to the changes in the movement that were yet to come. But even it seems implicitly obvious that reports at the time wouldn't predict a future breakup. Is there a real problem with saying
 * The festival did not fulfill its promise of establishing peace or world transformation and its failure to meet the high expectations of its attendees, along with the debt and bad press, led to significant changes in the movement
 * considering how many sources we have with no dissenting opinions? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your version looks good to me - I'll let you add it, since you will know how to arrange the massive number of footnotes. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will finish looking at the sources and the images later. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * Image concerns met. Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg - Is it possible to get a stable link to the Ebay source?
 * The page disappeared once the auction was completed. I don't know if Internet Archive stores those pages. I'll try to find if there's any trace of it. If I can find the seller they may be able to send their photo directly.
 * PS: The Internet Archive only keeps high-level Ebay pages, not individual listings. I've contacted two sellers who are currently offering related items, but I'm not optimistic that I can find the original seller. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it at least be possible to identify the original seller? Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The two sellers I contacted have both responded that they didn't have the poster. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the best we can do, then. Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg - I'm not entirely sure that this non-free image is necessary. Why do we need to see the organizers of the festival? What about their appearance is "significantly increases the reader's understanding" (WP:NFCC #8)?
 * The "Holy Family" weren't the organizers of the event, they were the stars. The mother and two brothers each gave hour-long satsangs, and the other brother led the band for many hours of performances during the festival. This was the photo of the family printed in the program, and it may have been the last photo of the family together. Not long after the festival the family split apart very publicly and acrimoniously. The mother died a short time later. So the photo itself was part of the festival, the family were the main attractions, and their appearance cannot be shown in any other way. It passed review at WP:FUR. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The review was quite thin in participation and did not address the concerns presented. (a) the image is not from the Millenium event; (b) the image is unrelated to the event; (c) The argument that there are no other free images, just because Will BeBack did not find one is baseless; (d) the assumption that it was "the last photo of the family together" is just an assumption. Basically, the article does not need that image. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you've made your opinion about the image clear from the moment it was uploaded. Twice you sought a review and after the second closing you complained to the closing editor. These issues have indeed been addressed, and this is not the place to rehash the argument. However, just for the sakeof leaving a complete record here, I'll repeat comments made elsewhere. A) The image is from the event, as everybody who attended was given the program containing the picture. B) See A. C) There are virtually no free images of anything related to Maharaj Ji. It is a safe assumption that there are no such images until some collection of them comes to light. D) This is the last known photograph. There could be others, but we have no evidence of it. Given that Prem Rawat's semi-authorized biography contains no photographs of his family from this period, it seems likely he doesn't like seeing pictures form that period. Given Jossi's repeated attempts to get this picture deleted despite the disagreement of uninvolved editors, it appears that Jossi is putting other interests ahead of the project. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And you have made your opinion know also. This is a FAC discussion and "rehashing" is part of that process. All your arguments are based on your personal assumptions which are ungrounded. For free images related to Maharaji visit commons: . There are plenty of free images there. The aims of the project include a pretty clear Fair Use policy, just in case you have forgotten. Are you putting your editorial pride above it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, thank you for the link to the Commons collection of images. However, those are all images of the same person depicted in the poster at the top of the Millennium '73 article, right? I'm not sure how adding another image of the same person would enhance this article. If there are no free images of the other event participators, using a fair use image is acceptable. That they are all in one image is even better, actually, since that means we only have to use one fair use image. I think that Will's strengthened fair use rationale is much better - it clearly explains the relationship between the people in the photo and the event (they were key speakers) and the actual photo and the event (it was published to accompany the event itself). Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The photo was not taken at the event (I think it is a photo taken eralier the UK), and the assumpion that there are no free images available is just an assumption. The main speaker at the event was Maharaji, and there are photos in commons that could be used. If the article was about the family, the Fair Use would be obvious, but this is not the case here. The overriding argument should be: does the article suffer from not having this image? I would argue it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The photo was included in a publication published specifically for the event, so it is directly connected to it. 2) No one can prove a negative. 3) The people in the photo spoke at the event are therefore integral to it. I feel that this meets fair use for all of the reasons explained in the rationale. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All other images check out fine. Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've also added details to the the fair use rationales for both images on their pages. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * And It Is Divine. Special Millennium Issue, November 1973 - This bibliographic entry gives very little information, such as the author or press or location.
 * I added the location and publisher. The issue contains many unsigned articles and pages, such as the program itself, so there is no author information for those.


 * "Times have changed for Guru", Greeley Tribune: 15, November 22, 1976 - This is missing the author and the date is listed last, when the other citations list it second.
 * There's a debate over how to cite newspaper articles with no author and only a news service. I checked my archives and found the same article in a different paper with a different title on a different day, which actually lists the reporter. So I've swapped that in and adjusted the citation.


