Talk:Zendik Farm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
|
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
 |
|
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | ||
[edit] To Rashaun
Whatever you have against Zendik it is not appropriate to use wikipedia to grind your axe. Your insults, and jerky statements and accusations just make it clear you aren't interested in an NPOV article, just slamming Zendik. I have too much respect for the people there to let you do that. Post NPOV stuff and you'll have no problems. Your rudeness isn't worth it... Jyre 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV edit
I edited the critcism and cult sections so that they are NPOV. The criticisms that were reemoved are contained in the linked articles, which are their own sources so no attribution is necessary. I think this article needs administrative help and I'm pursuing that. For anyone who is truly interested in a NPOV article on Zendik Farm, it should be a beneficial thing to get help.Jyre 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] yawn
I've nominated this page for protected status twice, Jyre, and been turned down. Face it; no one gives a fuck. And neither do I, especially when it involves discourse with this bunch.
Shit's boring now. All around the world, same song. "Waaah nobody likes us everybody hates us there's a conspiracy" come off it. I'm editing as I see fit and just ignoring this page. What a joke.
Someone call the waaaaaaahmbulance before Jyre and Siah drown in their own tears. - Rashaun 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV content
Most of the criticism and cult section are not NPOV. The top is. The stuff that's been put in lately is just ridiculous. Whatever hope there is for a reader who wants to look up zendik on Wiki is fading... maybe there should be no praise or criticism sections...
==Nominating this article for protected status.==Jyre 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I removed all the contentious stuff from the Criticism and Cult sections... especially the stuff from the Grim and Blaztoff articles (leaving the links so people can go to them) with NPOV content and where members of Zendik Farm and Helen Newman (since they are living person's who are referred to slanderously) are used as sources for contentious comments. They are unattributable to other than Helen Newman.
[edit] posting on top; re: Siah
To post on top, you click "edit this page" and then insert your entry at the very top, or more accurately, right beneath "planning|class=|importance=." But then again, if you want to split hairs over who's right and who's wrong, then go ahead. Can't say that I give too much of a shit anymore anyway.
The only "unexceptional" source would be Blatzoff's zine, but that doesn't negate his experience at Zendik Farm. Are you suggesting that he never visited Zendik at all? I changed it back because Helen Newman is not the only ex-Zendik that believes that the group is a cult. As a matter of fact, it was another former Zendik who gave her a book that changed her view on Zendik's cult status.
AND OF COURSE you don't think it's a cult, Siah. We could argue about this all fucking day. And I'm sure you want to.
The sentence that troubles you doesn't need a source because the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH below it goes on to support it. It's called a topic sentence. - Rashaun 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] also
Let's try to keep the page organized, okay? New entries go at the top, and there's no need for creating a line if you place two equal signs at the beginning and end of your intended title for your edit. It will then show up as it's own editable section. - Rashaun 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Jack and Emmanuel and Nicole and Donder and Blitzen
Nice to see y'all participating in this discussion instead of just adding shit like "Amy Welsh was lied to because food didn't fall out of the sky" and "Zendiks screw underage Muslim boys" and etc. THAT is what I'm talking about when I say vandalism. "Cult Allegations" is not inherently NPOV when that's essentially the largest part of what people know about Zendik. The article would not be complete if it were not discussed.
To be honest, I don't care about how any of you rationalize the things you've been adding. If they do not fit Wikipedia guidelines then they are not welcome on the page, plain and simple. That's not bitterness, that's adhering to the guidelines of this site. Any other editor would say this to you. An unsourced statement is an unsourced statement, and that's ALL it is in the context of Wikipedia. Also, I know people who live in Austin, TX, and they don't even know who Wulf is, let alone that he might have invented rollerblades. The point is that you can't speak for an entire city, regardless of the issue. "It has been said," "it has been reported," etc. are no good unless you have that source information available. Anything less is hearsay, and hearsay has no place in Wikipedia articles. None of you have even read this page yet, have you?
I'd also like to point out that I'm not making ad hominem attacks, though the entries at the bottom are clearly attacking my person. I think it's natural to assume that when you see random IPs coming from the same city and most being at a community college, that it might be one person editing here and there. I don't think I was out of line at all for thinking that one person in Austin was adding ludicrous and POV claims to the site. I should also point out that ad hominem attacks go against Wikipedia talk page guidelines.
Who is it that you think I am, exactly? I can't wait to hear this shit! - Rashaun 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] more to Rashaun
Bro, I'm not "throwing a shit fit" I just have no idea how to put stuff to make people like you happy. I really thought that was neutral as hell. If I was trying to put my personal opinion, I'd write, "Zendik Farm kicks Ass! Wulf Zendik was right!" Oh well, I probably don't belong on a neutral thingy about Zendik. But the Zendik Farm article isn't neutral either, or true.SiahZendik 19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Cult Allegations" is inheritantly not NPOV- Raushan's motives are very questionable
Well, here I am sitting at a PUBLIC LOCALE frequented be my many friends and myself, folks who like to cruise the web a bit and frequent sites, sometimes even Wikipedia. Yes, we all were a bit fascinated by Zendik, especially during their time outside our home town of Austin. No- there is no ONE person bouncing around. And not all the "vandalism" was done by me or us. Zendik has been a theme of both controversy and inspiration since their time in Austin. Of course, I know Jack and Emanuel- but I am not either of them.
There may be more on this silly excuse for an editor named "Rashaun"- who uses wikipedia as a medium to vent his own prejudices and surfs the web assuming if others are as scornful and clueless as him, he can feel some validity. Edits that do not serve his ego-crusade are not "vandalism" nor is he valid for defending his smear campaign with a few (VERY few) online subjective and barely believable sources from others. An "eZine" as a source? C'mon.
