| Revision as of 18:25, 21 December 2004 editAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits →Location of text← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:13, 22 December 2004 edit undoZappaz (talk | contribs)5,934 edits →Location of textNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ::I saw nothing in the VfD assessment to indicate that the material was to be somehow exempted from the general Misplaced Pages rule which can be seen on any editing screen, "'''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.'''" (emphasis in original). You'd think that if that was implied, every time a VfD ended in a consensus to keep, then the admin who removed the VfD notice would put a <nowiki>{{protected}}</nowiki> tag on at the same time, but I can't think of a single case where that's been done. -- ] 18:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ::I saw nothing in the VfD assessment to indicate that the material was to be somehow exempted from the general Misplaced Pages rule which can be seen on any editing screen, "'''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.'''" (emphasis in original). You'd think that if that was implied, every time a VfD ended in a consensus to keep, then the admin who removed the VfD notice would put a <nowiki>{{protected}}</nowiki> tag on at the same time, but I can't think of a single case where that's been done. -- ] 18:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :::Of course this article can be mercilessly edited. '''We know that'''. Duh!. But you go ahead and do whatever you want to do. Clearly '''you give a hoot about consensus'''. Anybody can see that. Read the vFd comments, please, and count how many people supported your proposal? '''ZERO''' Uh? So go ahead and start your "putported hate groups" article. At least you will be doing something ''useful''. --] 03:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:13, 22 December 2004
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1
VfD
Ladies and Gents, it's my judgement that the VfD consensus was to keep the material at Hate groups and new religious movements, but not at that location. Furthermore, wiki-precedent suggests that arbitrary article-splitting is not an acceptable practice. Therefore I am merging the material as a purely administrative procedure. I have no interest in or knowledge of the on-going debate save what I read on VfD. Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Location of text
Admin Mackensed has judged that the VfD consensus was to keep the material but not at "Hate groups and new religious movements". My proposal then is:
- to revert to the previous short version of Hate Group (this version ); and
- keep the text at New religious movements#NRM's and their critics instead of here. --Zappaz 04:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I propose that instead of taking it as assumed that "the text" will be kept in its current form and that the only question is 'in which location', we instead concentrate on refactoring this page into two articles:
- Hate group -- a description of "Hate group", the abstract concept;
- List of purported hate groups -- a listing of groups that have been alleged to be hate groups, along with details of the allegations and any rebuttals there may be.
I think this will have benefits beyond just consistency with the way Cult and List of purported cults handle a similarly controversial subject; I think there will be less trouble coming to a consensus on each of the respective articles if we keep discussion of specific groups out of the in-the-abstract article whenever possible.
"Whenever possible" would mean that there might be some points in the article which would be easier to illustrate with a specific example, but that we should try to limit them, and use them only when we can come close to consensus on a) they illustrate the point better than would be possible without this example, and b) they illustrate the point better than another example would. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Please read the VfD assessment by the admin.
- that the VfD consensus was to keep the material at Hate groups and new religious movements, but not at that location.
- Your proposal has value as an addition to the VfD results. Nobody is stopping you from starting a List of purported hate groups.--Zappaz 15:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to keep the material. Only that some material could be kept somewhere. Andries 15:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I saw nothing in the VfD assessment to indicate that the material was to be somehow exempted from the general Misplaced Pages rule which can be seen on any editing screen, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." (emphasis in original). You'd think that if that was implied, every time a VfD ended in a consensus to keep, then the admin who removed the VfD notice would put a {{protected}} tag on at the same time, but I can't think of a single case where that's been done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Of course this article can be mercilessly edited. We know that. Duh!. But you go ahead and do whatever you want to do. Clearly you give a hoot about consensus. Anybody can see that. Read the vFd comments, please, and count how many people supported your proposal? ZERO Uh? So go ahead and start your "putported hate groups" article. At least you will be doing something useful. --Zappaz 03:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)