Talk:Hate group/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hate groups and NRMs is a minor issue

So the section should be correspondingly relatively small. I worked hard to make it that way, so please do not add content to the section hate groups and NRMs unless there is a very good reason for it. I do not think that Phatgrrl had a good reason to expand it. Andries 16:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course you worked hard ... It would only be fair if you dsiclose your afdfiliation with trhe ex-premie group. Or do you want me to do give libnks to te conversatoons you have with them about how to "fix" this aritcle? The reason I expanded the aritcle is that I think your affiloiation wityh the ex-premie group does not give you the right to edit them "out" of the aritcvle. Disgraceful behaviour. They are a hate group in my view and the view of others, and that has to be told in the atricle. --Phat grrl 16:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not edit the ex-premie group out of the article. I only ensured that the NRM controversy is given the place it deserves in the article, a small one, which should stay that way. And feel free to link to my public conversation with ex-premies about this here if it is related to the changes you want to suggest to the article. Andries 16:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are still not disclosing yiuor affiliations with the expremies. That it unfair and dihoenst. You shuold have done so before you editi their name out of the list of hate groups.

The article needs more wortk. I agree, and expansion on other mainstream areas of hate groups. Work on that but do noit remove the sexction about the hate-group ex-premie. --Phat grrl 16:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phatgrrl, the fact that Elan Vital calls the ex-premies a hate groups had already been mentioned. I did not remove that. This does not deserve more than just mentioning. Who else apart from Elan Vital and, some, not even all, current students of Prem Rawat consider the ex-premies a hate group? This is just a family feud and the articles on Maharaji should digress on the family feud, not here in a general article about hate groups. I have to admit that I am partially responsible for the the relatively big section on NRMs but we should not be made worse by expanding it without a good reason. Andries 17:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yiou are masterful at avoinding the issue here. You are affiliated to the ex-premies and promoting their points ofd view in wikipedia. You discuss with them sdtrategies to put their behaviour in best light. If it is a falmilty feud what the heck are you doing in their "family". They are useing you dont' you see it? the section about nrms explains trhat many ant-cultits use bigortry and hate to diminish the freedoms of others. BIGOTRY=HATE. I am shocked you don't see that. llike it or not, they are a hate grpup by the standars presxented in thsi ariticle. I am not asking to expand the nrm section. Expnad the other sections if you like, thanks--Phat grrl 17:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There were only two non former followers on their forum i.e. Wim Haan who had written a scholarly article about the DLM in 1981 and me. The rest are all former followers. Besides I do not think that you have written in a NPOV way. No, I do not think that anti-cult activism is about bigotry. It is about offering people the possibility of making an informed choice by disclosing information that the groups themselves generally not disclose. Andries 17:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yiuo keep avoiding the issue. Anyway, I don;t care to say any more. Your behaviour speaks for itslelf. Yiu have provedn that youi avoid talking resposnibilty for your covert actions in helping the expremies withot disclosing. your affiliation.

Anti-cult activism is about bigorty plain ans simple. Like it or not. What you thinkl is of no consequence, as you are an anti-cultist youreself. --Phat grrl 18:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And please don't thinlk for a minute that I am disavdantaged because of my dislexia. I may not write well but I mean what I say. --Phat grrl 18:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phat? Phat means Buddha in Vietnam.Very interesting. So you are the angry Buddha girl? Doesn't matter anyway. to make every person that exits a cult and speaks about that a level III apostate, make every activity against a cult some kind of crime in general, may be a tactic you prefer to follow, but is IMHO an extremely primitive attitude. this tactic is of course not your invention, it is well documented in the guidelines of scientology for example. there you can find that external critics that do not know of any internal activities are relatively easy to handle, but the real enemies are those that have been part of the organisation and can reveal facts of the internal structure. please note, nobody here uses the term "hate" as often as your kind. Thomas h 09:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Ex-premies as a Hate Group

After posting this I will remove all mention of ex-premies (former followers of Prem Rawat) as a hate group in this article. Before anyone considers reverting my changes, they should consider my reasons for making them as listed here:-

The subject of Hate Groups is a serious subject and seriously impacts people's lives. Violence and fear resulting from racism and religious intolerance threaten communities, countries, and even global stability. This article should focus on the groups that properly belong in the category of 'hate group' as understood in normal language. If the definition in the article allows other groups that are clearly not hate groups to be included, then the definition is wrong. The subject of hate groups should not be belittled by allowing the article to become a battlefield in a minor online squabble between followers and former followers of a little known indian guru.