Maybe a bit more on this another time. 24.155.243.76 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Nicole Slaw
[edit] Hank, friend of Nicole
Hey gang, This is Hank. Nicole and I have talked a bit about Wulf Zendik, used to really enjoy his ACTV shows back when I was in college. I haven't really been editing this sight, haven't got around to. May in the future though. Just touching in from the same public location Nicole does- we hang together a few days a week. May edit a bit in the future. 24.155.243.76 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Hank
[edit] Emanuel's friend Jack- editor Rashaun calls "vandal"
This is Jack, a friend of Emanuel's touching in. I have contributed some of the "vandalism" Rashaun is whining about. As absurd as the statements may be I added, they have been prefaced with "It has been said" or "It has been reported"- these things actually have been said, as well as much else. Sources are one thing when they are quite extensive or scholarly or from a serious inside source- but the statements of Amy Walsh are little more than "someone said something" and an "e-Zine" by Batzloff is little more than a handwritten flyer found on a bulletin board. I would NOT dismiss the statements of Helen Newman, as she is an inside source, but it should be clear she is one of several hundred with as much experience. There is serious speculation about who Rashaun actually is, and why he harbors such bitterness about a commune/ community he knows almost nothing about. But a public forum is not the place for personal disclosure. Anyways I am off. Yes, there are at least a few of us "vandals" that I personally know- and we DON'T even have home computers. And more I don't know. Also, why is Rashaun consistently deleting the word a "few" when so few sources really do exist online, and feels at liberty to say "many" as if he represents the public? More later, maybe. 206.77.151.206 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Jack
[edit] Vandalism by Austin TX IP addresses
There's someone in Austin, TX, bouncing from computer to computer vandalizing this Wiki. The IPs being used are 24.155.243.76 and 206.77.151.206. Most vandalism has been at the hands of the prior IP, which I'm thinking is probably the person's home computer. The latter IP is from a computer at Austin Community College.
I reverted back to my most recent edit. Everyone is welcome to discuss this revision.
The information about Brandon Blatzoff having delusions of grandeur and producing a poor zine is unsourced and NPOV and therefore inappropriate for use on Wikipedia; it's not enough that "Two contributers have believed this- so several must be true" (what the edit summary says); this information has to appear in an outside source to make it viable for use on this site.
Siah: You didn't have to delete your comment; all it needs is a viable source, such as publication on the Zendik.org site or publication from another OUTSIDE source. You can't just come to Wikipedia and write "Hi, I feel safe." It's not the way it works. I reverted back to my most recent edit and your comment is included. And stop with the whining about Zendik prejudice, please. Like I told Jyre, the only people out there reveling in Zendik rhetoric are Zendiks themselves and your few hangers-on. To leave out certain information would be to ignore the largest part of the public opinion on Zendik. Wikipedia is not your homepage, and it is not to be slanted in any certain direction. That's difficult, I know, throwing a shit-fit over my comment only serves to damage the already beaten-up public opinion of Zendik farm.
You know, this discussion is super slanted. So far it's just me and a bunch of Zendiks and ex-Zendiks. There's nothing NPOV about anything going on here. - Rashaun 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- response: Hi, this is Emanuel touching in from Austin Community College. No, not all or most "vandalism" done on this page-if any-is by me. Both sources are public, and, as Austin was Zendik's hometown for eight years, many people in this town have much to say, true or not. The other source is also public- not a home computerbut a large public gathering place with open internet access, both stationary computers and people bring their laptops. If we are thinking of the same place and source. So the "vandalism" often contradicts itself- it is not one person bouncing around, but at least several people.
- Gotta have my say- it seems anything outside Rashaun's party line is somehow called "vandalism" Well, any intelligent person knows how to call bullshit on a silly slander attack via wikipedia. Rashaun either has a personal vendetta against Zendik or he is just insanely egocentric about a piece that is really one man's (his) doing based on a very few unreliable sources. - 206.77.151.206 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)E.Z.
[edit] Wulf invented rollerblades?!?! and re:Siah
I've been holding back for a while now, but I think that the "Praise" section needs to go. It's written like an advertisement, which is not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I think it could be merged with "Criticisms" because praise is criticism, but a seperate section singing the praises of Zendik farm is just too much like advertising. I mean, come on, you can't credit someone with inventing rollerblades (or say that an entire municipality recognizes that this is true) without source information.
Siah: Thanks for your input. I'm no stranger to communal and cooperative living, but I really don't think that you or Jyre have really grasped the nature of Wikipedia or what information is appropriate, or even HOW to appropriately display such information. That's what I mean when I tell Jyre he's too new to be editing the entry so voraciously, and it's not like I'm some Wiki veteran, but I DO have a degree in print journalism, and I think that I understand the nonbiased writing style more so than Jyre does. (Now I know that Zendiks think that institutionalized education is bullshit, but I feel like I've learned a lot in my time in university and that my education is one of the most valuable things I possess. There is no such thing as "inner genius" when it comes to the inverted pyramid.)
I think that this article should be left to professional Wikipedians and professional writers. Others have too much emotion invested in Zendik to be truly unbiased. - Rashaun 01:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Jyre
I've already explained to you on your talk page in what ways you're a Wikipedia vandal. You're way too new to Wikipedia to be making such edits. You don't even know what a talk page is or how it functions! This IS the place for my comments on Zendik farm and the status of this page, and you deleted them out of ignorance. Slow your roll, homey.
Also, Jyre - you don't need to be warned by an admin. I gave you your only warning on your talk page.
