904:
program and was quoted by secondary sources. The other is a transcription of a talk he gave at the event, which is quoted in several articles. The last source on the list is a website belonging to the Indian branch of the movement, and it is used simply to show that the festival has been celebrated again. I don't see how the use of any of these sources is improper. Perhaps Jossi could be more specific about his objection to them. Lastly, this article hardly qualifies as a coatrack: an article that purports to be about one topic but is really about another. With the exceptions of minimal background material, followups, and explanatory notes, everything in the article is directly related to the event.
868:
saying all these terrible things about God?", Penthouse magazine) without attribution and without consideration for historical context. For example, we would not write an article on the
Japanese people, based on the newspaper articles from US media in the weeks after Pearl Harbor, right? We will be much more circumspect in how we use newspaper reports and op-eds and chose to rely more heavily in scholarly sources (that take in consideration the historical context of events).
201:
all. I added the
Astrodome capacity to the intro. A point of confusion is that some events have been staged there which have drawn greater than capacity crowds over a day or more. For instance, Elvis held two concerts in one day that attracted a total of something like 85,000 fans (possbily some people attending both performances). The missing word was already fixed. I'll keep working on choppy sentences and short paragraphs.
645:. I am pretty sure that the convention in that case would be to just specify "TIME staff" and "Newsweek staff" in the author fields, though if there are multiple different references with those exact same author fields the second specification by date might (hopefully) kick in as well. I admit I am relatively new to this type of formatting as well, but I think it is a neat and helpful tool.
520:. Good use of blockquoting and bulleted lists to break things up, but the present amount does actually flow well with the article text as well. One recommendation I'd make which would be a tad bit of work but would make things easier in the future for research/referencing is to reformat the Notes/References section using
978:
Being disappointed is your choice, Will. I have read the article several times, and expressed my concerns clearly. You may want to dismiss them if you want, but for me it is simply and extension of my original conecern expressed: NPOV is achieved when there is a vigorous debate and not when an editor
278:
is both sweeping and unspecific, so it's impossible to respond. For useful input, please be more specific. As for your last point, the article is mature and fairly stable. The edits over the past weeks have been fairly minor and specific concerns have been addressed. All comprehensive articles should
200:
Thanks for your input. I fixed the citations so that they all appear following punctuation. I've added "(DLM)" and a better explanation for the
Jayanti festival ("Jayanti" apparently means "festival", so we have to avoid tautology). I've cut some of the chopy sentences, but I don't know if I got them
873:
If you take this article and re-write it based on the scholarly sources available and use judiciously newspaper reports and op-eds of the time properly attributed, you may end up with an article that is neutral, encyclopedic, and useful. Until that time, this article will probably remain in the real
258:
Another issue is related to process. I read above an intention to submit this article to FAC, but I have yet to see this article making it to GA, which may be a better first attempt. In any case, the article has yet to reach a stage of stability and maturity to warrant an GA nomination, let alone an
867:
In addition, the article mixes and matches reputable scholars, such as
Richardson, alongside tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, pulp magazines, yellow journalism (example "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him." in Oui magazine, or "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and why is he
625:
Ah. Another question that you or someone else might be able to answer is how to handle unsigned articles. Most TIME and
Newsweek articles are unsigned, as are some items in newspapers. When it is attributed to the AP or UPI I use those as the author, but sometimes there's nothing. The citations are
114:
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it ready for featured article status. I believe the article is neutral, comprehensive, and well-sourced. In addition to general suggestions, I'm particularly interested in help with the intro (maybe outside eyes can do a better job of
903:
was their newspaper. Both of those publications are used as sources in a number of scholarly papers. The Bass article is a review of press coverage of the event and isn't a primary source. One of the pieces by
Maharaj Ji was the letter inviting followers to attend, which was published in the event
423:
Whether the comparison to Sarah Palin related articles is appropriate I don't know (Palin is now in the center of attention, probably not even at the top of her fame, for Rawat and related events that was 35 years ago), but I'd urge jossi nonetheless to list as clearly as possible which sources he
661:
I swapped templates - that was easy because the fields are mostly the same. "TIME staff" isn't too bad, but "Syracuse Post-Standard staff" is a bit clunkier. Even so, if the links work it'll be worth it. I'll start converting some refs to the Harvnb template and see how it works. Thanks for the
294:
The NOR concern is clearly stated: you are using primary sources that have never been published in secondary sources for large portions of the article. That is quite specific don't you think? The article, who carries an NPOV tag for the last week or so, if far for being mature or stable. Happy
822:
I am very aware that I make mistakes and it may be I have completely missed the point of Jossi's comments. Jossi, I would really appreciate it if you would identify some of the problem sources as you see them. Perhaps pick a section and give the specific problems you see in that section as an
810:
I do not watchlist peer reviews I do, so I did not see the developments here until a few hours ago. I just went back and looked at the refs again - there are a few primary refs from the
Maharaj Ji (sp?), but I did not see more than two of those (although there are likely a few more from other
1046:
Thanks for your input. I agree with your classification of primary/secondary sources. And yes, the templates: not my favorite part of editing. I'm working through converting the cites to some fancy citation scheme. I know it'll be great when it's done, but doing the converting is a pain.
