Talk:Hate group/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

RfC Dispute summary

The dispute is related to the section in this article named Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements and specifically the last paragraph in which it is stated, (with references) that an NRM labels its critics a hate group.

There are two views:

  • Keep the paragraph:
  1. it provides a counter point to the previous paragraphs related to critics of an NRM labeling the NRM a hate group;
  2. the NRM makes a substantial point of calling these critics a hate group, and includes documentation on their FAQs about these allegations;
  3. inclusion of this text falls within NPOV guidelines inasmuch as it is not claimed that these critics are a hate-group, but that the target of their criticism considers them a hate group;
  4. it is a pertinent example for the section about NRMs and hate groups in this article, in regard to the on-going contentious cloud of debate and legal actions between NRMs and their critics.
  5. removing this paragraph is a precendent for deletion of text from other controversial articles, on the basis that a certain group does not like what is written about them.
  • Delete the paragraph:
  1. critics consider this is a libelous accusation by the "cult" against them;
  2. critics consider the evidence publicized as the basis for being labeled a hate group, to be uncorroborated and not sufficient;
  3. critics see this as serious and offensive charge;
  4. it sets a dangerous precedent whereby any organization can claim its critics are a hate group, and have that claim repeated in this article. To be included in this article, a claim that a group is a hate group should be independently corroborated;
  5. it is more important to focus the article on real hate-groups.


(note to the usual contributors: unless you think that my summary is not correct, please leave this as is for the benefit of other wikipedians to understand the nature of the dispute and help during the RfC process. We can continue our discussions below. Thanks --Zappaz 02:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC))

  • Updated by John Brauns
  • Updated by --Zappaz 11:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Update by ≈ jossi ≈ 16:50, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Reserved for comments by fellow editors

It makes total sense that documenting the comments and opinions of one group about another or opposing group is in fact maintaining NPOV. To state otherwise would be censorship and would not allow the readers to make their own decision and have the entire picutre clearly presented to them. Readers, including myself, are not stupid and should be allowed to make up their own minds given all the facts. Accordingly, I reverted to Zapaz's previous edit. --Chuck 03:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My bias is known, but I hope my point is understood: if information is deleted from this article, because some people think that it does not belong in this article, then let's hear these reasons stated clearly. Then, if no agreement is reached, remove all the other reasons from the RfC summary and continue with a dispute resolution with clear and concise reasons for keep or delete. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:53, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


Move this discussion to USENET

The discussions and polemic around the ex-premie group and their characterization as a hate group would be better discussed in USENET than in here.

I therefore propose:

  1. To archive this discussion;
  2. To leave this page for discussing the further development this article.

--Zappaz 17:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what about moving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/Ex-PremiesPart2 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies and Ex-Premies to USENET too? Thomas h 18:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


To clarify my proposal.

  • To archive the whole discussion, including additional pages created during the discussion.
  • Anyone interested in continuing this discussion, to do it elsewhere.

Hope my proposal is now clear. --Zappaz 19:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, it's been about a week since the issue of inclusion of ex-premies in this article was submitted to RFC. No independent contributors have supported inclusion of ex-premies as a hate group, and considering it is a serious, and personally hurtful, accusation (even made in an NPOV manner), I propose ex-premies are removed from this article. Once this is done, I am happy for the supporting discussion to be removed as well. If you disagree, then we will have to escalate further. --John Brauns 19:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you are making a mistake. Escalation is never a good option in the long run. To remind you, the inclusion is not about the ex-premies as a hate group as you argue (that can continue to be debated in USENET as I proposed), but about the ex-premies being characterized as such by the target of their criticism. This is a documented fact and one that warrants its inclusion, together with other anti-cult groups and NRMs that are seen or labeled as hate groups by their critics. I really doubt that if you can convince any sensible editor in WP that these facts have to be removed. Please note that Modemac and others have assisted in adding more text to that section to balance it and explain the different points of view regarding such characterizations. Please re-read the complete section: Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements--Zappaz 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, the choice of escalation will be yours, as I will remove the references to ex-premies being a hate group, including the link to the anonymous hate site, one-reality.net. You fail to understand, that without including a rebuttal, the article will give the impression the EV's allegation is true. Including a rebuttal will reduce what should be a serious examination of dangerous groups to a squabble between supporters and critics of Prem Rawat. Even you must agree that EV have provided no evidence for any of their allegations, which means that any controversial organisation can label their critics a 'hate group' and get that allegation included in this article. If you cannot see this logic, we will need to escalate, but if you can, then please recognise that Wikipedia must not be used to propagate such unsupported allegations. From a personal point of view, although EV do not name me, it only requires a little research to identify me by name and address (I hide neither). The allegations against me on EV's websites, and on one-reality.net, are libellous, and had I the funding I would launch libel actions against all four sites immediately. Zappaz, I really don't understand why you, not a member of this cult, cares so much about this. --John Brauns 21:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, John. The choice is yours. --Zappaz 21:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I raised serious issues in my post. I am being accused of being a leading member of a hate group and you support repeating this allegation in this article. I deserve a more considered response than 'the choice is yours'. Please respond to the fact that if Wikipedia (i.e. we) allow a controversial organisation to label its critics as a hate group, and get that allegation included here, then any such organisation can do the same, and you wouldn't be able to argue against them. Please respond rationally to this very important point. --John Brauns 22:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will try to respond again: In reading the section in the article I cannot read anything about you or any other person being accussed of being a leader of a hate group. The only text I read is that an anti-Scientologist (Hein) considers Scientology a hate-group, that Elan Vital considers its critics a hate group as per Introvigne's article, and that other NRMs have seized upon the hostile acts of their critics and cite them as examples of persecution and bigotry. All these are facts with supported references. And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well. --Zappaz 00:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, the libel is on EV's sites and one-reality.net which this article link to. Contrary to your claim, there is no substance in EV's claims. There are clear lies (saying I am beyond the reach of law in Latvia, while having served me with papers claiming breach of copyright), and no supporting evidence for their claims. Antaeus understands this point - why can't you? A serious allegation that a group is a 'hate group' needs independent corroboration before inclusion in this article. Surely you can see that? --John Brauns 07:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right now over on VfD we're dealing with the debate about a chap named Sollog. His followers are very very very very vehement that Sollog is an amazing incredible wonderful guy who of course deserves an article saying how incredibly wonderful he is because he has made so many amazing predictions which came true of things like the September 11, 2001 attacks (which every one of his supporters refers to as "911") and the death of Princess Diana and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Now, this will give you an idea of the generality of Sollog's "predictions"; nevertheless he and his supporters make a "substantial point" of calling "911" and Diana's death and the Columbia disaster things that Sollog predicted.
Now, if we followed the precedent set by your post, we should be modifying the articles on 9/11 and Princess Diana and the Columbia to say "Oh, by the way, some guy named 'Sollog' says he predicted this beforehand." Never mind how poorly substantiated that claim is; according to the precedent you're arguing we should set here, Princess Diana has to be edited to include the claim that Sollog predicted her death, purely because he's making "a substantial point" of claiming that he did. And so can any two-bit "psychic", as soon as they realize that all they have to do to get Wikipedia to publicize an allegation regardless of its truth, is just to make "a substantial point" of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, I really do not understand what is the nature of your objection. In the first paragraph, entered by Anton Hein himself on Aug 17, he characterized Scientology as a hate group. Neither you or anyne else raised any objections to that at that time, because a) it is a fact that he labels them as such; b) he provides evidence in his website; and c) it is an important piece of information for anyone studying NRMs within the context of hate groups. In the same fashion, there is a paragraph about Elan Vital labeling the ex-premies as a hate group and they also provide evidence in their websites. Both these examples, together with the Introvigne article, paint a picture of the on going battle between NRMs and apostates, and provides context about the issue discussed above about verbal violence as a precursor to hate crimes.

