Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hate groups and new religious movements

This article was a section of the Hate group article until today. Rather than remove one specific disputed sentence of the article (an allegation by a particular new religious movement that certain of their critics are organized against them as a hate group) one editor, who had already reached his limit of three reverts on that one sentence of the article, decided without consulting any other editors to remove the entire section and turn it into its own article. This version of the article, of course, contained the disputed sentence.

There is certainly such a thing as being bold in editing. However, "Be bold" also clearly states "show respect for consensus". This edit was clearly not done with respect for consensus but in defiance of the fact that the disputed sentence was not supported by consensus. This article should be merged back into its parent article. Splitting off an article is not a valid alternative to "obeying the three revert rule". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(NOTE: Antaeus is incorrect on this. I did not exceed the three revert rule. I am one of the main contributors to the hate group article and did many edits that day, not just reverts. On the other hand, Antaeus, the one requesting this VfD was the one doing reverts only...) --Zappaz 15:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: Despite my clear description of the sequence of events above, Zappaz creates a second, false version of events that he misdescribes as my account (the familiar "straw man" technique). Zappaz did not violate the letter of the three-revert rule, by restoring an allegation he wanted in the article three times, and then restoring it yet again. He certainly violated the spirit of the three-revert rule, by restoring an allegation he wanted in the article three times, removing the entire section without consultation or consensus to a new article, and restoring the very same allegation to the very same place. What Zappaz describes above, making "many edits" which all contain the restoration of a disputed element, and arguing that those edits do not count as 'reverts' because they are not only reverts, has been argued before and it has been rejected before; they clearly count as reverts in the spirit of the three-revert rule, even if the violator has tried to exploit a technicality. Likewise, Zappaz restored the same sentence to the same block of text four times. Does the fact that he moved the block of text itself to a different article between the third and fourth time he did it mean that he never violated the spirit of the three-revert rule? Clearly not; under that interpretation no one would ever have to obey the three-revert rule as long as they remembered to punctuate every three reverts with a page move or a breakout to a new article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, Antaeus. An apology for your mistatement was expected. Instead you expand with a lame attempt at interpreting the three revert rule. Unbelievable. --Zappaz 22:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your words, Anteaus: one editor, who had already reached his limit of three reverts on that one sentence of the article [....] decided without consulting any other editors to remove the entire section and turn it into its own article. Should you say sorry...? --Zappaz 22:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not until I'm wrong, Zappaz. You had already reached your limit of three reverts, and when you wanted to do another revert but couldn't without hitting the three-revert rule, you moved the section you wanted to a new article and then said "There, I haven't broken the three revert rule; sure, I restored a disputed part of the text to the exact same block of text as before, but because the block of text is now in a different article, it's not technically a revert." You may have adhered to the letter of the rule, but you sure as hell didn't adhere to the spirit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you are wrong, Antaeus, you are. You see, you are assuming that I removed the text block from the article as a way to bypass the three revert rule. Well, that is your assumption and one that I take exception with, because it assumes malicious intent on my part. This is becoming personal for you: your attitude in following me around my edits in other articles to "NPOV" them, your negative comments about my prolificacy, and your accusation against me as in your last comment in the talk page. Antaeus, I have made a decision not to get angry at you, because by doing so I only become your victim. So, I will remain cool and collected, go back to my edits and hope that others will join me in keeping that text in the Hate group article as well as helping me further develop the Hate group article, and this article if it survives VfD or the pertinent section in the New religious movement. After all this is what is all about: editing the best encyclopedia there is, and not engaging in endless debates. --Zappaz 03:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional comments by Zappaz