254:
Although primary sources can be used to make descriptive claims about the information found in a primary source, there is isubstantial nformation in the article relies heavily on primary sources which have not been described, studied and/or reported on secondary and reliable sources.
440:
The article, as written by WillBeback, contains dozens of errors. Example "probably" and "maybe" are not synonymous. "Members of the DLM" is not the same as "some members" etc. And, either coincidently or deliberately, the errors produce an article with a decided anti-GMJ
455:
This page is here to garner specific suggestions for future improvements to the article from uninvolved editors, not to rehash old disputes among partisans. That type of discussion is more appropriate on the article talk page, where you've already made the same point.
573:
because the article is so thickly-cited that including the author and year in the text would be disruptive, IMO. I didn't realize it could work with having the citaiton info in the footnotes. I do like how the cites work in those two articles you mention.
350:
That I wrote the original draft without your input seems to bother you as you keep bringing it up. Your input is invited now. Please say which sources are a problem. Apparently, I do need your help in identifying them. I'm also interested in how you edit
861:
The above sources have never been reported or described in secondary sources, and are being used to support dozen of paragraphs in the article and entire sections. Other primary sources, are all the historical newspaper reports and op-eds of the
385:
I mention the Palin article becuase it uses the same kinds of sources. I'm not sure I even understand your point about "primary sources that have not been mentioned or described in any secondary sources". I don't see anything about that in
370:
Sarah Palin? What does that bio has to do with the article discussed here? The NOR concerns are related to the primary sources you hav used in the article, sources which have not been described and/or referred to in secondary sources.
332:, which is understandable. The primary sources used in the article, that have not been mentioned or described in any secondary sources, are quite obvious. You do not need my help in identifying these as you wrote the article
943:
How is that a violation of NOR? In another case, we use a letter as a source for a phrase that has been repeated in a dozen or more secondary sources, but in the letter we get the full sentence.
133:: Here are some suggestions for improvement. It is fascinating and seems pretty close to FAC ready to me, so my comments will be pretty nit-picky. If you want more comments, please ask here.
1072:
503:
238:
The article has numerous problems many of which are being discussed by involved editors in the article's talk page, so I will not address these here. My main concern relates to
599:
is the preferred citation template, but it is pretty standardized and improves uniformity, and also I think the other individualized templates don't work in conjunction with
103:
926:. If that is the case, use the secondary sources, and not the primary source. That is standard practice and will avoid violations of WP:NOR that are abundant.
217:
Flows better - a trick that works for me is to print it out and read it out loud slowly (especially after a few days of not working on it or rerading it).
152:
Hans
Jayanti commemorates the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji. It was the largest of three annual (and numerous ad hoc) festivals that the DLM celebrated.
310:
70:
853:
Maharaj Ji (November 1973), "A Letter From Guru
Maharaj Ji, Bonn, Germany September 31, 1973", And It Is Divine: 2, Special Millennium '73 Edition
158:
Hans
Jayanti,the largest of three annual (and numerous ad hoc) festivals that the DLM celebrated, commemorates the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji.