Regarding your example of the Princess Diana article, and given the tremendous influence she had in popular culture before and after her tragic death, if there was a section labeled "Trivia about Diana", I would argue that items such as Sollog's predictions would be worthy of inclusion. If the article then will become too big to handle, you know the WP procedure: split. So back to this case, if after we complete writing the hate group article (and there is still a lot of work to do), and if the NRM and hate group section becomes unwieldy, we could consider splitting that section into its own article.--Zappaz 15:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly: my analogy was overgenerous. My analogy was "if Sollog is loud enough in making the claim that he predicted the death of Diana, are we obligated to include that information in Princess Diana?" A more accurate analogy would be "are we obligated to include that information in prediction?"
Secondly, I think Scientology should stay, not because Hate group should be a storehouse of information about anyone who has ever had the accusation of "Hate group!" thrown at them (which you seem to be arguing that it should be) but because the nature itself of the hate group concept is illuminated by the example of Scientology: Scientology has been extremely vocal with the accusation that those who oppose them constitute a hate group, but a close examination shows that it is Scientology itself which more closely fits the definition, since their doctrine, straight from Hubbard himself, contains such gems as "Setting himself up as a terror symbol, the psychiatrist kidnaps, tortures and murders without any slightest police interference or action by western security forces" and "A psychiatrist kills a young girl for sexual kicks, murders a dozen patients with an ice pick, castrates a hundred men" and "Crimes of extortion, mayhem and murder are done daily by these men in the name of 'practice' and 'treatment.' There is not one institutional psychiatrist alive who, by ordinary criminal law, could not be arraigned and convicted of extortion, mayhem and murder." This, to my mind, is the only reason to include Scientology as an example, because it is the best example to illustrate an important point: allegation that so-and-so is a "hate group" are even cheaper than talk is cheap in general; the mere fact that A has accused B of being a hate group does not count as proof or even evidence that B is a hate group -- or that A is not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I think you make a good point, in this case the situation is worse. Labeling a group of people or an organisation a hate group is a very serious charge. Including qualifiers like "alleged" or "is considered to be" will not alter that in the minds of many if not most readers. The association will stick, as I said earlier in my "Mary is a slut" example. As soon as word gets out, the list of "considered hate groups" will start to get really large I'm afraid. Already the ADL is being "considered" a hate group. If that is also to be included, than the article has been brought to the brink of absurdity.
I just took a look at the history of this article. All the way back on July 2, David Girard submitted what I think is a pretty NPOV version of this subtopic and devotes enough ink to it:
'Some advocates who regard certain fringe religious organizations, New religious movements or (controversially) "cults" as spurious, and condemn their methods, also call them "hate groups". In turn, some such organizations claim that ex-members (apostates) resort to tactics that may create a background favourable to extreme manifestations of discrimination and hate against individuals that belong to new religious movements, and thus refer to groups of ex-members as "anti-religious", "anti-cult" or "hate groups."'
Zappaz, as his absolute first contribution to this article on September 5, was the first person to bring in the ex-premie charge. He subsequently and oddly removed the link to Elan Vital made by someone else, which was merely as reference to the source of the charge. This leads me to suspect that he is well aware of my point of "guilty by association". It would seem that Zappaz is hell-bent on getting the ex-premies in this article, which I think he should explain. If he is only interested in NPOV, why is not fighting for the inclusion of the ADL under the same "considered" principle? -- Drapadi
Dant, it was me not Zappaz, I have to admit. I fully agree with Thomas when he told me yesterday that the article should state that some groups label other groups as hate groups as a propaganda tool. 09:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Either I don't know how to use the history function of this software or you are mistaken. I just looked again. At 15:50, 5 Sept 2004 there is an entry by Zappaz, where he adds ex-premies to the Operation Rescue and ALF sentence. I couldn't find this in any of your entries before that. Please look again and tell me what I am doing wrong if I am wrong. -- Drapadi


Drapadi, I have made my disclosures several times already. In my research, I am interested in the discourse of modern anti-cultists using the Internet as a method of amplifying their intolerance for emerging religions and their impact vis-a-vis their relevance. In researching for this article, I found many sources that demonstrate the danger of religious intolerance and the potential for verbal violence to develop into hate crimes. In the recent past, I have contributed substantially to the Prem Rawat and ancillary articles, based on my research of the subject for many months before the articles showed up in WP. WP offered me the platform to engage in further research about this subject, that I must say, I find fascinating.
In previous disclosures, I also made it very clear that I find the tactics and methods used by the ex-premie group (and that was well before reading the material posted by Seth), appalling. I am clearly not a sympathizer of their methods and raison d'être. You can call me, if you wish, a critic of the critics, a libertarian, a cult apologist, or any of these terms combined. :-) --Zappaz 17:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I would appreciate it if you could explain more e.g. on my user page why you hold this view. I simply cannot understand why you, while you are not a follower, can have such an opinion. Andries 00:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