• Let me correct you here, Antaeus. You keep assuming that the vote on this page is for merging back to Hate group. But you are again wrong in your assumptions. Voters here will decide through this VfD, the fate of this text, (keep, delete, or it to merge into another article, which one.) not you. --Zappaz 19:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's extraordinarily weak, Zappaz. If I thought it was up to me to determine the fate of the article, why would I have put it up on VfD for a vote in the first place? Surely you are not suggesting that I have no right to point out that you took the entire text of the article straight from the Hate group article? No right to point out that the first thing you did when you created the article was to restore a heavily disputed statement that would have been a violation of the three-revert rule had you kept it in the original article? No right to point out that at least three of the voters who have shown up to cast votes have made clear that they view that allegation as the purpose of the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If that is the case, it will be more appropriate for you then, to stop speaking of merging back to hate group article, every time you counter a keep vote. Concerning the three votes that are as you say are supportive of the "ex-premie as a hate group" allegation, that has nothing to do with the fact that what we are doing in the VfD page is voting for the whole text not just these four words. --Zappaz 23:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: The edit war history is one thing, but the article move is another. Is the new organization useful? Will it be sought? I think the answers to both are "no." Therefore, delete as a stand alone. No need to merge and redirect, as it's a split already. Geogre 02:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's a valid topic. Not just a valid topic, but one which could have an excellent, fascinating article written about it. The animosity between "cults" and anti-cult groups is an enormous topic. So keep it, and revert that redirect. Everyking 09:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, let it fester and grow. Wyss 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Abstain for the moment I fully agree with Everyking that the animosity between cults, NRMs and its detractors is a valid subject and needs its own article because the cult article is already approaching 32k but I do not think that the title is good. I propose cult wars (this sounds unencyclopedic but it really is a propaganda war) or Controversy surrounding cults and new religious movements. Move to Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics. I have a lot of material in my head and books that can go in that article. The article can contain among others the following subjects.
  • accusations by the anti-cult movement, media and ex-members
  • reliability of the testimonies of ex-members. E.g. scholar J. Gordon Melton categorically refuses to use ex-members' testimonies because he thinks that they are unreliable. (I am an ex-member and I find this highly offensive and prejudiced)
  • Hate groups and NRMs
  • etc