The only groups that claim that ex-premies are a hate group are Elan Vital and other followers of Prem Rawat in anonymous websites. Giving Elan Vital's claims credibility, by including them in this article, would mean that Philip Morris, Microsoft, Monsanto, Saddam Hussein, or any other public figure or organisation could discredit their critics on Wikipedia by claiming they are a hate group just as Elan Vital have done. Clearly this would be absurd. Elan Vital's clearly biased POV that ex-premies are a hate group is already included in the Prem Rawat criticism article, and has no scholarly value to be included elsewhere.

Almost all the justification for ex-premies being a hate group given on Elan Vital's sites is presented without any supporting evidence. Even where supporting evidence is given, the allegations do not by any definition justify the label 'hate group'.

Accusing a group of being a 'hate group' is a very serious allegation, and needs to be backed up by independent scholarly sources before being allowed in Wikipedia. Elan Vital does not constitute an independent scholarly source. Ex-premie.org is linked throughout the internet as an important resource on Prem Rawat/Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission. Apart from Elan Vital and anonymous followers' websites, none of these linking sites refer to ex-premies as a hate group. --John Brauns 23:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact described in the article is not that the ex-premies are a hate group. Let the reader decide that. What is described is the fact that they have been labeled as such by the organization that is the target of their criticism. That fact is of enough interest to warrant an inclusion in this article, in particular as it is presented as an example that corroborates the thesis on "internet terrorism" presented by the CESNUR article. Please note that this section of the article presents both side of the coin: anti-cult advocates labelling some NRM's "hate groups" and viceversa.

Please also note that the section starts with the follwing text: The classification of other groups as a hate group is more controversial and little or no consensus has developed as to whether political, religious or anti-religious movements deserve the label "hate group".

Very good point - if no such consensus has been established, and in the case of ex-premies, only the target of their criticism is labelling ex-premies as a hate group, then this article should focus on groups where a consensus has been established, and ex-premies should be discussed in the Prem Rawat - criticism article. --John Brauns 23:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will revert and NPOV the lastest edits.--Zappaz 00:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, you have not answered my point that it is absurd to repeat serious allegations, even in an NPOV manner, without any undependent corroboration. By your logic any organisation can call their critics a hate group and include that allegation in this article. You say the fact that Elan Vital call ex-premies a hate group is of interest. To whom? Anyone reading this article should expect a serious analysis of genuine hate groups, not repeated attempts by a religious cult to discredit their critics. I will remove the references until you can provide independent corroboration for this serious allegation. --John Brauns 08:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes John, if an organization call its critics a hate group in their literature, it would be OK to include that fact in this article, provided there are references. For example, Anton Hein considers Scientology a hate group, and this is stated in the article. --64.81.88.140 16:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, but there is a difference. Both Anton Hein and Sientology are well known. Andries 16:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, please note that allegations and opinions have to be attributed. Weasel words like "Some say" are to be avoided according to the guidelines. Andries 00:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are right, Andries. I removed the text and added a wikilink about Cyberstalking instead (an article that I contributed to back in September). --Zappaz 00:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I do not understand why more than one sentence should be paid to this dispute about an obscure Indian guru in this article. I have to admit that I am to blame for mentioning the Elan Vital dispute here too but in hindsight, more than one sentence seems more than enough. Andries 00:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One sentence is too much for such a serious, uncorroborated allegation.--John Brauns 08:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, as long as we call this an uncorroborated allegation we are OK. You cannot censor the text because you don't agree with it. Please read NPOV#A_simple_formulation. --Zappaz 16:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Brauns did not say that he deleted it because he did not like it. He said that he deleted it because he pointed to the facts that it was insignificant and that only some followers of an obscure guru consider the premies a hate group, not agreed with by anyone else. Considering these facts, I think it is crazy to spend more than one sentence to this family feud in a general article about hate groups. Andries 16:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that we come to disagree yet again: I find the reference worthy of inclusion as I have expressed above. Let's work together on the rest of the article. I agree that it needs development. Go have a good night sleep and let's continue working on this tomorrow :)--Zappaz 00:55, 28 Nov

2004 (UTC)