when is see the list of seth, i remember somebody mentioning that context is ALL. But this guy doesn't seem to be around here, though he is using the same name. Serius Zappaz. Can you tell me which group besides Pram Rawat are you representing in your defense against religious intolerance? Although you keep your allegation as a defender for religious liberty as being general, i haven't seen anything that could convince me, that this is the case. As a libertarian IMO you should be aware of the danger of a group that has one such leader. Authoritarian Power is something a libertarian in my understanding should be opposed to. At least there should be a conflict in the heart of such a person between his wish to support liberty of belief and opposing structures of authoritarian power. i cannot recognize any sign of this with you. So i must say that i am sorry , but have difficulties to believe your mentioned intensions. Thomas h 17:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns, thomas, but let me remind you that each one of us here you, Andries, Gary, Antaeus, jossi, Modemac, John, Ed, etc., all have our POVs and in some cases very opposite POVs. And we are trying to write an article under the NPOV guidelines set forth by WP's founder. That's the beauty and the challenge of it. So I would appreciate moving on from personal characterizations about motive (as we all have our motives to support or oppose a specific stance in this debate), and concentrate on the issue at hand that is the discourse about the relevance of certain paragraphs about NRMs and hate groups to warrant an inclusion in this article. --Zappaz 17:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, you didn't answer Thomas's question which is "Can you tell me which group besides Pram Rawat are you representing in your defense against religious intolerance?". As this is your primary interest, and as Elan Vital is such an obscure NRM (although they deny being a religious movement), this is a very relevant question. My interest here is limited to preventing personally libellous statements being propagated on the internet. --John Brauns 01:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am trying to move on. That is why I made the suggestion of returning to the NPOV version of David Girard from 2 July. -- Drapadi
I do not belive that is possible, Drapadi. Doing so will open a huge can of worms here in WP. It will mean that the whole concept of NPOV is flawed and worst of all it will mean that any controversial subject in which one side does not like what they say about them will have the right to excise text from articles based on that alone. Not a happening thing IMHO. --Zappaz 21:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe that you are the worm can opener here. The article is about hate groups which is already a volatile subject and will be difficult to write just sticking to the facts. You offer the rather unusual supposition that the mere suggestion from any organisation, whether substantiated or not, that suggests that it's detractors are a hate group is worthy for inclusion in this article. This is opening the can of worms.
And if you are concerned about defending the rights of NRMs, why are you exclusively focussed on the ex-followers of a relatively insignificant NRM. Why don't you want to include ex-moonies, ex-mormons, ex-krishnas, ex-scientologists, ex-mormons, etc? And while we are at it, let's not forget the Democratic and Republican party and every other political party for that matter. They are certainly guilty of lots of dirty tricks to demonize their opponents. How about the Catholic Church? They are surely responsible for much of the mythology that is the foundation for modern day anti-semitism. Is this the kind of informative hate group article you are looking for? Or is just including the ex-premies enough to satisfy your "interest"? I'm sure the KKK will be very pleased with the result.
Personally I could care less about the ongoing battle on Wiki between premies and ex-premies as long as they keep it where it belongs – in NRM, cults and the particular headings. Letting that spread over to the hate group category has nothing to do with maintaining NPOV and is making a mockery of a vital subject.
Your excuse that reverting to an older version will mean that the whole concept of NPOV is flawed is rather melodramatic and specious. You have been trying to call the shots the whole time here as the great voice of NPOV authority. When Andries suggested that he could make a website saying that Wiki was a hate group and that it would need to be included, your response was that it has to be a group and not an individual. Is that a distinction in the Wiki bylaws or did you just make that up? What if Andries and I together make a website saying that Wiki is a hate group? Are we an organisation yet? How many members does Elan Vital have as an organisation? As I understand it almost none. I have a great idea. Let's ask them how many people work for EV and use that as the minimum criteria for a group claim to be included in the hate article. -- Drapadi
I have not seen one and I mean one contribution to this encyclopedia by you Drapadi. So please tone down your comments about the value of NPOV and about WP policy. --Zappaz 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should hope that others reading your words addressed to me will realize them for what they are. I have not said anything against the value of NPOV nor WP policy here. I have only criticized your continued attempts to fein NPOV posturing to suit your purposes. I would very much like to see some sense of NPOV here. And in response to your claim above and the request below for help with this article, I have already written a letter to a hate watch group asking for some guidelines about this as well as to provide Andries with the results of some preliminary research. I don't feel qualified to write the article myself, therefore I have rather taken to doing some background research and then providing what results I am able to get to Andries. By the way, the research I am doing focuses on the real subject of hate groups and not on this ex-premie obsession of yours. You are correct about one thing though. I am not normally a contributor to Wiki, but I would like to contribute to this article if that is okay with you.
Your help with this article will be much appreciated. From the way you write, you seem pretty eloquent to me ... so I would encourage you to get a user ID and contribute directly. It is more fun and fulfilling than to do this via a proxy. It may seem hard at first, but then you get hooked ... ask any wikipedian! --Zappaz 02:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Back to RfC

Your last response, Antaeus gives me no other option than to place this back in RfC. (I must say that I find your logic very hard to accept). My position, well presented several times here is that the NRM section in this article and its content his very relevant and merit inclusion, and that removing that text is contrary to NPOV.