You insist that I have something against Zendik because I want to leave very important information about the "farm" in this entry. My edits are NPOV, even though I'm reporting about unsavory actions of your Zendiks. You just want to insist that I'm biased just because I'm not filling these pages up with propaganda like you are. Deal with it.
If anyone would like to see proof of Jyre's vandalism...
And now you're vandalizing THIS PAGE by moving discussions to the bottom. Every action you take gives you away. - Rashaun 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jyre is a vandal
I made a post here that he deleted, and I know he's the one that's been vandalizing the entry. I've given him a warning on his discussion page, but once I read thing, I realized he'd been warned before about rampant editing (AKA vandalism). I'm reporting him and seeing about getting the Zendik wiki a protected status. Enough is enough. - Rashaun 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jyre's Response to Rashaun
RASHAUN, I've never been warned, I don't vandalize, and just because you don't like zendik, you seem to post entirely negative things and non-useful info to this article. The Zendik Farm article page should not be used to attack Zendik. It's to provide information so people may understand Zendik. Don't use wikipedia for your grudge campaign.
I want to make sure that the representation on this page is not unfairly slanted or abusive. My personal experiences at Zendik farm may not be representative, but my contributions are aimed at balance and fairness, not censorship. I do feel strongly that hearsay should be balanced if allowed to stay on the page. People with an axe to grind against Zendik should not present hearsay as fact or slant the article negatively. The article should not be a platform for complaint... Jyre 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What?
What the hell happened to this article? Between "jyre" not shutting up for more than 10 seconds and the other trolls picking the article apart, this thing has turned into a shell of what it used to be. I say this article should be nominated for a protected status or deleted. The vandalism on this thing has gotten too rampant.
[edit] The point of this article is to inform Wiki readers...
What specifically do you object to, user:24.155.243.76? The information I have posted to this article is relevant to the specific allegations posted, and they are as relevant as the allegations, and they are sourced... I don't delete allegations so please do not delete things unless you have a specific reason or valid objection. If you are interested in getting the most and best information about Zendik into this article, don't edit capriciously. jyre 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Jyre, a reprentative sample means that of several hundred people who have been involved with Zendik over the the past four decades with some level of commitment, the experiences of several dozen people representing that full time frame and diversity of opinions and experiences of former Zendik members would probably (though not definitely) give a fairly objective overview. What you wrote is simply a personal review. It is very well written and should certainly be read, but it does not deserve to cover the majority of the page. I would recommend you write a brief summary of your own experience and feelngs, about the length of the part by Si, and include it in the praise section. What you wrote is like covering most of the wiki page on Mozart with a personal music review. "Why I enjoy and have gained from Mozart's music" is not proper content for wikipedia, though its important to note that millions of people have. I hope this input is respected.
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE at Zendik Farm by Jyre
I'm not sure what constitutes a "representative" sample of the experience of living at Zendik farm, but after spending ten years there I would hope this attempt to relate my experience there would qualify. After reading all of the material here concerning Zendik Farm I feel strongly that it would be helpful for me to share my experience.
What attracted me to Zendik Farm originally was the philosophy. There are many communities, activist groups, etc. that are doing alternative lifestyles, working for causes, addressing social problems, etc. But of all the places and groups I researched while looking for a place and a people to join, only Zendik had a philosophy that seemed truly holistic and practice-able in a way I felt could have a truly effective and beneficial impact on the global culture, which I was seeking in my life. A raising of consciousness, awareness, and inspiration-to-action for cultural change if you like. So I traveled to Bastrop, Texas and moved in.
Zendik is an all volunteer community, no one gets paid. I liked the idea of not having to work a job I didn't like just to pay bills and survive, yet all my food (organic, which is pretty expensive) my place to live, tools, materials, etc. to work on art and living space and communal needs were provided. The setup was clearly along the lines of "you get back what you put in" in all areas; material, social, health, personal growth, etc. Zendik is very clear in their publications that they have a philosophy they believe in and what is offered there is the opportunity for you to go as far as you can into this philosophy and way of life. Obviously, until you move in and try it, you don't know whether it will work for you. While I was there, lots of people seemed to have come there to Zendik Farm because they were interested in some aspect of the Zendik life and philosophy, such as the unconventional, nonconformist ideas, the art, the organic food, the volunteer/unpaid lifestyle, devotion to a cause, the communal life, etc...
But I could see that Zendik was not just those things. What I experienced was a complete approach to living a comprehensive philosophy, meticulously articulated and expanded on by founders Wulf and Arol. The philosophy of Zendik and the commune itself were and are clearly described as an open-ended "living experiment" in their publications. Their art and their communications to the world at large reflects this. So moving in and living there was to be an experiment. Obviously, there was no personal guarantee of fulfillment, but there was the promise of it. So like me, many people showed up and moved in to try it out. Obviously it takes time for a person unfamiliar with Zendik life and philosophy to learn about it and work on applying what's been learned. That was referred to as "a process", reflecting the "living experiment" nature of it all. I found out right away that this was a real-life experiment, and that the most intensive element of the experiment is the personal honesty required. I was into the Zendik philosophy, Wulf's writings, etc., and it was clearly stated in all writings and conversations I experienced that "Truth" was important and good, and lies were destructive. I and everybody else there were engaged on a moment to moment basis to pursue the "Truth" of any given situation, personal emotional state, relationship problem, attitude, opinion, mental state, etc.
The constant mental effort, and emotional nature of personal revelations had a profound effect on me. It seemed to have that same effect on everybody, although the older members seemed much more comfortable due to their long experience. I aspired to that "level" of experience and comfort and committed myself to the experiment. I aspired to whatever "purity" and personal growth I could achieve, and I believed that the basic premises outlined in the philosophy were right on the money, especially the personal, social, cultural elements. I believed in "Truth" being a real, powerful thing, and lies too. Then it gets personal.