---

I have explained myself quite clearly here already. I can understand John Braun's disgust about being labeled as belonging to a hate group, but that does not change anything. The ex-premies have been labeled profusely as such by the target of their criticism, and this explosive cocktail of apostasy, vitriolic criticism, cyberstalking tactics, internet terrorism against NRMs and the NRMs reaction (defense?) against that is definitively an area of interest for this article. --Zappaz 16:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, your characterisation of ex-premies is simply not true. May I ask why you are contributing to this article? It has been suggested that you have been professionally employed by followers of Prem Rawat to discredit ex-premies. It certainly seems odd that you are active on the Prem Rawat articles, and are keen to produce an article on 'hate groups'. May I ask, what is your area of expertise? --John Brauns 23:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI, John, the editor that started this whole thing is Andries. Check the history. I am not discrediting anyone, and your accussations are unwarranted and frivolous. Please do not join others with these conspiracy theories. It does not help your case. --Zappaz 03:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is an Islamist group who thinks that the ADL is hate group. Do you think that that should be listed too? There are plenty of obscure groups who consider mainstream groups hate groups. Should they all be mentioned? Andries 16:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that given current NPOV policy, it will be OK to do so if propertly attributed. --Zappaz 17:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So if I put up a website claiming that Wikipedia is a hate group, then I could include that allegation here (properly attributed of course)? Can't you see the absurdity of this? --John Brauns 23:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, labeled profusely, yes, but only by Elan Vital. What if I label everyday the US government as a hate group and make a website. Will I then get a whole paragraph? Andries 16:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not about an individual. What it is discussed in this section is NRM's and hate group tactics and the passionate discourse surrounding it. This is a societal aspect that needs to be covered in the article, and it is.

Andries, pls leave this behind and help me in developing a great article about hate groups. I have expanded on your initial expansion, so let us continue. --Zappaz 17:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will bring the article again to request for comments again because the there is clearly too much disagreement. Andries 20:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ex-Premies fit the agreed-upon description

Based on the foundational and nominative descriptor, specifically:

• Dehumanizing or demonizing the target;
• Conspiracy theories, possibly not well backed up or referenced;

There is little doubt that the Ex-Premies fit the bill. One need only take a walk through their forum 8 pages, the archives of their earlier forums, and their webpage at www.ex-premie.org to see that they have:

1) utterly dehumanized Elan Vital (insisting that it is a "cult" and referring to their "monitor, lawyers and keepers") instead of people;

Richard, you took me to task for not refuting the allegations in your post, so here goes. Calling Elan Vital a cult is not dehumanising or demonising them. EV is listed as a cult in almost all cult lists by experts in the field. Former followers of Rawat, upon leaving, realise we were in a cult - not because ex-premie.org says so, but because we let go of our belief system and know it to be true.--John Brauns 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2) dehumanized Prem Rawat (insisting that he is personally responsible entirely for everything these people find objectionable) and similarly in a dehumanizing way, rationalizing the unsupported slander and intrusions into his private life. Rawat has undeniably become the focus for their obsession (see "house of Drek" pages).

Ex-premies have discussed the oh so human characteristics of Prem Rawat since they first started chatting about him. It is premies who assign super-human characteristics to him. --John Brauns 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3) assert, without foundation, conspiracies left and right, assuming facts with no evidence other than "ad hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What conspiracies? --John Brauns 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, one of their members, Tom Gubler, confessed to their agenda under oath. Although I have seen ex-premies insist that the affidavit was obtained under duress, they are dishonest in not admitting that the Court reviewed this withdrawal and explicitly rejected taht withdrawal. Moreover, this was never appealed. It is, as the lawyers say, "res juducata": a thing decided.

Tom Gubler has stated on oath that he signed that affidavit without reading it, as he was terrified his premie wife would come home and discover what he had done. I had never heard of Tom Gubler before this incident, and he had never heard of me. The only ex-premie Tom know was John Macgregor. --John Brauns 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no reasonable doubt that much of the documented speech of the ex-premies is hateful, inciting violence, and encouraging others to the same. Many ex-premies pretend that the purpose of this speech is merely cathartic, and helps them deal with their feelings. However, this is also disingenuous, as many more postings in the forum archives make it clear that the goal is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge, to avoid Rawat, and to interfere with the ability of people to listen to and follow his message.