I call upon current and previous editors contributing to this article can make their voice heard in this dispute. --Zappaz 00:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, your entry on RFC reads Talk:Hate_group - Should text regarding Hate groups and new religious movements be excised from the article?. No one is asking for this, so why have you phrased it so? Drapadi made a very reasonable suggestion - reverting to the generalised statement for this minor aspect of the the important topic of 'Hate Groups' without repeating Elan Vital's unsupported libellous allegation. --John Brauns 01:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The text in an RfC should be left as open as possible for editors to make up their minds and comment. And if you consider the topic of "Hate groups" important, please help me develop the article further. So far it seems that I am the lonely editor attempting to expand this article beyond that one paragraph in contention. --Zappaz 01:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I will be blunt. I do not believe you have any interest in the topic of Hate Groups. I believe your sole interest here is in defending and propagating Elan Vital's libellous attack on its critics, some of whom were senior members of the organisation. If you 'expanded the article' by focussing on universally recognised hate groups, your claims might have some credibility, but your focus has been from the start on discrediting ex-premies. I believe you are either a follower of Prem Rawat, or an experienced Wikipedia editor paid to defend him, and as such you have no credibility here. --John Brauns 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wrong, John I have contributed substantially to this article. In fact, most of the text in the NRM section is not mine. Check the history of this article. And your repeated, accussations against me by you and other ex-followers only goes to negate any credibility that you and your group may have. --Zappaz 02:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, could you explain then why you have apparently not contributed to any Wikipedia article unrelated to Prem Rawat, and why your contributions are always pro-Rawat and anti-ex-premies? --John Brauns 07:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
John. I have disclosed my reasons many times already over the last few months, last of which to Drapadi yesterday. (What makes you feel you have the right to question me in such manner?) Listen John: any futher attempts to spread conspiracy theories or any further allegations levelled at me by you or your friends here or in your discussion forum, will result in the only worthwile response in these cases: to totally ignore you and others from your group in these or other discussion in WP, period. And I mean it. --Zappaz 16:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, Thomas asked you a courteous question about which other cults you are interested in, and you didn't answer. I asked you why all your contributions as 'Zappaz' on Wikipedia were related to Prem Rawat and you haven't answered. I think given your focus on Prem Rawat, and your anti-ex-premie stance, my suspicions are well founded. All you have to do to allay these reasonable suspicions is to honestly answer the questions that have been put to you. I notice you are leaving this article to work on others. I will make a point of looking you up as I am interested in reading your contributions away from Prem Rawat. Of course, if you will be doing this under a different alias, I will naturally wonder why. --John Brauns 23:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
that gets my blood boiling. You may call me paranoid, or someone obsessed with conspiracy fantasies when i find certain exlpanations as non sufficient. BTW you have never precluded that there might be more than your POV involved, even if it might be on the line with your POV. If it is(which i do not know) you would probably consider it as your business not ours. Nobody can force you to unfold more of yourself than you want to. But to threaten a whole group of people to be handled as one, if one of the group, that you define, acts to your disapproval reminds me very much of the german term "Sippenhaftung", which points back into our unlucky past of massmanipulation and dictatorship. Thomas h 16:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If that gets your blood boiling, put yourself in my shoes and think how will you feel if you are accussed again and again by the same people because I do not share their POV, their tactics or their rational. I see your attemp to associate my response with nazism, obscene, appalling, and as part of the same effort. Consider this is the last straw. --Zappaz 17:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, i have repeatedly expressed my respect for your intelligence and skills at WP. I even feel that you could, if you wanted to, ease the waves between exes and current followers, but you have chosen not to. The main article Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat was a succesful story of collaboration of opposing positions. You didn't bother to wikiquote apostate, "hate group" in your replies to me and others, together with jossi and .140 as if it was a sport. so excuse me , i find that a bit snivelling. The comparison was groce, i agree, what i wanted to point out is , how easy it is to get into a hardening position, from which even worse may evolve. Thomas h 18:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
maybe it would help, if you considered yourself a complex personality that is extremely hard to figure out, and that this might be the reason why one could get a bit mad at you ;-) Thomas h 18:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You will have to do better than a wink, Thomas... You can help reduce the animosity by refraining from making these type of comments. I am now taking some time to work on other articles, as I am getting a bit tired of all this. --Zappaz 19:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll try, looking forward to see you again. Thomas h 19:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, Zappaz, I'm very sorry that you don't see any option besides opening another RfC. Of course, the way you describe it, you'd think you had actually tried other options of dispute resolution -- heck, from the way you describe the way I "give" you "no other option", one would think I had been obstinate and unyielding in my editing of the article, when in fact I have never edited the article at all. So, um, I guess my debating the points at issue on the article's talk page is what gives you no other option than to open an RfC? I'm sorry that someone who is so proud of "well present"ing their own opinion considers someone presenting a different opinion to be cause for an RfC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Antaeus, I should not have singled you out. Apologies. I have asked all previous contributors to the article to comment. Hope that this will help resolve this dispute.--Zappaz 02:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of ex-premies (again)

As two submissions to RFC have brought no indpendent support for inclusion of the mention of ex-premies in this article, I have removed such mention. Anyone who wishes to revert this, will need scholarly references, and not the unsupported claims of an obscure religious cult. --John Brauns 23:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two points of clarification:
  • The RfC was for the 'deletion of text from the article.
  • The second RfC was submitted during the weekend. Usually we wait a week before proceeding with changes based on the RfC.
--Zappaz 00:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've amended your text above to add the most important reason why mention of ex-premies should be removed, which I am surprised you omitted as it's been discussed here often enough. OK, I will wait one week from today, even though one RFC submission should have been enough. --John Brauns 06:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the amendment (I amended it further as well). You are under the wrong impression that the previous RfC (initiated by Andries) concluded in your favor. In fact, it wasn't. Clearly you and others were not satisfied with the modifications introduced during the previous RfC (edits by Modemac, Andries and myself), thus this second RfC was initiated by me. Nevertheless, if any of us is not satisfied with the results of this RfC, there are other options available to us via Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution as pointed out by Antaeus previously. --Zappaz 11:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I am judging the result of a request for comments by the comments on this page, not minor changes to the article. By your own rules, no one could remove the disputed text while the RFC was in progress. BTW, I've thought of another argument for removing the disputed text. The cult article makes no mention of Elan Vital although many websites, including ex-premie.org, claim they are a cult. Instead the article appears to be (I didn't read it all) a thoughtful analysis of the modern meaning of the word 'cult', which is quite clearly derogatory, as is 'hate group'. I do not advocate including Elan Vital in that article, even though the evidence for doing so is far greater than the evidence for including ex-premies in this article. By the same logic, I ask you to support not including ex-premies in this article. --John Brauns 22:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FYI, Elan Vital is listed in List of purported cults. I have added the text that ex-premies consider Elan Vital a cult. --Zappaz 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Jappaz. I didn't notice that purported cults were listed in a separate article, but the link from the cult article includes this important text:-
In order to maintain a neutral point of view towards controversial groups, a list of purported cults presents a listing of groups labelled as cults by various non-related, reasonably unbiased sources.
I am arguing for the same standard to be applied to purported hate groups, i.e., the labelling of a group as a hate group should be supported by non-related, reasonably unbiased sources. I have also removed your addition to the article as it clearly says that the list should only be supported by unbiased sources. Ex-premies are clearly not an unbiased source. --John Brauns 23:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "ex-premies" are not listed in the hate groups list in this article. If that was the case, I would certainly agree with you. The ex-premies are only mentioned in the section related to NRMs, and presented as examples of NRMs vs. critics using the term "hate group" to define their opponents according to rational provided by references.--Zappaz 00:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"List" or "Mention" doesn't change the principle, which is that without support from non-related, reasonably unbiased sources, ex-premies should not be in this article. If you think the article needs one example, why don't you provide one or more from your in-depth study of the behaviour of apostates from other cults? (Rhetorical question by the way - we both know why not.) Anyway, let's wait for other experienced Wiki contributors to comment. Anyone interested enough to do so? --John Brauns 15:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hereby declare John Brauns to be on my "ignore list" due to his ongoing accusations, innuendo, modus operandi and his inability to refrain from engaging in these behaviors after several requests I made. --Zappaz 16:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, So what? You have repeatedly failed to answer relevant questions, and your tantrum is clearly a tactic to avoid having to answer any future questions. The issues we are dealing with will not go away, regardless of your action. It's not nice being accused of wrongdoing is it, only in my case the accusations are untrue, and you want to spread them throughout Wikipedia. --John Brauns 01:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC completed with no comments

One week for this RfC has expired without any comments. I must say that this week of silence in this talk page was very refreshing, and quite enjoyed investing that time in more fruitful WP endeavors...  :)

As no other editors have contributed, other recourses for the ex-premies are available in wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Up to them to start that process if they wish.