Again, there are many communities, activist groups, etc. that are doing alternative lifestyles, working for causes, addressing social problems, etc. What I found, was that Zendik is unique in it's commitment to personal honesty and a "religious" pursuit of the "truth" of any given situation, personal emotional state, relationship problem, attitude, opinion, mental state, etc. This was the foundation of the commune, which I saw reflected in the way it was organized, and how decisions were reached, and how survival and expansion were achieved.
Like everybody else, I was required to delve into my personal being, and express what I discovered, in hopes of being understood and known for who I was. The philosophy was clear about the goal here. Honesty promoted health and well being: lying, shielding, hiding thoughts and feelings were going to lead to some form of negative result, from shallow relationships to mental, physical or emotional pain. Like everybody else, some things I was afraid to express or reveal, especially if I thought people wouldn't approve, so I had my ups and downs as I struggled to "be honest" more and more, reveal as much as possible, and bravely face the reactions to my expression. However long a person had lived there, they were also struggling in this way, and it was definitely a binding element in the community. The reward for this struggle was a relationship with myself, and relationships with others that had as it's foundation a shared experience of meeting difficult challenges, both personal and work-oriented. I saw real day to day results of this aspect of the philosophy play out in all my relationships and endeavors there. The longer I lived there, the more I saw the real impact of this concept in my own life and everyone around me. I grew, matured, learned about responsibility and expanded my understanding of myself and my potential enormously, working through many difficult personal issues and developing relationships that I will be forever grateful for. The nature of the "living experiment" was clear, the work was hard, the rewards were great, and the promise was strong. I lived there believing it would last my lifetime for ten years.
However, unlike in the world at large, if I had a problem or negative feelings about something, I had to deal with it at Zendik Farm. I had to engage with the others about my feelings, about my opinions, my fears, my hopes, wants, needs, etc. I couldn't get away with avoiding anything. My feelings were reflected in my face, my posture, tone, attitude, presence of mind, it was there to be seen for anyone looking to understand. Someone would say something, trying to find out what was going on in me. If I was unsure and tried to evade attention, that was like a red flag. But of course, I was that way with the others. I wanted to know what was going on with them, I saw red flags. We were all committed to communication, exposure, and addressing whatever was going on. 24-7. Despite the painful nature of personal delving and sharing, the effort to express, and the fear of negative response, I believed in the reward: trust built, depth of understanding, ideas for addressing the situation, evolution and growth as an individual and a member of a team with a lofty goal (helping change the world for the better in a fundamental way). I got back what I put in, and more.
Perhaps inevitably, I reached a sort of plateau in my ability to deal with some things. I could not or would not work through difficult feelings and attitudes with the others. I tried to "do it on my own", and solve what I felt were my problems without communicating. I resisted the others efforts to engage me about this stuff. I was torn and afraid, and there was a lot of guilt and fear, anger at myself and the nature of the situation. I wanted to hold back some things, "fix myself" on my own, and yet I was committed to total honesty. I didn't like the idea of how others would think of me or feel about me if I engaged about this stuff. I got more and more miserable until dealing with it was bigger than running away from it. I left. I saw that same thing happen to many, many people over the years. I saw many people arrive there in anticipation of a conventional social setup, discover that the "personal journey" nature of this living experiment is based on total honesty, and find out they didn't want to do it like that. Whatever they may have complained about, beneath that was their desire, conscious or unconscious, to escape from the constant demand for personal honesty and revelation.
People who live at Zendik Farm have paid dues most people never encounter, in dealing with themselves and their inner workings, and each other. To survive, prosper, and advance towards whatever goals, people there have to deal with their whole selves, their whole life picture, all their problems and issues, and still succeed at the day to day work and projects that constitute this “living experiment”. What I think most people do not understand about Zendik, is that the life there and the philosophy are truly holistic. It’s not just about personal responsibility and raising your life and accomplishments to the level of “a work of art”, it’s also about how YOUR well being, your life and accomplishments, are inextricably entwined with everyone else’s. So for you to have or be the best you can have or be, so must everyone and everything else have or be the best it can. For you to survive and prosper, so must everything else. Therefore, the life and philosophy at Zendik farm is not just pursuit of individual well being, but pursuit of universal well being. Then it gets cultural.
Wulf coined a term; Ecolibrium. It means a balanced culture, a holistic culture. I believe his articulation of what an Ecolibrium culture is and how it may be brought about are his greatest legacy, and the example set by the continuing living experiment that is Zendik Farm is of incalculable worth to human beings now and in the future.
Jyre Heffron
[edit] Thanks for reviewing my post and informing me of these things.
I'm new to all this and just learning my way around here. I decided to post my account in the criticism section of the page because I thought it was addressing the need for a sample, now I understand what you mean. i'm happy to have it adjusted and follow your suggestions. Not quite sure how to get there on the technical side, but I'll work on it. I hope the content I posted will help people understand Zendik. jyreJyre 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I am not a Zendik
Guaranteed, gentlemen, I may agree with them on some things, but I am NOT Zendik. I do not represent them in any way. My website says so. What I do has nothing to do with them. So I am leaving Wikipedia. SEE YA. And if you ACTUALLY read the article I wrote, you would see that I only asked for Zendiks to have their input as well. You don't get the say on who they are. I'll repost it if you want me to to prove it to you.
~Jason M. Vawter (tepiddrummer)
[edit] Zendiks STILL vandalizing this wiki
A link was posted to a blog on myspace where zendiks discussed vandalizing this wiki entry. The user 'tepiddrummer' has since deleted the section from this discussion , as well as things added to the wiki entry. The Zendiks will NOT stop vandalizing this entry and as such I believe they should be barred from doing so.