Needless to say that such an article will probably be extremely controversial. Andries 18:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • I like that second suggested title. Obviously the use of "hate groups" in the title would be very problematic for a general article on the subject. Everyking 19:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: The edit war is raging simply because the ex-premies, a group of 20 people don't like to be called "hate group". Fact is that they are being called that, and the reasons clearly documented. The contention between NRMs such as Elan Vital and hateful ex-followers such as the ex-premies is part and parcel of the on-going debate of freedom of religion and the controversy surrounding the use of the Internet for magnifying the relevance of fringe groups as the ex-premies. The whole section was moved out of the hate group into New religious movements and now it is being deleted again from there by the ex-pemies and anoter editor that is helping them. That is the reason why I am placing this back in VfD. I vote keep and title change to Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics ≈ jossi ≈ 11:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would like to note that Jossi has descended to personal attacks here, identifying those opposing his side of the "edit war" as "the ex-premies", "hateful ex-followers". I question how changing the noun in the title from "hate group" to "critics" is going to result in any change in the POV attitude of the text. To quote from the VfD template, "This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia." If it's not going to be something acceptable to consensus as a section of Hate group, it's not going to be acceptable to consensus as its own article, either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • I would like to note that Antaeus has taken it upon himself to judge each people round here. I wonder what makes him feel entitled to do that. In his comment above, Jossi is only stating his POV: that the ex-premies in his view are a hate group, and that the ex-premies and one other editor are removing that text. Both, by the way, facts that can be seen in the article's history. He is expressing strong statements aginst the ex-premies. That is his choice. But he is not saying anything against anyone else. Please, read before you shoot!!!! --Zappaz 03:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can not say that I often agree with Jossi but I think that the title that he proposed Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics for a future article is better than my proposal. There will be enough material for that future article in a few weeks, I think. Andries 09:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and expand somewhere- The current situation is that a short summary of this is now present at Hate group (and still under pressure to be removed from there), and the whole text placed as a section in the New religious movement. That text is also being challenged there by one editor that is only interested in removing text regardless of the value of that text. As one that studies [[Apostasy] throughout history, hateful behavior of apostates is not surprising. As Everyking says, this is a fascinating subject, and the controversy between emerging religions and their apostates is worthy of exploration. After I complete my work on Apostasy, we may end up with enough text for an article just on this subject with summaries placed then on New religious movements, Cults and Apostasy. In respond to Andries about this article being very controversial[sic], I would say, "exactly." --Zappaz 15:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC). Change title to: Controversy surrounding new religious movements and their critics, then the current text can go in its own section called "Allegations of hate group behaviors". Other possible sections: "Reliability of apostates' testimony", "Criticism vs. freedom of belief", "Religious fundamentalism and their criticism of NRMs", "The left and their criticism of NRMs", This will be a great article. --Zappaz 16:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • The question is whether you should have broken out the text in the first place. Did you consult with any other editors to determine consensus before making the unilateral decision to perform the breakout? Was the size of the parent article such that it needed such a breakout? When you broke out the article did it give you permission to restore a disputed piece of text on which you had already hit the limit of three re-insertions? No, no, and no. Your claim that you can find really interesting material to fill up your new article is irrelevant to the fact that you started a new article so that you could include material which you could not get consensus for in the original article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Are you saying that I need consensus to do an edit? What kind of behavior is that? Have you edited an article later? Do you have to ask permission to edit anything? I do not understand you, your reasons and your motives. Sorry --Zappaz 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • For someone who was just three days ago complained that my edits were "unilateral" because no one who wasn't previously involved in the dispute had stepped forward after an RfC to say "yes, you should do that", you suddenly seem quite unfamiliar with the concept of consensus. You'll note that I had my own refactoring of the article to suggest, a separation of the current articles into Hate group and List of purported hate groups. This separation has precedent in the articles for Cult and List of purported cults and it actually has a chance to solve the major point of contention on the article, since the people who are fighting your efforts to keep reinserting specific allegations into Hate group have generally supported so far the efforts to put those allegations into List of purported hate groups. However, your breakout of a new article was definitely not designed to solve the conflict between the two groups, since it only allowed you to insert the exact same bone of contention into your new article (which you could not have done without breaking the three-revert rule if it had been kept as one article.) So completely far from bringing us closer to consensus, your breakout of an article has resulting in the bone of contention being doubled, since the allegations under dispute are now in both articles! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Look Anteus, you shoud have been more forthcoming from the outset. Now that I know your POV (i.e. after reading your words of support of Rick Ross, and your anti-scientology stance as expressed in your user pages, etc.), I undestand much better where are you coming from. So, I have no problems if you want to start an article List of purported hate groups. Go ahead! I still reserve the Wikipedia given right, to to continue developing this text either here with a different title, as a sub-heading in New religious movement, or as a sub-heading under Apostasy. My research shows me that there is a lot more than just "group X calling group Y a hate group" or "Group X uses the term hate group against group Y as a form of vituperation" as per Gary D.'s comment. Much, much more. Hopefuly others will help me develop this further. --Zappaz 02:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • You may think you understand much better where I am coming from, Zappaz. Or you may just think you have an accusation you can hurl against me that will stand up better than your previous accusation of "You're siding with the ex-premies! That's appalling and disgusting!" If you were to actually develop this article in an NPOV manner, then I would have no objections. The fact that the first thing you did when you created a new article was to insert a disputed sentence that you could not have done had you kept things to a single article gives me no faith whatsoever that you actually intend to be even-handed with your new article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, at least I can prove that the accusation that you make against me here is untrue. Hereabove I explicitly wrote that the information should be kept. I only think that the detailed information that you inserted is not appropriate for such a broad, general topic as new religious movements. I think you are a POV pusher on the subject cults and NRMs and I can prove it by the edits that you have made. If you believe that cults are so harmless then why do suggest me to seek psychological help to deal with my cult involvement? Andries 18:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andries, we all have our POVs. That is a fact. Yes, I am concerned with the cloud of negativity pushed around emerging religions by the unikely coalition of anti-cultist, the religious right and the noveau left. I have stated that openly in several ocassions. What I told you was that you may be trying to use WP as a way to resolve your internal conflicts regarding your traumatic experience with an NRM. My advise to you was to seek professional help. That will do you better than edit wars in WP. Regarding this article, I don't care were we put it as long as it stays.--Zappaz 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. There may be the germ of an article here somewhere, but this a shameless POV dodge. Settle the issue on the main page, break out something later. --Calton 07:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - If one judges by the controverys above, this is juicy stuff. My vote is to keep, maybe changing the article's title to something that would allow expansion. --Senegal 00:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hi user senegal - i watched your contrib list -almost Prem Rawat only- You are using a sockpuppet, probably two votes from you here, or more? What an accident that you appear here for voting since you didn't use it after October 11. What_is_wrong_at_Wikipedia_? 66.250.68.55
  • Yes, this is my sockpuppet account, publicly stated here: User:Senegal. Designed specifically to deter trolls like you from harassing me and vandalizing my real user page. Admin: your call if to count my vote or not. --Senegal 14:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • It was just as juicy stuff when it was part of Hate group, which is what I'm hoping you will change your vote to a merge back into. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete article and merge content into an appropriate article. If Hate group doesn't fit then send it over to Cult or some religious article. The other alternative is to rename it and make it encyclopedic - Hate and religion (it's not just new movements that hate each other). But splitting an article to avoid settling a conflict is not the way to arrive at the best articles. -Willmcw 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep There is a considerable body of hard, provable material to raise more than a reasonable inference that this Ex-Premie outfit is a hate group, or at the very least, fits the definitions that Wiki editors have already accepted. In addition, the Ex-Premie group have made many statements, here and on their web page that they are a large enough group of people to be taken seriously. They can;t have it both ways. If they speak for "thousands" of people, as their de facto leader John Brauns has said, and, if they are doing a "public service" by their activities, as they have also claimed, then the scrutiny of public exposure is as appropriate to them as it is to their target. In short, "who watches the Watchmen?"