There is no evidence that any of the regular contributors to ex-premie.org or the online forums have ever incited hatred or violence. Our goal is to present information on Prem Rawat and if current or prospective followers wish to follow his teachings knowing the facts, then they are free to do so. Elan Vital's goal is to suppress the information we are making available, and this hate group accusation is part of their increasingly desparate agenda. --John Brauns 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While they may feel justified in that feeling, they are stuck with the facts, and with the definition. Perhaps if they moved on with their lives, instead of focussing on something that allegedly left, they would not have the hate group label stick so badly. Richard G. 22:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)(lexy)

Richard, why don't you focus on the allegations against Prem Rawat rather than scouring the internet looking for more ways to attack ex-premies? You do know that a former senior officer in Elan Vital (still a premie) admitted that the allegations on ex-premie.org are true, don't you? --John Brauns 22:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Richard, does your own hatred know no bounds? Ex-premies do not hate premies. We were premies for many years, some of us very recently. We still have many friends who are premies. Ex-premie.org and the forums exist to help premies, not to incite hatred or violence. Calling ex-premies a hate group is absurd, and is clearly a tactic by some premies to discourage remaining premies from reading our sites. The allegation is not supported by any independent body, and should not be in this article. I will continue removing the references until this dispute is looked at by independent Wikipedia contributors. --John Brauns 23:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, in our internet squabbles, many of the tactics of premies, including Elan Vital, towards ex-premies are the tactics of a hate group, but I would not stoop to portray Elan Vital as a hate group on ex-premie.org. A cult, yes, but the nmany independent cult experts also label Elan Vital as a cult. I would like to invite independent reviewers to comment on this, and request a truce until they have done so. --John Brauns 23:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John, you never once refute a single thing said above. All you do is meekly say "you don't hate premies." That is not nearly enough. (Lexy) Richard G. 02:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lexy, what makes you an expert on hate-groups? What educational background do you have to define a hate-group? What evidence do you have (other than what appears on Elan Vital's website FAQs or on the One-Reality website) that substantiates calling Ex-premies a hate group? I noticed that you have also started to define what "Ex-premies" are in the article by the same name. Ex-premies don't have an ideology, nor have ex-premies ever promoted violence against anyone (especially Prem Rawat and his family). The individuals who use their names on the ex-premie forum have been especially diligent in making sure no one is allowed to issue personal threats against premies.

Given you have made these attempts to define what it means to have been a former follower of Rawat, I think I deserve an answer to these questions.

Thank you.

Another Ex-Premie 16:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is quite painful to see the level of denial demonstrated by the ex-premies posting here. Hate group or not, there is an evident agenda of hate visible to anyone willing to scratch the surface of the "sanititized" version of themselves they try to portray here. I mean, you have to blind not to see through that. A short collection of their so called "public service":

• Inciting people via the Internet to drug and kidnap members of Maharaji's family.
• Conducting physical assaults. Recently, Maharaji has received death threats once over the phone and once in person. There were also two attempts to assault him physically.
• Inciting people to poison water at the IRCC Conference Centre near Brisbane during a convention.
• Mounting campaigns of telephone calls and letter writing to the employers of Maharaji's students "warning" them that they employ "a member of a dangerous cult." This caused several of Maharaji's students to lose their jobs or have to close their business.
• Filing formal complaints to professional regulatory bodies to have the law and psychology licences of Maharaji's students revoked. Fortunately, no regulatory body found any allegations worthy of formal investigation.
• Calling the editors of newspapers publishing fair articles about Maharaji (at times up to 40 calls a day), intimidating them into recanting their articles.
• Harassing by telephone and Internet the author of academic articles about Maharaji, emailing his supervisor to have him rescind a fair article about Maharaji.
• Stalking the venues where Elan Vital holds public meetings, contacting the proprietors and flooding them with threats that there may be a demonstration. Then sending defamatory statements about Elan Vital to the proprietors.
• Trying to learn what entities Elan Vital does business with, and then flooding those entities with "friendly warnings" about who Elan Vital "really" is. The hate group's goal is to get contracted business cancelled. One hate group member, a Vancouver-based criminal lawyer specialising in defending drug dealers and rapists, has repeatedly boasted of conducting similar harassment.
• Publishing on the Internet the floor plans of Maharaji's house (where his wife and children reside), publishing his personal telephone number and encouraging people to call him.
• Systematically calling the venues where Maharaji holds events, feeding them slanderous information and trying to cause them to cancel the event.
• Publishing on the Internet details about the private lives and sexual preferences of students of Maharaji and registering these documents with Internet search engines so that people searching these people's names would immediately read this private information.
• Spoofing an email address of the Elan Vital lawyer in Australia and sending thousands of messages to colleagues and professionals, with the purpose of harassing this laywer and his firm

It is easy to list unsupported allegations, and even easier to do so anonymously. Perhaps you could give readers here a reason to take your largely bizarre accusations seriously. --John Brauns 00:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)