[edit] Vandalism on this page
I recently filled out the Zendik Farm entry and someone deleted every word of what I wrote. I know how Zendiks are, and I know that they have a member that's probably in charge of making sure that this page looks the way that THEY want it to. So I saved all of my changes, and I intend to check this page every single day and revert any changes that the Zendiks themselves are making.
I would if what I wrote was NPOV or included tons of things that weren't cited, but I've provided links to all the interview with their ex-members, interviews that provided me with all the information I put on the page.
Note to Zendiks reading this: Censorship is not revolutionary. If I continue to see such changes on this wiki, I will take steps to get this page a protected status. - Rashaun 18:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Cult?"
One thing I find particularly concerning is the fact that there's a current member of this cult who is editing the page and removing references to it's cult status. --Lusy 03:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Cult" is a troublesome term. It's almost impossible to use it without violating the NPOV principle. Wiley's Dictionary (from the comic strip B.C.) defined "cult" as "the church down the street from yours." I've met some Zendik people, and, sure, they were a little odd, but so am I. A more NPOV term is "new religious movement," which I have added to the article. RobertAustin 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to find myself cited on this page. However, the information was not quite accurate. I removed the sentence referencing me as stating that new people are tested for STD's during the decontamination period. If this takes place, I was not aware of it. I added a citation for the article I wrote about Zendik: http://www.free-voices.org/archives/issue6/stories/Stories.php?art=finding The words "review of Zendik" have been changed to critique of Zendik. I also aded a sentence at the endo of the paragraph. It is important to note that for nearly a year after publishing this article, I received death threats from anonymous "friends" of Zendik. Thank you to whomever has been vigilant in ensuring that criticism of Zendik Farm remains on this page. Brandon Batzloff 12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, within minutes of my edit, the word critique was removed and the last sentence, "Further, he was strongly discouraged from leaving the compound to use the internet and was physically threatened when he did leave," was also removed. I added them again. Brandon Batzloff 142:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My editing
I removed this from the article:
- "In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (sometimes a relatively small and recently founded religious movement, sometimes numbering in the hundreds of thousands) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics." -Wikipedia and "cult"
I don't wish to be rude, or start an edit war, but this quotation from another Wikipedia article really belongs on the talk page, rather than in the article itself. That's why I moved it. RobertAustin 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions
The point is "Jyre" that the criticism and cult allegation sections are routinely being turned into "zendik farm ass kissing" fests by you and the other users who routinely delete or edit what someone wrote into something that pleases you, arol, and the rest of the sheep that live on that "farm". This article USED to make much more sense. If you want to kiss up and provide your own views on the criticism and cult section DO IT IN THE PRAISE SECTION OR MAKE A COUNTER-CRITICISM SECTION! This article has suffered through countless acts of vandalism by the brain washed zendikheads, it should be either deleted entirely or put on protected status so the random trolls can NOT butcher it further.Awful Turkey 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks for suggestions...
okay i'll see what i can do per your suggestions. I think protected status is probably a good idea, so that cooler, NPOV heads may prevail and sort out what is relevant and appropriate and what is not. I want this article to make sense. I think this article needs to be a place where anyone can read about Zendik Farm and find out what there is to know about it - which I believe includes personal testimony, as reported by Brandon Batzloff, Helen Newman, Ryan Grim, other former membsers and myself. Oh, and if you think my experiences at Zendik Farm have resulted in my only qualification to edit this article being an "ass kisser" you need to expand your understanding. Jyre 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cult Story
Look, I've seen the BS about removing it. The POV is fine and if there's a story going around about it then it WILL stay on the Wikipedia unless an admin or more then 1 person in the Community decides it should be removed. Now if anyone has a better reason againtest it being removed then it not being "True" which it may or may not be please inform me but until such a time i will continue regarding all attempts at removing it as Vandalizing the Page and they will be reverted. I will wait 48 hours until i bring them back so if anyone has a good reason not to I'm watching this talk page. WillSWC 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is obviously slanted pro-Zendik...
I must say, as an outside observer who has read much of the material available on this subject, that many minor factual inaccuracies in the article tend to lean pro-Zendik, and I would not be at all surprised if most of it's content was Zendik generated or altered. Just one example of this is in the cult allegations section when Helen Newman is falsely characterized as claiming "that Arol determines which sexual relationships between members may prosper into romantic relationships." What Helen actually claims is that she was discouraged from having any romantic attachments at all. I understand that the vandalism issues have been dealt with by disabling the page, however a subtle but unmistakable pro-Zendik undertone persists.My name is Mike and it's 1 AM on Feb. 7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.0.20 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Couldn't Bear the Mess
I did some non-substantive clean-up on this article, but reading such a POV-pushing, semi-coherent mess got to be too much for me, and I bailed-out part-way through the process. —SlamDiego 13:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Jyre's personal account, et al
Now that I've got that out of my system...in seriousness, Jyre, I did not read the entirety of your experience because after a while it seemed to be just a mess of too-long sentences that actually do more to harm the opinion of Zendik Farm rather than help it. You really illustrate the way Zendiks bully each other (specifically members who aren't taking so well to their ideas) by blaming yourself for your non-success in the commune. To be honest, you sound like someone who'd return if they thought they could, if they weren't convinced that they were "fucked up" as Zendiks so often like to put it. Don't you see the psychological manipulation here? Convincing someone that the problem is THEM and not Zendik, that Zendik is perfect and that THEY are a failure and a flawed person who lacks the ability to really commit to whatever Zendik thinks a "revolution" is. I'm even disturbed by the fact that you insist on using that name still.