I have removed the "under review" tag for that section. --Zappaz 04:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, your intervention in removing the disputed text is unilateral. Reverted. The RfC did not provide additional comments to remove the disputed text. --Zappaz 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly when and where was it determined that if no one stepped in to say anything, silence would equal confirmation that your way was the right way? The answer is, it wasn't. To remove that allegation is no more "unilateral" an action than inserting it in in the first place, or insistently reinserting it despite repeated opposition. You have had the allegation in the text for the whole week of the RfC while we who oppose the allegation patiently waited to see if your insistence on a second RfC would bring any support for your point of view, as the first one failed to do, would prove true. Now the RfC has ended and you are claiming that no support is all the support you need.
A rotound YES. The text in question is within NPOV. If you want to remove it, you have to gather support from other editors willing to support that removal. --Zappaz 23:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you are actually trying to argue that because you phrased the RfC "should [the] text be excised" and no one stepped up to say "yes, that text should be excised" that the silence is equivalent to "no, no one thinks it should be excised" then you were wrong and acted in bad faith. You were supposed to describe the RfC in neutral terms; if you are now describing it as so one-sided a statement that silence is clearly agreement with that side then either you failed in your duty to make the RfC neutral or you are willfully misinterpreting the results now. But we could always test your theory: we'll excise the allegations from the article, and then put up an RfC asking "Should allegations that there exists an organized hate group called "Ex-Premies" opposing Elan Vital be inserted into the article?" If your theory is right that no one answered the RfC at all because everyone who considered it thought the answer to your question should be "no" but neglected to actually voice their "no", then surely they'll come forward this time and say "yes." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fallacious argument. The text in question has been in the article for months. --Zappaz 23:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


With all due respect, your analysis of the situation is totally flawed. The text in question is within NPOV guidelines, and as such it should stay. Reverted. --Zappaz 22:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a matter of principle. Attribution to Elan Vital is given, and the text is in the context of the on-going battle between NRMs and anti-cultists and apostates. This is a fact and removal of these facts are against NPOV. If you are as you claim, a protector of NPOV then help me with this attemtp to censure factual information. --Zappaz 23:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Antaeus, I want to be honest with you: I find your intervention and support of this ex-followers group here very peculiar. This is a matter of principle, and I will take this up until I get a good explanation as for the reasons fdor supporting the excise this text from the article. So far the reasons given are not sufficient. --Zappaz 23:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the agreement on this issue was very clear - if no independent support for the very insulting, hurtful, and potentially libellous, claim by the recognised religious cult, Elan Vital, that Prem Rawat's former followers constitute a hate group, is produced within a week, then mention of the allegation goes. If you think it is fair and reasonable that mention of the allegation stays until we have reached the highest court in Wikipedia, then your own partiality in this matter is proven. If you think this issue is important enough for you to pursue, then please take it to the next stage of dispute resolution, but do not revert my changes while you do so. --John Brauns 23:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You have absolutely no clue.... and I am not talking to you. --Zappaz 23:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disgusted

I am thoroghuly disgusted with your behavior, Antaeus. Your siding with this group is appaling IMO and the sacrificing of NPOV is outrageous. I have moved the whole text of this section to its own article Hate groups and new religious movements. --Zappaz 23:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not too impressed with your strength of character either, Zappaz. As previously pointed out, you acted in bad faith either constructing the RfC to be a non-neutral summary of the dispute or in interpreting it as such after the fact and when that was pointed out, you switched your argument to "it's NPOV, therefore it stays" -- ignoring other factors that others have brought up to you before, such as that under your interpretation of what is "relevant" to an article, every single instance where "A says B is a C" would have to be added to the article on "C" merely because A said it. You never addressed the blatant impracticality of that proposition, you merely changed the subject; in fact, that was the point where you announced "Your last response, Antaeus gives me no other option than to place this back in RfC." And of course we've seen where that led to, it led to your presumption that since a week went by and no one stepped forward to take either side, that was clear approval for your side.
And now you're arguing that my behavior in "siding with this group" is "appaling" [sic]. Which group would that be, Zappaz? I hope you mean "the group of editors who have been arguing that a mere allegation of B being C doesn't demand inclusion in C's article", because that's the group I actually do belong to. I hope you're not meaning "siding with Ex-Premies", because a) it's quite untrue; I not only belong to or "side with" neither Elan Vital nor the purported organization of Ex-Premies, but know nothing about either save what I've seen alleged on Wikipedia, b) it shows that you've been approaching this all along as a matter of a justified group versus an "appaling" [sic] group and that pretenses of NPOV have been just that.
I'm mildly amused that bare hours after condemning my removal of text that has been so disputed it has been submitted for RfC twice as a "unilateral" move, you yourself took the highly unilateral move of removing the entire section from the article to become a new article. Why? Is that going to solve any of the problems with the disputed text? The only thing it could possibly do is to confuse the subject -- which, coincidentally, is the same effect that could be expected from switching the subject, say, from the impracticality of including everything that has ever been claimed to be a C in the article on C, to how someone's behavior (the identity of the someone later changing) "gives you no other choice" than to open an RfC. And you say you are thoroughly disgusted with my behavior? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"...every single instance where "A says B is a C" would have to be added to the article on "C" merely because A said it." Boy, that's sure gonna bloat up our article on Motherfucker...hmmm, Category:Motherfuckers ... (LOL) --Gary D 00:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
ROFL! --Zappaz 00:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it totally useless and a waste of my time to debate anything with you. I simply had enough of your twisted logic. I will keep the text in which you defend the inclusion of "Scientology as a hate group allegation" and at the same time support the deletion of "ex-premie as a hate group allegation" as an example of my reasons of being disgusted with your anti-NPOV attitude here. And please note that I find your following me around to "NPOV" my edits on other articles, quite obonoxious as well. --Zappaz 00:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it obnoxious that you make so many edits to so many articles which require others to come around and edit them back to NPOV again. Please, do go ahead and keep the text where I explain my reasoning for including accusations by and against Scientology and yet not including every single other allegation that gets made, purely because the allegation is made. Please, do keep it. I'm not ashamed of it, because I stand by my reasoning. If you were able to dispute my reasoning, you should have done so, but you didn't; you simply retreated to "I am thoroughly disgusted with your behavior" and "I find it totally useless and a waste of time to debate with you". How many of us are you planning to put in that category when you can't actually answer the questions we raise? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, you may want to look at the very latest edit, peformed by Zappaz today, and see if that changes anything for you. --Gary D 23:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
If you think that your words have upset me, Antaeus, you are very right. Let me tell you this: If you have a problem with my prolificacy , well, I am entitled to be as prolific as I want to be in this and any other articles, and as long as my edits have added valuable text hopefully these will remain. Can you show me your contributions to this article or any of the articles I have contributed to? Anything, good or bad? Any? Any at all? Or are you only interested in conducting endless debates in the talk pages and be so self-righteous about "editing them back to NPOV" [sic]? You definitively have a way to wrap poison in your sentences, Antaeus. You'd make a good sparring partner :).
Regarding my lack of interest in disputing your reasoning, I am simply tired of these endless debates about one sentence and prefer to work on the article itself (IMO, after this dispute is finished it could end up to be a good candidate for listing in Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever).
I trust that the WP community will either keep my edits in the articles I contribute to because these are substantial and valuable. If not, these will deservedly end up in the obscurity of the article history... --Zappaz 23:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A way to break the deadlock