946:
How does quoting a published letter, while making no conclusions from the source, qualify as original research? I don't understand your point.
66:
156:
There are a fair number of short semi-choppy sentences that break up the flow - the preceding example could be combined to something like
246:
The article contains information that has been never published, nor by the media, neither by scholars, violating the principle stated in
51:
244:
Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original thought: all material in Knowledge (XXG) must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
819:. Magazines and journals are valid sources - they generally fact check and can be sued if they misrepresent / libel in their coverage.
1077:
789:
This is not a GA nomination. This is a peer review. If you have any specific suggestins for improving the article they'd be welcome.
1048:
998:
962:
947:
905:
790:
729:
714:
681:
663:
627:
575:
457:
391:
356:
314:
280:
202:
116:
252:
Knowledge (XXG) articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.
43:
177:
499:
961:
I'm disappointed that Jossi, an admin, makes accusations of policy violations without providing any evidence of those claims.
775:
One of the criteria needed for GA is stability (#5 @ WP:WIAGA). Are editors here saying that this article is "stable"? How?
532:
150:
Some places could do a better job of providing context - I though "Hans Jayanti" was another family member at first in
143:
Hans Ji's widow, Mata Ji, and her 22-year-old eldest son, Bal Bhagwan Ji (pronounced "Baba-gwan-gee" by followers) ...
429:
1040:
838:
328:
Obviously, when one works in the opaqueness of a private sandbox for a long time, there would be a tendency to
268:
211:
195:
125:
17:
626:
otherwise sorted by author, but I've sorted unsigned pieces by the name of the publication. Is that correct?
1057:
1007:
988:
971:
956:
935:
914:
886:
799:
784:
754:
738:
723:
708:
690:
672:
656:
636:
620:
584:
550:
466:
450:
433:
400:
380:
365:
345:
323:
304:
289:
232:
95:
816:
313:
does. If you have a specific objection then please raise it. If not please don't snipe at a good article.
176:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
1054:
1004:
968:
953:
911:
796:
735:
720:
687:
669:
633:
581:
463:
425:
397:
362:
320:
286:
208:
122:
875:
141:
references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so move the in
59:
940:
One of those is used simply as an additional reference to a speech that has seven secondary sources.
1030:
828:
493:
222:
185:
562:
558:
536:
485:
481:
811:
authors). I did see a lot of newspaper and magazine sources, but these are secondary sources (
593:
566:
525:
446:
115:
summarizing the topic). Suggestions on handling the citations wouold also be welcome. Thanks,
387:
138:
1051:
1001:
965:
950:
908:
793:
732:
717:
684:
666:
630:
578:
460:
394:
359:
317:
283:
205:
119:
994:
511:
329:
275:
247:
239:
99:
984:
931:
882:
780:
603:
570:
521:
376:
341:
300:
264:
36:
529:
507:
172:
There are a few two sentence paragraphs - could they be combined with others or expanded?
1026:
824:
750:
704:
677:
I changed the first two cites to the Harvnb template, but the links don't seem to work.
652:
616:
546:
489:
218:
181:
1066:
274:
The NOR concern has not been raised on the article talk page. The claim of violating
168:
A member that that was probably an example of lila, the guru's divine game-playing.
442:
920:
Both of those publications are used as sources in a number of scholarly papers. '
424:
considers primary and/or used inappropriately. Vagueness doesn't help, indeed. --
352:
895:
Those are (or were) all publications of the movement that sponsored the event.
980:
927:
878:
776:
372:
355:
without violating NOR if newspapers and magazines are not acceptable sources.
337:
296:
260:
815:
primary sources). For an example of a FA with almost entirely news refs, see
993:
Do I take it that you are dropping your assertion that the article violates
941:
745:
699:
647:
611:
541:
944:
1025:
PS Ref 5 is broken - not sure how to fix it as I do not use Harvard refs.