I really do think we should take this guy with a grain of salt. His input seems to me to be damage control at the insistence of the Zendiks. Trust me when I say that it's not unreasonable to think that Zendiks have members whose responsibility it is to keep this page in a certain shape (and that member can't write for shit). There are tons of former members, just like Jyre, who have bought the Zendik notion that they are the fucked up, crazy ones and Zendik is the answer to all their problems. These people are like minions to their cause, a wonderful army of supporters within the DEATHKULTUR who are ready with glowing praise for Zendik Farm.
re:Vandalism: I've done a bit of editing to this page and I've made my great attempts to keep my info fact-based, cited, and unbiased (which is very difficult in the world of wikis, so forgive any mistakes please), but Zendiks and their supporters and castoffs continue to seige this page. I definitely agree that this page needs a protected status. - Rashaun 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Appreciate the attempts to keep info fact based... unbiased is hard, i agree... protected status may well be best... seems like the hard part with being npov about this kind of article is that most editors have personal feelings that guide their contributions, which may be fine in some sense but makes it hard to edit... lot of information from personal sources, quotes, etc... it'd be great to have a npov editor interested in helping here... trying to balance the npov content (without losing info useful to readers who want to know as much as possible about Zendik Farm) is challenging... Jyre 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jacobie's account
(note from Rashaun: I edited this so that it would be easier to read, and I also gave it its own section.)
Hi, my name is Jacobie and I'm a person who lived at Zendik Farm for 3+ years while it was in N. Carolina. I blatantly disagree with some of the contents of this wiki page and have some comments based on my own experiences. First of all, intentional community is far too genteel a term for the rabble rousing communal troop which abound there. Secondly, the movement and philosophy of Zendik is apt information for only those who actually BELIEVE that the world is currently in an immense, deeply rooted crisis. If you're not quite there, then a pat on the back from an ivy-gilded colleague as you cry foul from your wounds or you are happy sitting, re-regurgitating your rules on how to conduct a society and make nice. VERY NICE! as Borat would say.
Meanwhile, for those of us who KNOW we are all on the precipice, onward the great art that cracks us open and the imagery and tools to go by that Zendik provides... - JacobieZar 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)--JacobieZar 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I live at Zendik Farm
My name is Siah. I can tell you NOBODY who lives at Zendik Farm currently ever messes with this page. The ONLY thing added was my little thing giving my little sample saying that Siah is "happy and safe" and all that. Is that not allowable? Is wikipedia only to be used to spread things that are negative. I can tell you that there are flat out lies against Zendik Farm on here, some entirely silly and intended to be stupid, some slanted or out of context. I have not taken 1 of them down. Oh yeah, I also added a couple things, like the fact that we have animals and a music festival, and make bio-deisel. Somehow, the tone of this "talk" page is that people currently residing at Zendik Farm come here and try to deviously destroy the wonderful democracy that goes on here.
I'm sure you won't believe me but oh well. That is the truth.
Some guy says something about he received "death threats". PLEASE, Nobody at Zendik takes any of this that seriously. NOBODY at Zendik makes death threats, that is stupid. Doesn't that make you realize this is some sort of smear campaign in itself? Who gets worked up enough about this to the point where they would make death threats? It is just stupid. Please. I may even be the only person who lives at Zendik Farm who's ever even read the whole article. It is lame and false, not mentally challenging or hard-hitting.
Also, somebody complained about the Zendik Farm wikipedia entry being too "pro-zendik"
1. That's weird, the only "pro-zendik" things I saw were the bare details, like that Zendik is a farm where art is created and animals are kept, and organic vegetables are grown, and anti-establishment thoughts are thought. Those things are TRUE. Aren't true things good to say?
2. The longest section of the page is "cult allegations". These are inherantly "anti-zendik" aren't they? I don't think it's paranoid to characterize that whole section that way.
I end up feeling like I need to defend the fact that there is any good or reality to Zendik at all. No news article or programming on Zendik, no matter how "they are a bunch of hippies" or "they don't practice what they preach"-ish they were, were EVER so harsh on Zendik as this smear-fest. They at least say what Zendik is. And guess what? There are even news articles and TV stories done on Zendik which have the basic tone of "they are a bunch of cool, serious people." Sheesh.
SiahZendik 20:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Siah...
Since I posted the remark about this page being pro-Zendik it has become decidedly less so. By the way Siah, you say no one at your farm EVER edits this page, and then enumerate a half dozen exceptions. The fact that you make an assertion and immediately contradict it at length does not bode well for your credibility in my opinion. Maybe a more honest statement would be "I think I am the only Zendik who has edited this page, but not very often." I'm glad your safe and happy though. My name is Mike. It's 5 am. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.81.98 (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] what I meant
Hey! I said nobody from Zendik Farm "messes" with the page. I didn't mean nobody adds valuable information, just that I don't, for instance, delete stuff I don't like or agree with. I don't even delete stuff which I know to be a mischaracterization or false. Don't put words in my mouth to show me as a hypocrite and then say my credibility should be questioned. I didn't say nobody from Zendik Farm ever "edited" the page, homey. I went on to say that I did cause I have edited the page, I'd say in a much more neutral way than some others who've added negative stuff. There are serious charges accusing people from Zendik of "vandalizing" this article. I'm just saying nobody from Zendik does. SiahZendik 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] to Raushaun
Ok, you got it. I removed the part that said "Siah is happy and secure and has kid..." and all that cause I'm not a journalism expert like you. I just have to say that if you can't smell the rat of vendetta against Zendik in this page, but rather you think that my little tepid statements showing that Zendik isn't the Manson Family are too much, then I give up. I hope sensitive individuals can pick up on what's going on here though. Later.... SiahZendik 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rashaun, I'm sorry but I can't figure out how to post on top
"I'd also like to point out that I'm not making ad hominem attacks" -Rashaun
"I know how Zendiks are, and I know that they have a member that's probably in charge of making sure that this page looks the way that THEY want it to." -Rashaun
Rashaun, That statement seems ad hominem grande, especially considering that it is totally false. You seem to think you are neutral on this and probably think you are correct and doing what is right. BUT, untill there were a few emails to mail@zendik.org letting us know there was a war going on at the Zendik Farm wikipedia entry, NOBODY from Zendik Farm was making this page look like anything. Nobody even popped over to check as far as I know. I came over LONG after your allegations and my edits were of the most tepid and mild variety, and NEVER included deleting accusations, including accusations which I sincerely believe to be B.S. But doesn't your statement sort of disqualify YOU from neutral status on this issue? You're so pre-convinced that Zendik Farm is "vandalizing" and you make multiple accusations of exactly that on this discussion page.
