Talk:Ron Geaves/Archive 1

I included the paragraph about Geaves' writing about Rawat with the one example of his claiming that Rawat had no idea of premies' expectations at the Millenium festival contrasted with Rawat's own words from his invitation to that festival. Wasn't sure how to do the citation for the letter but here it is, if anyone's interested:

http://ex-premie.org/papers/millenium_invit_letter.htm

Here's the text:

A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI

Bonn, Germany

September 31, 1973

Dear premies,

First of all, I would like to tell you about something of great importance to all of us. Because we have realized this beautiful Knowledge which is of great bliss to us all, it is our duty to propagate it to the human race. For it is something they really need.

In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. It is understood by all that the world is passing through a great moment. No one has satisfaction of mind nor can they find the solution to this. The world is looking for the Perfect Master to come and reveal the Perfect Knowledge of God. There is a supreme energy constantly vibrating in everything making it survive and all the Perfect Masters coem to reveal this Knowledge to people. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism.

As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America.

I think that Millenium '73 is a point where we can really get together and enjoy the bliss bliss with all of our borthers and sisters who are premies; and also tell the world that we have received and realized the permanent service of Truth, Consciousness and Bliss which all the world is looking for in one way or manner.

To do this I really need your help. I really need the help of all the premies in all respects; physically, financially and all other ways to make Millenium '73 come off. This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe.

I hereby invite you to this Divine Festival of Peace, Millenium '73 and request all premies to help me financially, physically and spiritually to make the program manifest for all seekers of Truth.

Isn't it about time you all get together and help me bring peace to this Earth?

Blessings to you all,

[Sant Ji Maharaj]

Jim, although everything what you write seems true and verifiable, I do not think that such a comparison of his articles with primary source material is appropriate here because it goes far too much into detail. Andries 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened to my edit? Isn't there some sort of rule against anonymous, unannounced edits? Isn't that called vandalism on Wikipedia? Anyway, it's going back up.--Jim Heller 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted as it is an opinion rather than facts. See WP:NPOV and WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was you. Well the edit's going back and if keep vandalizing I'll report you.--Jim Heller 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edit cannot stay because:

• it is an opinion
• it does not have any reputable sources that support that opinion

To understand how to reference your edits in Wikipedia please read WP:CITE and WP:RS

Please note that you have reverted this three time already. Please read WP:3RR ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who reverted, you shameless editor, you! Besides, you're wrong. My edit was a report of opinions, ones that Geaves himself has acknowledged in his own internet reply to his critics. My text returns.--Jim Heller 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you tone down your personal attacks. You were penalized once already because of that. Please note that you are now in violation of the WP:3RR rule. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And I would suggest that you stop reverting my edit. Yours is the reversion, not mine. There was nothing at all on the subject until my addition earlier today.

Do you really think, by the way, that Geaves is not caught in a major bit of mischief here? And not on an incidental point but one that goes to the very heart of his "work" as a Rawat apologist: to cast Rawat in as good a light as possible, even if it means lying and scapegoating others for his mistakes. What other possible explanation do you think Geaves could have for getting this so wrong? Rawat's letter inviting everyone to Millenium was a public, well-known document in the cult, oh sorry, group. Maybe you weren't around then but Geaves was. He knows full well that Rawat supported the wild expectations. If he didn't he's inept and a terrible historian. In any event, this evidence flies in the face of his thesis but, as before with his work, he doesn't seem to care. He's a premie.--24.69.30.212 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are bypsssing your block for WP:3RR by using an IP address to continure reverting, This have been now reported as well on the Administrator's noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a more likely explanation is that Jim simply forgot to log in, instead of wanting to by-pass his block by editing anynonymously. Andries 06:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Geaves' trustworthiness as a Rawat scholar

Rather than get into another reversion war, I'll do it this way. I propose posting the same paragraph I put up the other day. Obviously, you premies don't like it but the fact is, it's apparent beyond question that Geaves has misrepresented the truth about Rawat's role in the Millenium hype.

Geaves said:

In November 1973, Divine Light Mission had booked the Houston Astrodome, a large sports stadium with a capacity of 90,000. The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises.

Whereas, in a broadly-disseminated letter to all his followers, Rawat described the upcoming program as the "most Holy and significant event in human history", intimated that the festival wasn't just for him and his followers but the whole world, "and maybe the whole universe" and suggested that it was time for his followers to help him "bring peace to this Earth."

Any fair reader can clearly see the serious discrepancy between Geaves' account and the documentary evidence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Heller (talk • contribs)

The reason that text was deleted is that it is an unnattributed opinion. Opinions, conclusions, assertions, assessments, etc. can only be included in Wikipedia articles if these are reported by a reliable source (see WP:V), otherwise it is what we call "original research". For example, my opinion of these two paragraphs is very different (I do not see a contradiction, for example). On the other hand if a scholar writes an assessment or critique of Dr. Geaves paper, we can then describe it and attribute the POV to that scholar. You may want to read WP:NOR to understand how this works. You may also want to read WP:NOT that explains what Wikipedia is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that, in your opinion, there's no contradiction between Geaves saying that Rawat was neither aware nor responsible for the hype and Rawat's saying that this was the most significant and Holy event in human history, etc. I say that's absurd sophistry and that, unless you offer a reasonable explanation, your position must be considered entirely without merit. --Jim Heller 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