 * He made a variety of predictions about his guru and the event, declaring "the lord is on the planet, with a concrete program to end racism, poverty and war." - I would take this sentence out, since it is sourced to a student newspaper. They are not the most reliable publications. Even if they are Harvard. ;)
 * The Harvard Crimson is one of the oldest (founded 1873) and best student newspapers in the U.S. It has had numerous members who've gone on to achieve notability. The author of this piece became a partner in a New York law firm. I have another source (which I can't find right now) that covered the same appearance by Rennie Davis, though I don't recall if he quotes the same line. In any case, there are no lack of Davis quotes available so I'll just remove this one and move the reference down to "External links". Since there is so little online content that doesn't violate copyrights it'd nice to keep it around for readers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several articles taken from porn magazines. I know that the articles are supposed to be "good", but how good? First, can we really use these as reliable sources? Second, if they do quality as RS, do we want to use them? We have an impeccable reputation to uphold, after all. :) I am serious, though, do we want to be seen getting our info from porn magazines?
 * Gortner, Marjoe (May 1974), "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him.", Oui
 * Kelley, Ken (July 1974), "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", Penthouse : 98-100, 137-138, 146, 148, 150-151
 * Latimer, Dean (January 1974), "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and why is he saying all these terrible things about God?", Penthouse: 65-66
 * Scheer, Robert (June 1974), "Death Of The Salesman", Playboy
 * The first, Marjoe Gortner, has been discussed at WP:RSN. The view of uninvolved editors seems to be that Gortner has a significant point of view and that the magazine is a reliable source for his POV. This article had included one contentioius statment, in which he said the attendees, chanting with arms raised trowards the guru, reminded him if "Sieg Heil". The sense at WP:RSN was that that was the only real problem.
 * Gortner does have a unique point of view, having been a child evangelist. However, this POV is never made known in the article. Since Gortner is not a journalist, I would suggest treating his work very carefully. If you are going to use material from his article, use it because it is from his POV and always note it as such in the text. Lumping him in with professional journalists does no favors to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the Gortner reporting is of non-controversial matters, such as the attendance, what was posted on the signboard, what the stage looked like, etc. The one contentious statement which was was a true POV, the Sieg Heil comparison, was attributed to him specifically. We've been discussing this at WP:RSN and there seems to be agreement that it is an adequate source and that the material should be included. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ken Kelley was the journalist who apparently was the most involved in covering the movement during the year prior to the festival. He was writing a book, which was never published, and he wrote articles on the festival for three different publications: Penthouse (magazine), Ramparts Magazine, and Vogue. Penthouse also ran a separate article just on Guru Maharaj Ji.
 * Kelley also wrote on DLM and Millennium '73 topics for The New York Review of Books (in tandem with du Plessix Gray)   ("...Francine Gray and I collaborated closely on our reporting of the Millennium 73..."), and for The New York Times  --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the Penthouse article not in these other articles? Can we just use these others? Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That Kelley article is used for three assertions. One is the age of the eldest brother. It's probably in another source (or at least from another year requiring us to do math), but it hardly seems contentious. The other is as a third source for an exceptional claim, "According to the media, the choice of the Astrodome for the event may have been inspired by a dream of Guru Maharaj Ji in which all of his followers were in a dome while the outside world was destroyed." For remarkable statements like that I think we should include as many sources as possible, even if some are redundant. The third is the description of the WPC as "brutal", which is quoted and attributed to a journalist. This is one of several similar descriptions, but again they are exceptional so I think that having multiple sources is a benefit.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert Scheer has gained a reputation as a notable journalist and commentator. At the time he was already a notable figure on the anti-war left, a friend of Rennie Davis, and a regular freelancer for a number of periodicals before a 17-year stint as national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times. His point of view is notable and his reporting is of the highest standards.
 * But what I'm asking about are the reviewing standards of Playboy - how well did they fact check, for example? Also, why is Scheer not identified as an anti-war leftist in the article? Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We quote the Playboy interview with Jimmy Carter conducted by Robert Scheer, and that article would be incomplete without it. Another prominent journalist who published in Playboy was Alex Haley. It's tough to find 3rd-party sources discussing the editorial practices of any periodical. However I have found a discussion of Playboy's editorial policies in a book on Hunter S. Thompson. Douglas Brinkley, editor, says of a rejected Thompson article, "This was too unhinged for Playboy, too honest. In rejecting what literary historians now deem the first pure example of Gonzo journalism... Playboy's editor composed an internal memo denouncing 'Thompson's ugly, stupid arrogance' as 'an insult to everything we stand for'." Later in the book Thompson's letters mention the Playboy editors and their negative review of the article, which makes it clear that they did have strong editorial oversight. Since Oui was owned by Playboy, it is reasonable to assume that it also had standards. As for Scheer's background, it's indirectly referred to in the sentence, "A number of notable journalists attended, some of them acquaintances of Davis from the New Left." Several writers and journalists had interesting backgrounds, but it seems like it would be distracting to get into their biographies. (Ted Morgan, whose name sounds white-bread American, is a fascinating character.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another book that discusses the editorial policies at Playboy, especially in the context of its interviews, and it goes into length about how those are the benchmark for high quality interviews and that they undergo rigorous fact checking.The Magazine Writer's Handbook. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another. The Magazine Article It describes the editing process for a piece of investigative journlaism. While it doens't get into fact-chekcing per se, it does describe the lengths that the editors went to in order to produce a finally crafted article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting the early 1970s were a time when magazines like these were striving for interesting written content. Just three years later Governor Jimmy Carter was interviewed in Playboy during his presidential campaign. We cite the magazine in numerous articles.
 * These are still pornographic magazines, which carry an editorial control that is not the same as for a mainstream publication. Mixing and matching scholarly material with porno magazine op-eds, and worse, giving them the same weight in the article's narrative, does not bode well for a FA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom did these three magazines in 1973 have editorial control policies different from other publications? Who says that the editors significantly changed the articles submitted by these writers so as to make them unreliable? Please share your evidence.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here, IMO. 1) What were the editorial controls of porn magazines in the 1970s? I'm unsure and that is why I am asking. It is a legitimate question, since their aim was not to produce quality articles. 2) Even if the articles are reliable, do we, as Wikipedia, want to be seen sourcing articles to porn magazines when we don't need to? (Headline: Wikipedians search Playboy for citations while...) If these articles contain essential, reliable information, we should use them, but let's be sure. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Playboy, at least in the 1970s, was more similar to Esquire than to Hustler. Rather than referring to it as a "porn magazine", contemporary sources lumped it in with "men's magazines". Getting back to the broader context, the DLM drew its members from ex-hippies and other counter-culture groups. These men's magazines were among the most respectable publications carrying articles on counter-culture topics and using appropriate journalists. They covered the DLM and the festival in greater detail than TIME or Newsweek. In the case of Scheer, he was specifically invited to attend the event by organizers. This is the reporting that the DLM sought, though of course they expected a different outcome. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting and helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to me and point me to these sources. I really do appreciate it. I withdraw my objection to these sources. Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greenfield, Robert (1975), The Spiritual Supermarket, New York: Saturday Review Press/E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., ISBN 084150367 - The ISBN is missing numbers, as it doesn't link.
 * I don't know why it didn't work - anyway, I found another ISBN that does. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Levy, Phil, "An Expressway over Bliss Mountain", East West Journal - What is the East-West Journal? (Also, please include a publication date and page numbers.)
 * The East West Journal was a publication by Michio Kushi. American editors of a certain age may remember its covers at newsstands.. I'm working from a scan of the article that includes the page number (which I've added) but not the publication date. Based on the contents of the piece, it's easy to guess that it was written in mid-to-late 1973. I've sent a note to the webmaster asking if any more information is available. Anyone who searches on the title of the article will find the posted copy.