One more thing, I went to re-read that link you embedded about reliable sources. One of the big headings was "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Now, don't you think some of the cult allegations are "exceptional"? I sure as hell do. There are some exceedingly Un-exceptional sources over there, bro.
"Who is it that you think I am, exactly? I can't wait to hear this shit!" -Rashaun
I have no idea who you are, I'm not worried about who you are.
SiahZendik 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] a troubling line in the article
"Critics of Zendik Farm from both the mainstream and liberal media, as well as several of its former members, have accused the commune of being a cult."
This is placed in the article with NO SOURCE. Like, could you put some mainstream or liberal media sources if you are going to put this claim? I have seen many write-ups and videos of Zendik Farm in the mainstream media (some favorable, some not) but actual accusing of the "c" word, nope. Lets see a source or a change there, please.
edit-Ok, the New York Observer article about Helen (which only ever interviewed her, never a word to or from Zendik Farm) does use the word cult so they probably count. I'm editing this line in the article accordingly though.
SiahZendik 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Using Brandon Batzloff's quotes from his self-published ezine is against the rules of wikipedia
Quoted from Wikipedia's own rules on attribution
"Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.
"A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable."
"1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Now this means we could quote zendik.org on the Zendik Farm article, but zendik.org would probably be a poor source for an article on Brandon Batzloff's ezine "Free Voices" and conversely, his self-published ezine article would be a perfectly valid source for a wikipedia article on himself or his ezine but NOT an article on Zendik Farm, especially considering that EVERYTHING attributed to Brandon Batzloff's article is contentious. According to the rules, "poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately."
I would appreciate if somebody more "neutral" could make this edit if I am correct about this, which I'm pretty sure I am.
and just a reminder "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." SiahZendik 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm not sure you are correct in your directives about putting new posts at the top, Rashaun
If you just press the "+" button, it automatically puts new posts at the bottom. That is why mine always end up down there. I looked around at some other talk pages and there is some degree of chaos but many of them seem to have new posts tagged on to the bottom. Also, they are sequentially numbered, and it would be weird to me if "34" came before "1" unless it was a rating of how recent the postings were. Sorry to be so picky but you were bugged with me for posting at the bottom and at first I tried to change my ways and then I realized, hey maybe Rashaun is mistaken. SiahZendik 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I think that is just sneaky Rashaun...
...if you think you can slip in the line "critics from the mainstream and liberal media accuse Zendik Farm of being a cult" without naming more than 1 critic from the media. Please name them and site them. I knew of 1who accused Zendik Farm of being a cult and I am actually the one who sited it. By the way, I emailed back and forth with the author of that article and he freely admits to his 1 source of information about Zendik Farm as Helen Newman. Yes, that's right, all the valid attributable positive and negative articles about Zendik done by people who VISITED and reported on Zendik Farm, NONE of them say Zendik Farm is a cult (unless you count the un-sourceable ezine, Free Sources) so even though that is your opinion, you can't just make that up. I edited to reflect the attributable reliable sources, as per the rules. You edited according to your opinion, so don't blast me dude, you are the one who is blatantly breaking the rules. Name the mainstream and liberal media sources who say that Zendik Farm is a cult, Rashaun. I can name 1. "The New York Observer". To be "critics", there must be more than 1. Name them and site them in the article. There are rules here. I know you have strong opinions, but on wikipedia, you need to back them up with sources if you want to put them in an article.
You preach a lot differnently than you want to have to live up to. You say Brandon Batzloff should be allowed to put his experience though it is obviously against the rules to post contentious claims from such sources and say I would be calling his few days of "experience" false by removing it. But, my over 16 years of experience, you say is not fair to put up, and my experience with Zendik has been duly removed, and I hope you at least respect that I haven't put it back in or whimpered about it being taken out by somebody.
Now, I'm just talking about the rules, Rashaun. Please play by the wikipedia rules, even if they aren't in favor of your pet opinions. SiahZendik 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dear Siah
Stop bitching. No don't start a revolution, just stop bitching kthxbye.Awful Turkey 06:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop bitching. No don't start a FlameWar, just stop bitching kthxbye.1337 H4XZ0R 19:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is Zendik a cult?...