I am going to suggest that we create a separate article, List of purported hate groups, just as we have separate articles for Cult and List of purported cults. The fact that Elan Vital alleges the existence of an organized hate group called "Ex-Premies" can go in that "List of purported..." article, as will many warnings that the list only means that someone, somewhere, made a claim, not that the claim was ever substantiated or should automatically be taken as credible. This article will focus on what a hate group is, how it is defined, what disputes there are over the definition, who watches hate groups. Individual purportings that this or that group is a hate group do not belong in the article unless they represent particular circumstances which illustrate the points under discussion. For instance, the fact that the NRM of Scientology considers its critics a "hate group" serves amply to demonstrate that NRMs often allege that their critics are hate groups; the fact that Scientology itself is the party whose doctrine states that such critics are without exception criminals who "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist ... may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" serves to demonstrate that the mere allegation of being a hate group can be nothing more than "black PR", allegations manufactured to discredit an enemy. Merely being an allegation that someone is a hate group will not automatically make an allegation significant enough to be in this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, I will support this if the same standards are applied that apply to the List of purported cults, and that is that the labelling of a group as a hate group should be supported by non-related, reasonably unbiased sources. I hope it is clear to you that Elan Vital does not come into this category, as its critics that they label a 'hate group' are former senior managers, instructors personally appointed by Rawat, including the North American director, and the former President of Elan Vital International. Also, surely Zappaz's tactic of splitting the article is against Wikipedia guidelines. The article was nowhere near the 32k required. How do we deal with this? --John Brauns 23:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the same standards should apply to both articles; I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that allegations that a group is a cult should be held to a different standard than allegations that a group is a hate group. I myself can't commment on whether the accusations against Elan Vital meet those standards, as I have no knowledge of Elan Vital or his critics save the second-hand knowledge picked up from here. However, even if a double standard were to be applied to the two articles (which of course would be opposed by anyone who actually cares about NPOV) addressing the allegation in a separate "List of ..." article would at least have the effect of putting them in a context which makes clear how relatively worthless the mere accusation of "hate group" is, especially when the accusation is only coming from certain sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That may work, although I do not have the inclination to work on such article (I have several projects in progress). Go ahead if you wish. Until then, I'll keep the text in Hate groups and new religious movements. --Zappaz 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, I support this intelligent and fair solution. Like Zappaz, I will probably not have the time to work on it. Andries 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carte blanche

I have observed this discussion from the sidelines and given the obvious success of the ex-premies in getting allegations of being a hate group out of this article, I will now proceed and delete allegations from the Criticism of Prem Rawat made by the ex-premie group using the same logic as per the RfC summary as follows:

  1. supporters consider these to be libelous accusation by the "hate group" against them;
  2. supporters consider the evidence publicized as the basis for these allegations to be uncorroborated and not sufficient;
  3. supporters see this as serious and offensive charge;
  4. it sets a dangerous precedent whereby any organization can make allegations and have these allegations claim repeated in WP article. To be included in WP article, allegations should be independently corroborated;

≈ jossi ≈ 00:58, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, many of the allegations against Prem Rawat are corroborated by independent sources, and where the sources may be considered biased, the allegations are given under their own names, and are corroborated by other former followers. Elan Vital's allegation, is (as you seem to now accept) not supported by any independent source, the accusers do not give their names, and in most cases the accused are not named directly. This is a big difference. I do hope you do not intend to carry out your threat after all the work we put into getting that article agreed. --John Brauns 22:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, whatever editing is done at Criticism of Prem Rawat will have to be done without me, since as I've said before, I have only second-hand knowledge of either group. But I ask you to keep in mind that the "ex-premies"' "success" in getting the allegations that they are a hate group out of this article may in fact be because it doesn't belong in this article, for reasons that you don't have to be a current premie or an ex-premie to see. I have said before, I'll say it again, if "A says B is a C" was sufficient justification for B to get listed in the article on C, we'd have to put every single entity that anyone had ever called a C into the article on C. I'd like to point out that the same logic does not transfer over to "All right, that means that if A says B is a C, I get to remove it from Things people have said about B."
And as a personal favor, I'd really like it if you could wait to talk about the "success" the "ex-premies" (a group in which you seem to be counting me, incorrectly as I've pointed out) have had in excising that allegation, until we have actually had some. You'll notice that it's still there in the article, in different wording but still there. You can hardly justify what you want to do by saying "well, they got to do it!" when in fact a simple look shows that it is still undone and that its "doing" is still being fought tooth and nail. If you think that's "carte blanche", I have to wonder what you think "obstruction" is! =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will wait to see the end of this dispute. Note that their position goes beyond "it does not belong to this article". If they succeed in removing the allegations against them based on the RfC summary, it will open the door for them and any other group to remove text they don't like from articles because, (sic) they see this as serious and offensive charge; the evidence publicized as the basis for these allegations to be uncorroborated and not sufficient; they consider these to be libelous accusations". ≈ jossi ≈ 15:41, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledging a distinction between those who do not think the allegations belong in this article, and those who do not think they belong in any WP article, and not taking whatever happens to the allegation in this article as a precedent for all allegations in all articles. If you think the RfC summary (the one which, ah, no one responded to) formally signifies that the reason for removing the allegation from this article is the relative credibility of the allegation, such that a successful removal would be used or usable as an automatic precedent, then please let me know, and I will add to the RfC summary why I think that specific allegations as a rule do not belong in this article unless they illuminate the subject, such as the allegations by and against Scientology, and the allegations by Rob Enderle that Linux supporters act as a hate group.
Just so you know, if we were discussing the inclusion of the allegation in an actually appropriate article, my inclination would be to say "Yes, include it -- along with the other details, such as exactly who is alleging it, who disputes it, whether any objective evidence has been verified by neutral third parties, et cetera." I agree that there has to be some standard that has to be met in order to justify including an allegation (Enderle's accusations, for instance, are unsupported by anyone but himself) but my own inclination is to set that bar pretty low -- if an allegation is flimsy, it's best that it be out in the open with its flimsiness exposed for all to see.
However, it's important -- more important than my inclination about where the bar should be set -- that we have consistency. I'm sure that everyone who is really trying for NPOV can agree that the same organization could not remove itself from List of purported cults saying "The allegations that we're a cult aren't credible enough; they all come from ex-members and we believe all ex-members have ulterior motives that make them untrustworthy" and at the same time put its critics on List of purported hate groups saying "Sure the allegation is credible! Just listen to the degree and intensity of the accusations being levelled against them! And it doesn't matter that the allegations are only coming from current members of our organization; surely no one could believe that that affects the credibility of the allegations!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, thank you for this:- "Just so you know, if we were discussing the inclusion of the allegation in an actually appropriate article, my inclination would be to say "Yes, include it -- along with the other details, such as exactly who is alleging it, who disputes it, whether any objective evidence has been verified by neutral third parties, et cetera." I agree 100%, which is why I didn't insist that Elan Vital's allegation should be removed from the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, as it was in context, with both sides fairly represented (at least in the agreed 'Baseline' version of the article). It certainly does not belong in this article, and I am about to remove it again. I'm still considering whether it belongs in the NRM article. --John Brauns 23:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well. I don't buy this at all. With your logic, the whole section needs to go. I have reverted your edit back to the simplified version I edited yesterday. I though that that was a good effort, but clearly you disagree. No concensus yet! --Zappaz 02:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The whole section needs to go? Hmmmm, probably a good idea. I'm sure that we can find something that actually covers the subject rather than being simplified down to just a listing of allegations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think there is an encyclopedic fact that can keep the NRM, SCO, and other "hate group" allegations in this article, but it is a linguistic one rather than a substantive one: the term "hate group" as an epithet slung against one's enemies has recently come to be used by a wide variety of people and groups outside the original racism area where the term arose. In fact, I think that sentence might make a fine topic sentence for that section. In illustrating the fact of this new and apparently growing linguistic use, examples from a wide variety of areas would be useful. We don't need them all, of course, but a short sampling from religion, business, politics would illustrate the breadth of the new linguistic practice. I know I joked about this earlier, but it actually is a kind of a parallel to explaining the ubiquitous use of "Motherfucker" as an epithet. And, the perfect capper to such a linguistic-use section is to finish with the reference that Wikipedia itself has been called a "hate group", and give a citation. --Gary D 19:44, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