 * Pluralism Project (2008), The Rush of Gurus, http://www.pluralism.org/ocg/CDROM_files/hinduism/rush_of_gurus.php. Retrieved on 22 August 2008 - This is reprinted from a CD-ROM (see bottom of website), so we need to have the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've sent an inquiry to the project email. It's probably written by Diana Eck, as her name is in the copyright statement. In the mean time, I've listed here as the editor and made the citation more formal. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the publication information is available on the website. Is there a template for CD-ROMs reprinted on websites? :) Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There oughta be! Anyway, all of the info from the webpage is now included in the citaiton, except for the phone number to order the CD-ROM. Should we include that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah! and be accused of advertising?! Awadewit (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose for now - I'm opposing this article until the issues I have outlined are dealt with. However, I see no reason why these cannot be resolved during the article's time at FAC and I look forward to supporting the article once we have resolved these issues. In general, the article is clear and comprehensive. I did not know what the Millennium '73 was until I read this article - now I do. However, I think that we can improve on the presentation of the material a bit. Thanks to everyone for working so hard to bring this article to FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Double standards, reflecting a certain underlying bias in the narrative. For example, some sentences are properly attributed such as in: Maharaj Ji appeared to be nonplussed by the turnout according to one reporter, but in other instances, the attribution is missing such as in *"Debt" - The DLM leadership had expected that a huge attendance would be followed by generous donations, if not a complete change in the world., which are actually the opinions of two individuals (Downton the author, and Collier's memoir) that are asserted as facts.


 * Impact - Expectations had been raised so high that they could not be fulfilled. Unattributed and unsourced.

There are many other such instances, which requires going through the article with the fine-tooth comb on NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the article in its entirety, and reflecting on the impression it left on me, I come to the following conclusion:
 * Additional comment

Mixing and matching opinions of eye witnesses with scholarly sources results in a strange mixture that does not serve well an encyclopedic article about an event that took place thirty-five years ago.