With you I am only discussing the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This just proves how little good faith you bring to the table.--Jim Heller 06:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is WP:NOR in a nutshell:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But this means that contrasting the two sources without comments is not forbidden by this policy, though I think a better place for this would be Prem Rawat. Andries 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read No original research: Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read it, but mere contrasting without comments is not original research. It is clearly of a different classs. Andries 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "constrasting" is already showing an intention to advance a position. You will have to be extremely careful, how you cite and what you cite from these two sources to remain NPOV. Otherwise, it may not be WP:NOR but a good ole' case of POV pushing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Simply placing two items next to each other is not by itself "POV pushing" or "research". For example, in the case of a light square placed next to a dark square with no comment being made, the viewers are free to see for themselves whether there is a contrast. The possibility that some viewers might see a contrast is not a valid excuse for censorship.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs)

There is no censorship in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not supposed to be censorship in Wikipedia, that doesn't imply there isn't any. From the 'Five pillers': "we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents". That is what is supposed to be happening, but it is not happening on this and other related pages related to Rawat, instead a heavily pro-Rawat POV dominates. Do you claim that placing two items next to each other without comment is "POV pushing"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs)

Of course not. Read my reply to Andries regarding cites. FYI, some editors that are most definitively not "pro-Rawat" are making useful contributions to these articles. I have placed some pointers in yout talk page so you can familiarize yourself on how Wikipedia works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I already read it, what about it? The source of the letter is a Divine Light Mission publication. Is that an unreliable source? If so, then Elan Vital web sites are unreliable, since EV is the same organization as DLM (it was merely renamed). FYI, I didn't say the articles are 100% pro-Rawat, don't mischaracterize what I write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs)

I do not understand what your are trying to say... The letter is a verifiable source and it is already used and described in the Prem Rawat article, in the 1970's section of that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase " the most Holy and significant event in human history" doesn't just apply to Millenium. It applies to PR's Guru's birthday celebration, of which there had already been six. And whilst PR has his expectations,it is incorrect to assume that he was aware of or shared those of his followers.Momento 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Day is "the most holy and significant event" in the Christian calendar. And it happens every year.Momento 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The calendar repeats so any one day in the calendar year will also repeat. Human history, on the other hand, does not repeat so any one event in human history is singular. To speak of "the most significant and Holy event in human history" is to speak of a single event. If Rawat had said "the most significant and Holy event of the year" you'd be right. But he didn't and you're not. Plain as day.--Jim Heller 21:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost got it. "The most significant and Holy event in human history" is to speak of a single event" and that event is the anniversary of Shri Hans birth. Plain as day.Momento 22:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you were right, which you're obviously not, there would be no difference between Rawat saying "The most significant and Holy event in human history" and "The most significant and Holy event of the year." But of course there's a big difference between the two, isn't there?--Jim Heller 22:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The most significant and Holy event in human history" would automatically be "The most significant and Holy event of the year". Case closed.Good-bye.Momento 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Case not closed. You didn't answer my question which was whether the two sentences mean the same thing. They'd have to for you to be right. Of course they don't and of course you're not. --Jim Heller 22:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

PR says, "This year [referring to "Millennium '73"] the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." Not Hans Jayanti, Guru Puja, Holi, or Christmas. PR's expectations are that premies will give money to make Millennium '73 successful and that's what he states. If it was Hans Jayanti, it would have been called that, just like all the other birthday celebrations were called in previous/subsequent years. Then PR goes on to say, and quite extravagantly, "This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe." I think you may be misinterpreting something that's stated quite clearly. Sylviecyn 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your argument would have merit if PR hadn't said in the previous sentence - "This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967". Clearly he cannot be refering just to Millenium '73, but to Hans Jayanti. So when he says "This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America", PR is continuing to talk about Hans Jayanti, and making the point that "this year" Hans Jayanti will be taking place in America, a notable point since previously is had always been held in India.Momento 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see how one could read the "This..." sentence both ways, Momento, however, the significanceof Millennium wasn't Shri Hans' arrival to the west, it was Prem Rawat's arrival to the west and to America. Wouldn't you agree? After all, one of Maharaji's main teachings has always been that one needs a living leader, a Perfect Master, not a deceased one. I still maintain that Maharaji had great expectations about the festival, based on his following statements in the letter about the great significance of the festival. That part wasn't about a celebration of Hans Jayanti. It was about his own arrival to the west and M's wish to make it successful, hence his letter asking for premies' help. In fact, in subsequent years, at every subsequent Hans Jayanti it was common knowledge that premies were attending to see "their Guru Maharaji," Prem Rawat, which was of great significance to us. We were celebrating with him the birth of his own Master, Shri Hans, which was a gesture made out of the deepest respect to M by us premies. To imply that the "greatest event..." was all about Shri Hans, diminishes the emphasis that Maharaji himself has always placed upon all premies' need for himself as a teacher, not his father. Sylviecyn 11:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Millenium '73 had nothing to do with PR's arrival, he'd already arrived. It was, as PR clearly explained, a continuation in 1973 of a festival that PR started to honor his father. There is no doubt that as far as PR is concerned Shri Hans birth is a far more "holy and significant event" than a three day event in Texas, even if it was in the Astrodome.Momento 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)