Siah, I understand that you have strong feelings about this subject. It is never easy to be criticized. However, one needs only google Zendik to see that accusations of cult activity are the rule and NOT the exception. No matter how hard it may be for you to examine objectively, the fact is that these kind of claims have been consistent, both in frequency and content. The truth of these claims may be debated, but the fact that they persist may not. A person on the inside of something may not see details of that thing as clearly as those on the out. You have, in fact, admitted as much. I strongly urge you to abandon your intellectual dishonesty and admit that your adherence to Wulf's philosophies are analogous to any other "faith". Zendik may be "awesome" to the 2 dozen people who live there, but not everyone thinks so. To accurately portray your (very exclusive) movement, these realities must be addressed. I'm Mike. Its 12 43. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.15.162.145 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] To Cult or not to Cult?
I reviewed Zendik via google. Only several sources have used the C-word about Zendik, and less than several are at all credible. Soures are the ones mentioned on the Wiki-page: Ryan Grim, Helen Newman, that silly Jason Riviera- though that is a dumb parody...cheked the first few google pages. The C-word is NOT the rule with Zendik, just a safe outlet for a few people's bigotry. ~~Nicole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.243.76 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Jyre, Siah STOP!
The criticism section has just as much right to be o nthis wiki as the praise section. STOP WITH YOUR VANDALISM! 68.63.111.32 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To: 68.63.111.32
Whoever you are, since there's no user page or name associated with your IP, and you obviously care about the article, let's get some admin help in on this to make it NPOV, maybe reduced, maybe expanded praise/criticism sections, whatever - just so that you are willing to try to agree on an NPOV article. I'm happy to get admin help if you're into it. Otherwise it's you shouting at me, me hoping you'll quit slandering and adding contentious material to the article. These are living people you're posting information about and under wiki guidelines it is NPOV, so let's work to make it a good article ok? Jyre 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rashaun acused a widely used public location of "vandalism"...
We all have to choose the battles we fight. There is an old saying, a man is only as big as what he sets out to destroy. And it seems Rashaun's biggest battle in life is keeping a wikipedia page a smear campaign and outlet for his own deep-rooted resentments. This "Raushan" is so insanely full of himself he reported one of the biggest public wireless locale in Austin as a "vandal". Perhaps he would block the whole state of Texas from editing his- and it is HIS- page if he could. No- I have never been your "vandal" but you can still kiss my virtual ass, 24.155.243.76 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Jack
- When you trace an IP, all it brings you is the city and any other pertinent information. A student's computer in their dorm would also come up as an IP from Austin Community College. That's what I reported, so stop putting such a bullshit spin on things. Also, you can save your baby insults for someone who gives a fuck. Light a candle for Wulf's dusty ass right before you cry me a goddamned river of pearl necklaces, Fauntleroy. - Rashaun 23:02, 30
March 2007 (UTC)
@Rashaun that wasn't necessary you both present good arguments.GO AWAY TURKEY your useless near spam crap is unneded.24.155.243.76 who are you anyway just wondering not saying anythying bad like WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE thats not what i meant.This article seems good to me anyway i was not here for the vandal parts i just came but,Nicole cult is cult its NOT a curse word or anything like that no need to call it,The C-Word but yeah.Still im unsure who is Vandilizing im not blaming anyone but Hmm.
And rashaun in no way is that the only or one of the 2or3 insaulsts you particapated in the flame war that turkey would enjoy to continue.I can not possibly decide whos correct you both needed to be downed on many different situations,cause you were incorrect.but you both present good arguments although at times uncivily and porrly presesnted still good.that is my best look i can give i severly hope the vandilism stops though goodday/night.1337 H4XZ0R 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cool Heads
Please, Gentlemen! I would like to remind everybody of a few things. If the nutrality is disputed, place the NPoV template ( {{PoV}} ) at the top of the article. Also, consider placing the NpoV Section template ( {{POV-section}} ) Also. The Wikipedia policy is no personal attacks, so please calm down, everybody. I would also encourage you to log in to wikipedia (or make an account). --Wavemaster447 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jyre's recent edits
This is just obscene. You are deleting huge swathes of text withouth any justification or explanation. Any sourced information is allowed on the site, no matter how much it burns you up to see Amy Welsh's, Helen Newman's, and Brandon Blatzoff's experiences on the page. Editing something down to say "such-and-such visited and wrote an article about it" is a form of vandalism when you're using it to replace statements about Amy Welsh being sexually harassed by Zendik males and Helen Newman being fucking robbed.
There's no way I'm letting you blank entire sections of this page. That's textbook vandalism by Wikipedia standards. - Rashaun 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bold edit by Jyre
I removed the content that was contentious and libelous concerning Zendik Farm. The criticism section was written in a way that slanders the people living there. The articles that all of these criticisms are drawn from as 'sources' are now listed and linked on the page under "critics' of Zendik farm because that is an appropriate title. Each individual's comments are the 'source' for that slanderous section. This article is about a group of living people, notable for their art and perspective on things, and I think it's dangerous to post accusations that are based on shaky sources. To keep this article as neutral and informative as possible, I did a bold edit. I'm interested in help from administrators on this. Not into a flame war or an edit war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jyre 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Jyre (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] re: Jyre's bold edit
I reverted your changes because you don't know what slander is in the context of journalism and scholarly writing. Slander is such when the publication itself makes those statements. All of Blatzoff's, Newman's, and Welsh's info/experiences are not slanderous because they are not credited to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't saying that Amy Welsh was sexually harrassed by male Zendiks; Amy Welsh is saying that she was harrassed. Get it? That information is properly accredited to the right people, therefore it does not violate Wikipedia guidelines.
Don't forget that when you edit those sections in such a manner, you're blanking them, which is vandalism according to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm telling you now that I will continue to revert any vandalism, Jyre.
Also know that you cannot edit posts on the TALK PAGE by other users. That's also vandalism. - Rashaun 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jyre...
You can also STOP acting like an admin here on wiki and threatening to ban people who make proper edits to articles. Awful Turkey 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