Eye witnesses accounts and opinions written at the time of the event, are by definition primary sources, and unless placed in the appropriate historical context in which the event took place, we are not serving our readers well. After all, we would not write an article on the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, based on the newspaper articles and op-eds written at the time in the US press. In that case, we may mention the coverage in the US media with some care, but rely mostly on secondary sources such as these books, journals and articles that wrote about that event a posteriori. Why? because historians and scholars will be careful in placing the event in the appropriate historical context, analyzing and summarizing the primary sources available to them (newspaper reporting, opinion pieces, witnesses accounts, etc.), and be able to navigate the obvious anti-Japanese sentiment at the time and present the facts in a neutral and factual manner. In our article, the obvious bias of the 1970's press as it pertains to the counter-culture, the war in Vietnam, the misunderstanding and fear of the society at the time for things foreign that challenged the status quo will be missing from newspaper and op-ed reporting at the time, but be well presented and described by scholarly sources that know how to weigh in the context in their reporting.

In summary, this article as currently written, suffers from the unqualified mixing of scholarly reports on the event with witnesses accounts and other primary sources, resulting in a mishmash that does not read well and that is confusing. Coupled with the lack of attribution (or may I say, the attribution of opinions in some cases, and the lack thereof in others) the article lacks the consistency that would make this not only an interesting article, but one that is neutral, well written, and one we can feel proud of. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you raised the same objections at Peer Review, where it was pointed out that Wikipedia has featured articles entirely sourced to newspaper accounts. You make contradictory arguments here, on the one hand saying that the 1970s press had an obvious bias against counter-culture while at the same time demanding the removal of counter-culture sources. This event was covered by both mainstream media and by new age journalists, by conservatives like Bob Larson and radicals like Robert Scheer. It has been written about or commented on by journalists, a former child preacher, former members, movement leaders, sociologists, political scientists, a psychiatrist, musicians, pundits, historians, policemen, filmmakers, etc. The article makes use of all available reliable sources and fulfills the WP:NPOV requirement of including all significant points of view. That isn't a "mishmash", that's the Wikipedia way. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Will, you are not responding to my arguments in any convincing manner. Go and read Attack on Pearl Harbor, or any other event that took place 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago and show me the same mishmash you have attempted here. I am not arguing that Millennium  was not covered as you say, it was. What I am arguing is about the unecyclopedic manner in which you have mixed sources, and the lack of consistency on your unique reporting and the way you have intermingled scholarly sources, pornographic magazines, witnesses accounts, and press reports.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this page for actionable suggestions on improving the article. General discussions of the article unrelated to FAC belong on the article talk page. I've never seen a complaint any other article mixing scholarly and journalistic sources. Your edit here makes me wonder how familiar you are with WP:V. Anyway, you've given your view. Please let uninvolved FAC reviewers give theirs. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. That was my "closing argument", my contention being that the article needs considerable work, cleanup, and NPOVng to make it to FA. As for your other comments, you can always add a fact to mishmash if so you wish. :)  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I largely agree with your complaint regarding the mixing of newspaper sources and later, scholarly sources. IMO, it is true that we are doing original research in these articles that are based largely on newspaper and magazine articles from the time. However, that is not how Wikipedia has outlined its reliable sources policy. We are therefore bound by its constraints here at FAC. I tried once to oppose an article based on the kind of argument you are making and my oppose was disregarded. Since newspapers and magazines are accepted here at Wikipedia, I feel the best course of action is to make sure that they are used responsibly. Why don't we try to focus on any individual problems that you may have with particular sources or their use in the article. I'm sure that we can work together to make this a clear and well-researched article. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The implication of the last sentence of your comment, that the article wouldn't be well-researched yet, seems a bit of an overstatement in my very humble eyes (I'm not speaking for myself here). Don't let that stop you from finding more sources & checking those used. Best not to jump to conclusions before you do I suppose. Thanks for your useful comments above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * @Awadewit. WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. The policy that WP:RS support is WP:V. But WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR cannot be taken as individual policies, but as a whole. These policies work together to give us the foundation upon which we write Wikipedia articles. Then, we have editorial judgment, which is not expressed in policy. Our editorial judgment is what I am asking we exercise here: do we need to mix and match scholarly and witness accounts in the narrative? Should we be very careful how do we use primary sources? Should we make efforts to provide the necessary historical context in particular when using newspaper accounts of the time? These are questions that cannot be answered by just saying: WP:RS! The research by Will for this article is close to WP:OR and that can only be ameliorated by being very cautious in the use of the material researched. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:V:
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, if you have any specific issues with the article please bring them up here. A discourse on the meaning of WP:V is out of place. Can you point to any assertion in the article that needs verification? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific issues with the article are listed above. The discussion about WP:V amnd WP:RS was in response to Awadewit's comment about his agreement with the concerns I raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * General discussions of WP policies belong elsewhere. Let's keep this discussion focused on actionable issues related to this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments are actionable, Will. (a) Reduce the reliance on primary sources to avoid dabbing on original research; (b) provide a sufficient histoical context so that our readers understand what the article says; (c) attribute all opinions and differentiate them from facts; (d) remove the not-so-subliminal bias, sarcasm and other such devices from the narrative; (e) clearly differentiate newspaper reports from the time from scholarly opinions; and (f) evaluate if the porno magazine material is not available in other sources, or if we can do without it if not crucial for the article, just to name a few of the comments made by me and others here. These are actionable items, and I would argue, require patience, work, and strong collaboration for a couple of months, if not more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A) Momento just added a big chunk of primary source material. Based on your comment here, and on my own comments on the article page, I'll remove it. B) Per Awadewit's request, I'm going to add a paragraph on historical context. C) When two or more sources say the same thing, I think it's not so important to attribute the assertions. D) Already done. E) There's no need. That's not standard practice in any Wikipedia articles. F) This is already discussed and largely settled. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A) Momento just added a big chunk of primary source material. Based on your comment here, and on my own comments on the article page, I'll remove it. B) Per Awadewit's request, I'm going to add a paragraph on historical context. C) When two or more sources say the same thing, I think it's not so important to attribute the assertions. D) Already done. E) There's no need. That's not standard practice in any Wikipedia articles. F) This is already discussed and largely settled. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you need to identify specific spots in the article that are problematic or sources that you feel are unreliable, as I have done. For example, you have asked Will to "attribute all opinions and differentiate them from facts" but this would severely worsen the quality of the prose. We cannot begin every other sentence "According to". I suggest you list the specific opinions in the article that you feel need to be attributed and we can start going through the list together. I find that these meticulous lists are really the only way to discover what the points of contention are in an article. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made some of these changes: . Will continue on these in the next day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think something needs a source, please tag it or bring it here for discussion rather than just deleting it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The quality of the writing is diminishing as Jossi removes generalized statements that guide the reader through the article. These generalized statements are clearly supported by the information that follows and I can see no reason to delete them. Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I hear you. But despite the good work in responding to the FAC so far, I just spent 30 minutes at the library, and upon checking some of the sources I found certain omissions as if the editor who added the source chose to cherry-pick certain parts of the source and omit others (example I added from the source that was used just to assert that the event was a "dismal failure"). That does not give me a good comfort level and casts  a doubt in mind about how other sources have been used. I intend to check other sources in the weeks to come. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi's editing is not helpful, and I wonder whether he's actually read the article. Here he deletes Members reported feelings of disappointment, despite numerous sources that describe member's disappointment. Within 24 hours he adds Thimothy Miller describes the expectations of world transformation held by followers, and although there was some disappointment in the fact that the world continued unchanged after the festival, ..." despite the fact that the article already said According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation... Members reported feelings of disappointment. When I trimmed the redundancy he reverted it, restoring several errors including the misspelled name. When I asked on the talk page what this new material added that wasn't already in the text, he refused to answer and simply pasted a link to his edit. Instead he comes here and complains. Improvements to the article are welcome but redundant text and blind reverts are not improvements, and I do not appreciate Jossi's unfounded attack. Again I ask Jossi to leave the FAC reviewing to uninvolved, objective editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have checked additional sources and found unexplained omissions which you do not address above. See I will now  be checking a couple of sources a day, time permitting, to ensure that the sources are well presented and there are no more unexplained omissions that may be to the detriment of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have feedback on the article? I think we've addressed every specific issue raised here. We've polished the writing, trimmed distracting facts, added context and background, and improved the citations. What's left? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that has worked hard to address concerns and am pleased that he was able to successfully address the points raised by  and others as well. Cirt (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As requested, discussions about the use of sources, omissions, etc. is currently ongoing at article talk instead of here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Do any editors who have't commented already see any issues that need to be fixed to make this article qualify as a Featured Article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I like this article; it seems to capture a lot of the spirit of the times, and would make a great FA. I understand that Jossi and others may want to verify the sourcing and the way that sources have been used, and perhaps make improvements here and there, but I cannot imagine that the article as it stands is very far removed from giving an NPOV summary of the available sources. I hope the outstanding issues can be resolved; the research effort that went into this article deserves to be rewarded with an FA star. Jayen 466 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is almost there,Jayen,  but I would prefer having some more time to check/verify additional sources (see or example, Talk:Millennium_'73) and add some more material related to the historical context in which the event took place. Regardless of the FAC process and its outcome, I will continue the research and submit improvements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi. please read the comment below. Adding more informaiton to tha article isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I hear you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Jayen's comment. It is very important for the credibility of the FAC process to avoid giving FA status as a reward for commendable hard work. When we say that "exemplifies our very best work", we're not referring to the quality of the work that went into building the article. Pichpich (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you're saying. Jayen 466 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is a general reflection on the article. Yes, the prose is not sharp and could certainly be improved throughout in nearly every single paragraph. But mostly, this is from top to bottom just too long for the topic and needs to be trimmed significantly. As it stands, the effect of reading to is to drown in trivia and annoying minutiae. It is good to see the work that has been put it into this, but the editing is too close to the source material and it feels like every single solitary fact that was dug up has somehow got to be introduced into the text. The effect is unremittingly dreary. Summary style my friends, summary style. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose I agree with Eusebus on both counts. There are many places where the article tries to plug-in every possible quote from anyone who reported on the event. This isn't helpful to readers. There are also instances where anecdotes are of little value. (e.g., the bit about KPFT-FM radio station) I also still believe that the writing is still subpar. Again, I'll list a couple of random examples from various parts of the article.
 * The lede still contains this absurd sentence "The DLM had promoted it as the dawning of a new age, but the event failed to meet expectations". It's not as if any event billed as the dawning of a new age can deliver on that promise. Surely, the success of the event using this yardstick. For analogy, suppose Muhammad Ali had once said (he did not but it would have been consistent with his persona) "I'll be heavyweight champ for 100 years". Now imagine the lede saying: "Ali promised to be heavyweight champ for 100 years but failed to meet that expectation".
 * In the first paragraph of the "Media coverage" section. "There were many people who were already antagonistic toward Maharaj Ji and the movement, based mostly on what they had read in newspapers, despite having had no contact with premies". First, flow could be improved by starting with "Many people were". Secondly, the structure of the sentence strongly suggests (though I hope it's not the intention) that these people were wrong. (NPOV alert) Actually, the next sentence is even worse in that respect.
 * "Admission to Millennium '73 was free, unlike other DLM festivals that charged sizable admission fees." No need to repeat "admission"
 * Next sentence: "Despite fundraising beforehand, the festival left the DLM in serious debt caused by much lower than expected attendance and partially by the Holy Family's mismanagement, according to sociologist Thomas Pilarzyk." Unclear: is Pilarzyk's assessment only about the mismanagement?
 * Members reported feelings of disappointment. Should be "Members were disappointed" or something like this. Disappointment is a feeling so no need to use the term "feeling".