850:
Maharaj Ji (November 10, 1973), A Very Big Little Mystery, Houston, Texas
502:), who seems to be both previously uninvolved in this article, NPOV, and
924:
the letter inviting followers to attend was quoted by secondary sources
279:
be edited with an eye towards bringing them up to GA and FA standards.
847:
Bass, Jim (June 1, 1974), "Millennium Scoops The Press", Divine Times
163:
I would mention the capacity of the Astrodome earlier in the article.
979:
works in the opacity of a private sandbox. So there is work to do.
528:. What this will end up looking like is something like the
517:
It is fascinating and seems pretty close to FAC ready to me
147:
Put "(DLM)" after the first mention of Divine Light Mission
480:
An excellent, comprehensive article that easily satisfies
539:, and will make things easier on future readers/editors.
98:
review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
997:? If not, please point to the problem so we can fix it.
695:
678:
642:
516:
85:
78:
47:
713:
I see, I was using "author" instead of "first, last".
641:
I just did some minor reformatting along those lines
1073:Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews
569:now the preferred template? I've avoided using
160:(not sure of tense - used the ones in there).
8:
728:Working perfectly now, thanks for the help.
295:editing and good luck with a GA nomination.
180:(which is how I found this article). Yours,
111:This peer review discussion has been closed.
844:The primary sources I am referring to are:
488:as well. I agree with the above comment by
94:A script has been used to generate a semi-
311:Public image and reception of Sarah Palin
309:That article no more violates NOR than
7:
856:Manavdharam.org "Audio-Video Satsang
178:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/backlog
24:
330:have some editor's pride at play
899:was their monthly magazine and
680:Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
557:The references now mostly use
233:11:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
212:22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
196:01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
126:01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
102:style; it can be found on the
1:
808:Additional Ruhrfisch comments
823:example. I hope this helps,
533:The General in His Labyrinth
1058:03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1041:02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1008:01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
989:00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
972:22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
957:20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
936:20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
915:18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
887:13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
839:02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
800:20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
785:19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
755:19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
739:19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
724:19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
709:19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
691:18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
673:18:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
657:18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
637:18:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
621:17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
585:17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
551:17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
467:17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
451:17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
434:16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
401:20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
381:19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
366:16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
346:16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
324:16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
305:14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
290:01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
269:01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
1094:
512:Featured Article Candidate
104:automated peer review page
1078:October 2008 peer reviews
817:Virginia Tech massacre
106:for September 2008.
743:No probs. Cheers,
563:Template:cite news
559:Template:cite book
537:Mario Vargas Llosa
504:highly experienced
131:Ruhrfisch comments
1037:
987:
934:
885:
835:
783:
589:I am not sure if
567:Template:Citation
526:Template:Citation
379:
344:
303:
267:
229:
192:
86:Watch peer review
1085:
1035:
983:
930:
897:And It Is Divine
881:
833:
779:
608:
602:
598:
592:
426:Francis Schonken
375:
340:
299:
263:
242:, in particular
227:
190:
166:Missing a word?
83:
74:
55:
26:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1063:
1062:
1034:
832:
606:
600:
596:
590:
571:Template:Harvnb
522:Template:Harvnb
226:
189:
89:
64:
41:
35:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1091:
1089:
1081:
1080:
1075:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1031:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
959:
890:
889:
870:
869:
864:
863:
859:
858:
857:
854:
851:
848:
829:
805:
804:
803:
802:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
726:
711:
554:
553:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
438:
437:
436:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
236:
235:
223:
186:
174:
173:
170:
164:
161:
154:
148:
145:
113:
108:
107:
91:
90:
88:
34:
30:
28:Millennium '73
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1090:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1068:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1028:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
970:
967:
964:
960:
958:
955:
952:
949:
945:
942:
939:
938:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
918:
917:
916:
913:
910:
907:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
891:
888:
884:
880:
877:
872:
871:
866:
865:
860:
855:
852:
849:
846:
845:
843:
842:
841:
840:
837:
836:
826:
820:
818:
814:
809:
801:
798:
795:
792:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
756:
752:
748:
747:
742:
741:
740:
737:
734:
731:
727:
725:
722:
719:
716:
712:
710:
706:
702:
701:
697:
694:
693:
692:
689:
686:
683:
679:
676:
675:
674:
671:
668:
665:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
649:
644:
640:
639:
638:
635:
632:
629:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
613:
605:
595:
588:
587:
586:
583:
580:
577:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
552:
548:
544:
543:
538:
534:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
475:
468:
465:
462:
459:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
402:
399:
396:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
358:
354:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
322:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
234:
231:
230:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
207:
204:
198:
197:
194:
193:
183:
179:
171:
169:
165:
162:
159:
155:
153:
149:
146:
144:
140:
136:
135:
134:
132:
128:
127:
124:
121:
118:
112:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
87:
82:
81:
77:
72:
68:
63:
62:
58:
53:
49:
45:
40:
39:
33:
32:
29:
19:
1029:
1024:
923:
919:
901:Divine Times
900:
896:
827:
821:
812:
807:
806:
744:
698:
662:suggestion.