The section belongs here, and if written fairly, cleanly and in an academic fashion, then how is the public LESS served by an exposition and discussion of the issues? MORE INFORMATION IS ALWAYS BETTER. Be editors, not censors. Richard G. 14:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Note that Richard G's vote does not address the actual issue, that of whether the article under discussion should have been split off from Hate group. If anything, it is evidence that, despite the protests, the article was indeed created expressly for the purpose of including an disputed allegation against Prem Rawat's critics -- since that allegation is exactly the justification that Richard G. offers for keeping this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The discussion in this VfD has evolved Antaeus. You cannot silence good points for developing this article furhter. Several people are adapting their initial vote base on the comments by others. That is a good thing. I would urge you to re-consider your stance and evolve your thinking as well. This text can be seed for a great article. --Zappaz 23:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The discussion in this VfD has not "evolved", it has been deliberately dragged off-topic by determined red herrings. The point is not whether the text "can be seed for a great article", because no one is disputing that the subject itself is encyclopedic. The point is that it was an encyclopedic subject that was already being covered in an existing article, and you found you couldn't control its contents to the degree you wanted without violating the three-revert rule. You believed that you could get away with re-inserting the same sentence in the text for the fourth time in twenty-four hours as long as you extracted the entire section to a new article. And your airy waving away of that impropriety with your patronizing "evolve your thinking" is really no more than saying "let me get away with it; I thumbed my nose at Wikipedia but let me get away with it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I can only say that I find your self-righteousness (may I say anal-retentiveness?^*) to be rather insufferable. You find it easy to accuse others of malfeasance but fail to recognize your own shortcomings. Could it be that the one "thumbing his nose at Wikipedia" is you? Rather than work to help build consensus it seems that you chose to hold on to your POV so dearly that you fail to recognize value brought forth by voters on this page. I am glad that this VfD is almost over and hopefully spare these endless debates and focus instead on editing. --Zappaz 02:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(*)... the intended implication is that an anally retentive person needs to "loosen up" a little instead of "holding on to it".