The article is just not ready. No shame in that but this still needs work. Pichpich (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cut over a thousand words from the article. It's now 7,881 words, down from 8,723. (Though for some reason Jossi wants to make it longer instead.) Many obscure facts are gone. Each of the items listed by Pichpich have been adressed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly true... I am collaborating with you in the reduction, and we will hopefully get there in a few days, as we are still discussing what to remove and what to keep ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're holding up this FAC for you to complete your review, can you try to go a little faster please? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi has paused his review of the article, so I've asked one of the copyediting volunteers to give the article a once over. Now that the article has been shortened, per requests from Pichpich and Eusebeus, once that copyediting is done I hope that meets every objection. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still oppose I'm sorry but prose and conciseness still a problem (see again a short list of specific examples below). I'd like to stress again that it will take more than a few fixes here and there to get to criterion 1a quality. It also seems obvious to me that the article was brought here too early: the modifications made over the course of this FAC are massive, content-wise, prose-wise, source-wise. The FAC process isn't designed to handle this, as the chaotic debate above shows. My suggestion is still to close this FAC, build on the progress of this past month and restart the FAC in a couple of months when the polishing is complete. Here are a few specific issues, pretty representative of the article's current shortcomings:
 * The paragraph "Rainbow Brigade" has no flow. Most sentences are very short and I believe this is due to a willingness to cite just about every source. But almost all of the info given is of little if any value. The focus should be on the most relevant and most revealing facts. These are hard choices to make but they have to be made for the sake of conciseness and clarity.
 * The World Peace Corps (WPC) was the DLM's security force at the event. Raja Ji, Maharaj Ji's 19-year-old youngest brother, was its head. Flow can be improved by merging the two sentences.
 * Paragraph right after that: again, it's ok to quote multiple sources but having a source for each adjective is not helpful. In "ironic, or doublespeak, and compared to the Big Lie", all three sources convey the same idea in different terms and with various degrees of harshness. It's not original research to condense this.

Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the listed items. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is Pichpich's third bolded "oppose". There is no reason to keep bolding your duplicate opposes over and over again. Your opinion has already been noted. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty sad comment. I'm bolding my oppose because it has repeatedly been claimed that my concerns have been addressed. I feel that this is not the case. I think there are still major flaws with the article and I've tried my best to explain my concerns. I don't think it's a bad article, I just think that it's not up to the high standards of FA. I've been involved in a number of FACs before but I've never seen such thuggish undertones from article's supporters. If you don't want my honest opinion, then don't include the article on the FAC board. I'm done here, I've made my case and I don't need this kind of hostility. But you don't obtain FA status for an article by driving away editors who have concerns. Pichpich (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pichpich, as far as I'm concern you can say "oppose" as many times you like as long as we all keep trying to improve the article. When I said I'd addressed each of the concerns you'd specifcally raised, I didn't mean to imply that every copyediting issue had been solved. As I noted in response to you below, I'have asked a volunteer copyeditor to help out and he said he was going to be able to help eariler in the week, but he must have gotten busy with other matters. If I understand your objections correctly, you're principally concerned with the copyediting. I repsind to your other points below. Let's all assume good faith and keep our eye on the ball. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pichpich, there have actually been only relatively minor changes to the article during this process, except in repsone to requests from reviewers. (For some reason, an editor made some organizational changes today, but I don't believe there were any content changes). A copyeditor had promised to go over the article this week, but I guess he got busy with other projects. I'll address the specific issues you raise, though I realize that it's not a complete list. Would you be willing to copyedit the article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why state in the lead that attendance was between 10,000 and 35,000 then state that the generally agreed attendance is 20,000 in the main body? Either the lead should reflect the body's "about 20,000" interpretation or the "Attendance" section should discuss people's conflicting estimates as the lead suggests. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've flipped them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Background:
 * Wikilink and show DLM abbreviation for Divine Light Mission. I know this is done previously in the lead but I think it's usual practice to link and abbreviate in the first use in the body (though correct me if I'm wrong!).
 * Done.
 * I think you should settle on either "Bal Bhagwan Ji" or "Satpal Rawat". Mention of alternate names only serves to complicate things at this point in the article and the son's name should follow the examples set by the names of the father and mother (i.e. the Ji name not the Rawat name).
 * Done. (These folks all have multiple names so there's a tradeoff between confusing readers with too few or too many!)
 * Fix to "five million members" not "5"
 * Done.
 * In this sentence: "Most of the western followers were young people from the counterculture", by counterculture to you mean this or some other kind of counter culture? Either wikilink or, alternately, briefly specify the specific movement.
 * Done.
 * "a festival to commemorate the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji Maharaj," I would rephrase this as "a festival to commemorate Hans Ji Maharaj's birthday on November 9,"
 * Done.
 * "including thousands from the US and UK flown to India" would flow easier stated as "thousands from the US and UK who had flown to India"
 * Done.
 * "The 1973 Hans Jayanti – so Mata Ji and the 22-year-old Bal Bhagwan Ji had decided – would be the first one to be held in the United States rather than India" rephrase as "Mata Ji and the 22-year-old Bal Bhagwan Ji decided that the 1973 Hans Jayanti would be..."
 * Done.
 * "the news media": Is this an Americanism? Normally I would call it "the press" or simply "the media". The current phrase jars a bit with me.
 * Done.
 * "The movement invested all of its resources in the event". Really? All its resources? I would interpret this to include any property the movement held, if any, and all money received through member contributions. I find this particularly surprising: was this the case? If not I would rephrase this as a "significant amount of it's resources" or something more specific if possible.
 * That's almost a direct quote from a scholar. ("The event had been scheduled to take place at the Houston Astrodome and all of the group's resources were poured into the event. When the anticipated large crowds failed to materialize, deep debt effectively crippled the group.") Not only was there intense fundraising before the event (see below), but after the event many assets had to be sold to pay the debt. Followers were even asked to contribute their personal possessions to be sold at rummage sales. The cost was estimated at just under $1 million, which is probably less than the total assets of the group, but that's hard to say for sure since the group's assets and the guru's assets were somewhat mingled.
 * "Members were under pressure to contribute money". I perceive this to mean that the members were told to contribute, perhaps even to their own significant and personal economic detriment. Is this the case? Do not rephrase if the sources state that this is indeed so. Otherwise, a phrase such as "strongly encouraged to contribute" does not have the same sinister overtones. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
 * There are two sources cited for that, though I could probably find more. The specific citation which would address your question is from the Washington Post. "...most of the costs appear to be supported by the sacrifical giving of the believers. Since the Millennium festival was first announced the premies have been under heavy pressure to give as generously as they could to its support." The second citation is more of an example. A group of premies sharing a household had enough of their own money to buy a house, but were told to send the money to headquarters instead to help pay for the event. An official is quoted as saying, "That's simply the worst idea we've heard yet...Well who do you think is gonna pay for [the festival]? If you've got money like that you should send it to Denver, to National Headquarters. If we all work together as a group we can spread Knowledge. We can bring peace. But when premies are all looking out for their own little trips, in their own little towns, it's not going to work at all. ...Look, don't buy the house. Send the money to Denver ... Remember, this is a national movement." [original emphasis]
 * Thanks for these helpful suggestions. Any further feedback on these or other issues is welcome. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your reponses allay my concerns about the phrasing. Thanks for taking the time to explain the sources and reason your wording. Given the sources, the article's interpretation appears to be well conveyed. The idea of "all resources" and the mix of Rawat's property and DLM property makes things difficult. However, I think it's fine as it stands. Lack of clarity of asset ownership tends to be a common problem in new religious movements. I'll look to find more problems in other sections shortly. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * :Oppose - This is an appalling article. It over flows with ridiculous quotes provided by an antagonistic media. As one source noted about an article by the Village Voice's Marilyn Webb that featured her: "The article went on and on as if she were being paid by the word, no matter how trivial or inaccurate, obscuring and misrepresenting my actions and beliefs". This article follows the same course. Complete with weasel words to justify inclusions, such as "may have been inspired by a dream of Guru Maharaj", "may also have been chosen ", "One rumor said" and numerous absurd comments from "one person" or "one source" etc. And then the punch line, the festival was "a dismal failure,[147] a fiasco,[148] a major setback,[16] a disastrous rally,[149] a great disappointment,[150] a "depressing show unnoticed by most". "ruined dreams".[161]. The excitement was over."[162]  disenchanted, "faith was brutally dashed to bits", a "bomb". Yes Will we get your point. I think this article is "a dismal failure,[147] a fiasco,[148] a major setback,[16] a disastrous rally,[149] a great disappointment,[150] a "depressing show unnoticed by most". "ruined dreams".[161]. The excitement was over."[162]  disenchanted, "faith was brutally dashed to bits" , a "bomb". Momento (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, as the "[X]s" indicate, those assertions are all sourced. You've been working on the article for two and a half months, so it's as much your article as anyones. The article includes both negative comments and positive, incluing from the mission's leaders. It even includes the comment you quote above. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's OK if I create a section and list every positive comment? And yes I have removed a lot of the excesses and added some balance but it is still an appalling article because you wrote and structured it without consultation. Perhaps you would allow me the same privilege? One week to restructure and re-write. It will be half the length and considerable better written.Momento (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. The "Impact" section includes a variety of viewpoints, including positive ones. It certainly doesn't include every negative comment. I've never seen a requirement to consult prior to writing an article. If you want to write an article on your own I'm not going to complain. Even with over 2 million articles there are still many topics waiting to be covered. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In its current state, it's certainly a nice article, but significantly short of FA standards.
 * The prose is not "engaging, even brilliant". Many examples have been provided by other reviewers showing the deficiency. I can provide further examples on the article's talk page, upon request. This is not something a phrase-by-phrase fix or a general copyedit will easily correct. A substantial rewriting of the article is needed here.
 * Yes, please do provide further examples.
 * The lede has nine citations. One or two for the purpose of citing some general or introductory information would be appropriate. This material should be cited in the body of the text. The current third paragraph of the introduction is the principal culprit.
 * Removed. I believe everything is cited again later.
 * The article is riddled with far too many quotations. Quotes should be used sparingly. Leaving aside other concerns on the issue, excessive quotations and brilliant prose are mutually exclusive.
 * I've substantially reduced the number of quotes and quotation marks. As for t ageneral principle, I checked over all of the guides for better FA writing, and Shrunk & White, and can't find anything about this beyond User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, which says: "Personally, I like very much quotes and inboxes. But, again, don't overdo it! Huge and repetitive quotes interrupt the article flow. Quotes offer what Cla68 calls the 'human element'." Can you give me more direction on how many quotes are too many, or to a writing manual which says that using quotes is mutually exclusive with brilliant prose?
 * The article relies far too heavily on contemporary material and primary sources. That is not to say historical sources should not be used! They should be used as a complement to later secondary and tertiary sources. The article should reflect the current state of scholarship. If the general body of secondary and tertiary reliable sources do not feel that certain aspects are important to note, we should not be substituting our own judgment on that score.
 * There are hardly any primary sources, and those are mostly to support the secondary sources. I believe the article does make good use of the most recent reliable sources, particularly in the final "Impact" section which reviews the longterm effect of the festival on the movement. Are you familiar with the sources? By my count, there are at least 10 sources from within the last 8 years, but most of those don't go into any detail about the festival so it would be hard to use them more than we do already.
 * The use of several citations for single statements is disruptive and ugly. There is no need for such over-citation. Cite one or two of the most reliable sources.
 * I'm working on rducing those. While multiple sources are ugly, they help establish the relevance of information and the amount of weight to give to a detail or opinion. They are not a reflection of editorial disputes, but of expected disputes that never happened.