Well, if I can, Gary, I'd like to suggest that this falls into two categories:
  • Use of "hate group" purely as an emotive emphasis, the way that "pornography" is appended to things with no sexual content to make loaded terms like "food pornography" and "political pornography", and
  • Use of "hate group" in a real attempt, no matter how misguided, to portray the named group as actually... well, a hate group, a group whose purpose, no matter what it is, must be looked at as the fanatical madness of bigots rather than as the legitimate protest of reasonable people with legitimate grievances.
I think both uses certainly deserve discussion, and I wouldn't see too much of a problem with including specific instances of the first. That would be parallel to your analogy of "motherfucker"; people call each other "motherfucker" all the time but no one ever seems to mean it or take it as a serious accusation of incest. That's clearly not the case with "hate group", and I would strongly resist, for all the reasons I've said before, to include any example that didn't earn its inclusion by very clearly illustrating some point under discussion. Even Rob Enderle really intended people to believe that to understand why anyone would dislike or oppose SCO, you had to understand the "Nuremberg experiments". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This seems all very theoretical for you Antaeus, just words, right?. Not for me and thousands of others harassed by these people for the simple fact that we believe in something they hate and obsess about [1]. Please inform yourself before making an assessment about them being or not being a hate group. From were I stand, I have no doubt they are. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Nice words, Jossi, but the fact is that you guys alternate between saying "you're advocating a course of action that favors them instead of us! You must be one of them, and since you're one of them, your words are suspect!" and "you're not part of this fight! You don't have a right to come in and start interfering!" In any case, you seem to be ignoring -- yet again -- that I have not made any statement about there existing or not existing an organization called "Ex-Premies", nor about that organization being or not being a hate group. What I have said, time and again, is that the allegation is not relevant enough to this article to justify its insistent insertion into this article. It does not in any way illuminate the subject of hate groups; it only tells us that someone thinks someone else is a hate group. You should know by now that I have been arguing that point all along; to suddenly pretend "you would change your mind if you knew how accurate our allegations are" is really nothing more than an attempt to change the subject, a tactic we've seen plenty of here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thousands harrassed?. Why not millions? Come on Jossi, i think you have lost your sense for reality. I don't think this is a healthy attitude for an encyclopedia. Prem Rawat has never expressed that he feels harassed, he mentioned his critics as "matches that didn't lit up" maybe, and his attitude, like an "elephant that moves on, between barking dogs" or something like that. That is no expression of somebody that feels harassed. Thomas h 05:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we draw the line between those really intending people to believe a group meets the definition of "hate group" and those merely hurling the term as vague invective, without us having to climb into the mind of the "epitheter." I don't know how to score the subjective sincerity or subjective analytical precision of Enderle or Elan Vital. Certainly anyone who uses the term wants others to think less of the target adversary, but I don't know how we can determine or discuss here whether they subjectively really intend or believe in a precise fit for that term, merely mean "motherfucker," or something inbetween. That's why I was proposing the article distinguish between orthodox and unorthodox uses of the term, because there we at least have some observable guidelines. Now the question is whether the distinction I have just drawn here has a practical impact on the article: I know I don't want the article spending space debating whether or not the ex-premies or SCO are truly a hate group;the only thing worth the cyber-ink is noting the fact that recently people have begun hurling this term around quite a bit for rhetorical/political advantage; groups like the ex-premies and SCO figure into that only as examples. That's why I urged Zappaz to slash down this section, but I can see a reason for it remaining in the article. --Gary D 07:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
FYI ,not SCO was the mentioned Hate Group, but "The Linux User Group", though it won't make much difference in this discussion ;-). We should maybe get something clear. Most of us are here on this "Hate Group" talkpage because of our involvement with the Rawat articles or being related to those. There is a direct line. I find it worrying that out of the disputes and confrontations between exers and current followers third articles are influenced by something that isn't maybe worth a footnote in world's history. This is so full of contradictions, like only a dozen hateful ex-followers are threatening thousands of students, that you really must consider what wikipedia shall be one day. Thomas h 10:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for setting my straight on which group it was, Thomas. I hope my error displays consistency with my overall approach to this issue as a tangential if encyclopedic addition to the article that doesn't really need deeper exploration, at least not here. I do appreciate that this article may be undergoing some "referred pain" from the Prem Rawat article disputes, much the way that a man having a heart attack feels it not in his heart but in his arm and jaw instead. I suppose this outcome at any rate goes along with the basic nature of Wikipedia, both as an openly editable medium and as one that draws upon the interest and enthusiasm of those closest to a topic to write about it. Powerful emotions and opinions lead to powerful wranglings. Still, I hope and believe articles like this one that are merely tangential to the main areas of interest and dispute may still benefit from the energy invested by motivated editors, even if their motivation arose in a different place or from a different direction, a phenomenon for which I, clever cuss that I am, will now coin the term, "referred motivation." --Gary D 22:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts

On second thoughts, I have chosen to fight this one all the way. It is a matter of principle and I will not allow it. Revert if you wish and force the three-reverts rule. I have added the disputed tag as well. --Zappaz 01:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's a matter of principle, Zappaz, then why do you keep changing the subject away from the discussion of the principles involved? I have no doubt that you'll fight this one all the way, but not out of principle.
I am fighting or the principle of not allowing a one side conversation or one POV to be prevalent. There are NRMs that label their critics "hate groups" and there are crtitics that label NRMs hate groups. And the cloud of debate between these two, is worthy of inclusion. That simple. --Zappaz 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is the fact that Elan Vital alleges their detractors to be a hate group called "Ex-Premies" worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Sure. Is the fact that the people Elan Vital allege are members of that group dispute that there even is an organized group, let alone a hate group? Sure. Is the fact that Elan Vital claims to have all sorts of evidence demonstrating hateful doctrine and harassment plans worthy of inclusion? Sure. Is the fact that those whom Elan Vital is accusing of this doctrine and these plans allege that all the evidence is in fact manufactured worthy of inclusion? Sure.
It is just not worthy of inclusion here in this article. That point has been made over and over again; if you state that Wikipedia should include in the article for "Hate group" an allegation that ex-premies are a hate group just because it's the article on "Hate group", then you're trying to set a precedent for including in the article for C every single thing that has ever been alleged to be a C. Discuss the specific allegation in the article for the accuser; discuss it in the article for the accused, but if you insist on inserting it into the article for that which the accused is alleged to be, that is what dooms the article to be POV -- because there's no way you can keep it updated to include all allegations, and why should your one side that says this is one of the allegations important enough to go in the article be the one side represented? The idea that your proposal is the one supporting NPOV is laughable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


You keep missing the point again and again and again! The discourse has nothing to do with the ex-premies, the AFF or with Scientology. The fact that is worthy of inclusion in this article as a short mention with pertinent examples, as well as very worthy of inclusion on New religious movement and maybe Apostasy is that some NRMs have critics, specifically ex followers or Apostates, that in the NRM's view use tactics associated with hate groups against them. Same phenomenon exist in the anti-cultists battles against NRMs. Is it religous intolerance? Is it propaganda against valid criticism? Let the reader be the judge! --Zappaz 00:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolute bunkum, Zappaz, and now you're not even trying. I have never removed any text that states the fact that NRMs frequently accuse their critics of being hate groups, and I would fight the removal of such text. But that's not the text under contention! The part that you keep re-inserting is the fact that Elan Vital, specifically, accuses its critics of being an organized hate group called the Ex-Premies. You pretend this is because the very, very simple point "NRMs sometimes call their critics hate groups" cannot be understood unless you name specific names as your so-called "pertinent examples". I say bunkum; you have provided no reason why such a simple concept would need any examples to elaborate it, and you have reverted attempts to change the example to Scientology, which had already been mentioned in the article as an NRM alleged to be a hate group! It has everything to do with ex-premies, as evidenced by the fact that that is the only point on which you have retained consistency. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


With your logic, all mentions of Operation Rescue, the Animal Liberation Front, Scientology, Ex-premies and Linux Uzser group have to be removed from the article, simply because you don't need to provide examples and it is enough to say "some advocates", or "some organizations" or "some person" have levelled acussations of hate group against them. What kind of logic is that? How can you insist that that information is not valid and needs to be removed? ... And I can make the same argument against your deletion: that is the only point on which you have deleted consistently. --Zappaz 02:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Which, if you'll notice, is exactly what I've proposed, that this article be the article on what a hate group is, how it is defined and by whom, and that a separate article contain all the allegations about who is and who is not a hate group, and that the only exceptions should be those groups where the particular circumstances make it a particularly illuminating example, such as in the case of Rob Enderle accusing Linux users of being a hate group, or in the case of Scientology, where both sides are accusing each other of being hate groups. You tell me, what is so particularly illuminating about the accusations Elan Vital is throwing about?
How can you insist that that information is not valid and needs to be removed? Gee, I dunno, go ask someone who actually insisted it. And you know something? I would have removed all specific allegations of the kind you mention to List of purported hate groups already, except a) I was actually trying to establish that there was some consensus support for that breakout before going ahead with it, and b) you've made it difficult for any other editor to get in, with your churning up the article and your creation of a new article just so that you could include Elan Vital's accusation without breaking the 3RR. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I still think Wikipedia being called a hate group is a must-have example to end with. --Gary D 20:04, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

For those "occasional editors" not familiar with this rule, please read Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule. --Zappaz 01:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite familiar with it. Just see the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements to see how familiar I am with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was not referring to you, but to other less experienced editors. BTW, you made a mistake that I have clarified at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements . --Zappaz 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today's edit

This edit is based on some suggestions made by Gary D, to whom I asked for advise (see my Talk page).

  1. I have reduced the whole section to a postdata mention;
  2. The Scientology and ex-premie debate about being labelled hate groups to be moved to their respective articles;
  3. Moved most of the text as a new section of the New religious movement article.

--Zappaz 12:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could add to the misuse of the word hate group, the case of the "Linux User Group" too, as they have been accused so,by Robert Enderle from the Enderle Group, a supporter of SCO's line, in their legal case against IBM. Calling their opponents a "Hate Group" is not limited on NRMs and their counterparts. Thomas h 17:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Robert Enderle's comments added. --Zappaz 17:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
wow, that was fast, phew! Thomas h 20:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

American Family Foundation as a hate group

Isn't that crossing the line? They were referring to CAN in the first place and the they later retracted to a great extent their accusation that the AFF might possibly be a hate group. Only two persons say this. Same for SCO. It can not be taken seriously anymore. I mean, following the same standard we could say that Wikipedia commits hate crimes. SSee www.wikipediasucks.com according to Sollog. Andries 07:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

in the case of SCO i think the context may be wrong. This deserves an own chapter IMO.It is not about a hate group in a wider sense of course, but using this term to defame one's opponents, as a tactical weapon for public relation. "A wider sense" could imply that these may also be hate groups even if they are not officially listed. This is of course ridiculous,in the case of the "Linux User Group", because there is no, the "Linux User Group". The article may not only explain the meaning of Hate Group, but also the use of this term under certain conditions as well as in Motherfucker. The SCO thing is just an example of how this is done. Thomas h 06:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The word unreasonable is very important in the definition

I mean, when somebody kills a member of the group you are in to whom the whole group was close then the group will probably hate the killer. But the group is not a hate group because the group's hatred is not unreasonable. I reverted. Andries 19:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/t/Talk%7EHate_group_Archive_4_b5b6.html"