646:
610:
540:
515:
496:
477:
333:
257:
251:
243:
237:
221:
199:
184:
175:
167:
157:
151:
142:
130:
129:
110:
109:
79:
75:
61:Article talk
60:
56:
37:
27:
1052:Will Beback
1002:Will Beback
966:Will Beback
951:Will Beback
909:Will Beback
876:WP:COATRACK
794:Will Beback
733:Will Beback
718:Will Beback
685:Will Beback
667:Will Beback
631:Will Beback
579:Will Beback
514:processes:
508:peer review
461:Will Beback
395:Will Beback
360:Will Beback
353:Sarah Palin
318:Will Beback
284:Will Beback
206:Will Beback
120:Will Beback
48:visual edit
1067:Categories
1033:<: -->
1027:Ruhrfisch
981:≈ jossi ≈
928:≈ jossi ≈
922:Which? ;
879:≈ jossi ≈
831:<: -->
825:Ruhrfisch
777:≈ jossi ≈
696:Fixed it.
490:Ruhrfisch
373:≈ jossi ≈
338:≈ jossi ≈
297:≈ jossi ≈
261:≈ jossi ≈
225:<: -->
219:Ruhrfisch
188:<: -->
182:Ruhrfisch
96:automated
594:Citation
500:contribs
486:WP:WIAFA
482:WP:WIAGA
478:Comment:
334:in tutto
506:in the
443:Momento
388:WP:PSTS
139:WP:CITE
71:history
52:history
38:Article
995:WP:NOR
985:(talk)
932:(talk)
883:(talk)
781:(talk)
604:Harvnb
530:WP:FAs
377:(talk)
342:(talk)
301:(talk)
276:WP:NOR
265:(talk)
248:WP:NOR
240:WP:NOR
1032:: -->
862:time.
830:: -->
565:. Is
441:bias.
259:FAC.
224:: -->
187:: -->
100:house
80:Watch
16:<
1049:·:·
999:·:·
963:·:·
948:·:·
906:·:·
791:·:·
751:talk
746:Cirt
730:·:·
715:·:·
705:talk
700:Cirt
682:·:·
664:·:·
653:talk
648:Cirt
643:here
628:·:·
617:talk
612:Cirt
576:·:·
561:and
547:talk
542:Cirt
535:and
524:and
510:and
494:talk
484:and
458:·:·
447:talk
430:talk
392:·:·
357:·:·
315:·:·
281:·:·
203:·:·
137:Per
117:·:·
67:edit
44:edit
1055:·:·
1005:·:·
969:·:·
954:·:·
912:·:·
874:of
813:not
797:·:·
736:·:·
721:·:·
688:·:·
670:·:·
634:·:·
582:·:·
464:·:·
398:·:·
363:·:·
321:·:·
287:·:·
209:·:·
123:·:·
1069::
753:)
707:)
655:)
619:)
609:.
607:}}
601:{{
597:}}
591:{{
549:)
449:)
432:)
390:.
336:.
250::
84:•
69:|
50:|
46:|
1036:°
834:°
749:(
703:(
651:(
615:(
545:(
497:·
492:(
445:(
428:(
228:°
191:°
76:·
73:)
65:(
57:·
54:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.