It should be noted that heavy lead citations, extensive primary source reliance, overabundant quotations and excessive citations are generally red flags indicating significant problems with the article and/or deep-rooted editorial disputes. The above is not a comprehensive list of problems, but rather some of the most obvious and vexing problems present in the article. The article is interesting and extensive, but needs considerable work to reach featured article standards. Vassyana (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your input is welcome, but if you could be more specific about what writing or sourcing improvements you think are need that would help. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the positive and cooperative response. In a day or so I will compile a list and post it to the article talk page to avoid cluttering the FAC too much. I will try to be specific, or at the least point out benchmark examples, as much as possible. The article has quite a bit of potential and I'm glad to help you with detailed feedback. Vassyana (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw a request at WT:FAC for uninvolved editors to throw in an opinion. I know nothing about this topic, but know a fair bit about FAC. I'll say what I see, below. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments by User:Dweller
 * OR concerns


 * "one of the fastest-growing religious movements in the West" in the Lead. Can't see this repeated in body text and as it's uncited because it's Lead, I have OR concerns. (And PEACOCK) --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to cite


 * "the most significant event in human history"- not repeated outside of Lead, so needs citing there or repeat+cite elsewhere, or delete from Lead. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Later writers included it among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s." I can't see this mentioned and cited outside of the Lead, so ditto to previous comment. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * POV concerns


 * "The highlight of each day" - says who? Highlight is not a neutral term. If I'd have been there, perhaps I would have considered it the worst part of the day. Perhaps not. But we can't use a term like that. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarity


 * "One sociologist wrote that it was the most important development in the American movement's history." Similar sentence also appears in lead. It's unclear that you presumably mean the DLM when you call it "the American movement". --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.