Talk:Hate group

Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1

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

---

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)

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)

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)