You are a specialist concernig those matters, i know. What about anal-tattoo? What_is_wrong_at_Wikipedia_? 66.250.68.55

• • • Note that Antaeus Feldspar uses this vote page to pass judgement on the reasons for votes that are contrary to his vote. LOL! I we all followed that procedure oh my god! Let people vote and express their POVs in peace. --Zappaz 20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I simply wish it to be noted that Richard G. (or Lexy, if it is again Lexy using Richard's account) does not make a convincing argument for why the article should be kept; if anything, his/her argument shows why it should never have been created. If the reasons given for a vote are irrelevant, then why does the deletion policy specifically state to give reasoning behind all votes? If the reasoning offered for a vote is flawed, who are you to say that the flaw in the reasoning cannot be pointed out? Once again, even as you are pretending despite the clear evidence that you had some other motive for breaking out than wanting to reinsert an allegation against the ex-premies, Richard G. is coming along and citing the opportunity to make an allegation against the ex-premies as his/her sole reason to keep the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep In my previous submission on this subject, I provided links to a substantial body of evidence including numerous forum posts by members of the 'Ex-premie' group, and an affidavit accepted as evidence by the Supreme court in Brisbane Australia. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the group's activities, and the statements of its members conform to Wikipedia's Hate Group criteria.

I endorse Richard G's comments. The term "public service" is a smoke screen used by this 'ex-premie' group to disguise the real nature of their activities. For further information, please visit http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/11/0/ or http://www.one-reality.net Thank you, James R -- User has exactly three edits, this vote and two edits to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ex-Premies.

Interesting material that seems to belong within either Hate group or the second half of New religious movement. I don't see any reason to create a new article. (Re)merge -- Hoary 02:24, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

• Comment and clarification from user James R The comment "User has exactly three edits, this vote and two edits," has been added to my post above. On October 14th, I received an email regarding this web site and submissions by Jim Heller. The author used an anonymizer, so I chose not to reply, however, my interest was aroused. I maintain a web site, www.one-reality.net , in which I expose the Ex-premie group for what they are (a HATE GROUP), debunk their propaganda, and expose the tactics they employ. My free time is limited. Others were already countering the inaccurate, excessively negative ex-premie spin, so for those reasons I did not contribute to the debate on this web site at that time. I chose to contribute to the discussion for the first time when the subject of ex-premies as a hate group arose. I hope that my contributions, recent and few though they have been, have shed some light on the real nature and modus operandi of the ex-premie group. I will write a more detailed account later in the week. My thanks to Wikipedia editors. Obviously, you have done your best to wade through a mountain of conflicting information concerning Prem Rawat and the organizations supporting his work. I hope that an analysis of the Ex-premie Hate Group will present an easier task. James R

• Delete. Before I would consider this an article worth keeping, I would want to see some evidence that this article is going to develop into anything more than a tactic to avoid achieving consensus in another article. I don't. If every article X on which there is a dispute spawns a "Controversies concerning X" article, Wikipedia will be filled with dumb "Controversy" articles pretty fast. --BM 17:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • BM: It will develop into a full blown article, now or later. See a sample of what it could look like in my scrapbook --Zappaz 19:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated by BM. The content appears to be useful and should incorporated in the Hate group article. Martg76 19:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• ((((( KEEP )))))Make no mistake this is an original Cyber Stalking Hate Group. Do not allow them to Fadddddddde away. Their tactics are beyond reproach.Scare mongering, Telephone hang-ups , Virus mail - You name it - These guys willstop at nothing!

Peter Gordon LLb Note: this is 203.217.39.118's only edit.

• • Yet another voter showing up, never questioning that the reason for the article's existence is to promote Elan Vital's allegations against the ex-premies. They're probably correct about that, too. They're just incorrect that this actually constitutes a valid reason to not re-merge the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The page needs some improvement and perhaps some more material, but the topic seems important enough to carry in the Wikipedia. The controversy over the article proves that it is at least thought-provoking. RyanGerbil10 06:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (voted moved from main VfD page--Niteowlneils 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC))
• Delete. Motives suspect. Niteowlneils 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No POV forks. Jayjg 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)