From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Discussion request: Keeping soc.religion.* flat
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:39:56 GMT

This is not a formal RFD, as it does not propose the creation of any new
groups. It should not mistaken for one.

Short summary version: I propose that soc.religion.* should be kept flat,
i.e. that only single groups should be created within the soc.religion
hierarchy, and not hierarchies of groups. This allows discussions in
news.groups to bypass the question of whether a religious group seeking a
newsgroup is a subgroup of a larger group or not.

Longer version: Those of you who follow news.groups religiously (no pun
intended) will doubtless have noticed the recent hoopla surrounding the
proposed new group 'soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya'. For those who didn't
bother to follow the discussion, a quick summary of one of the issues
follows. I believe this to be an issue of general concern to Usenet
participants, and encourage you to read this even if you have no interest in
Islam or Ahmadiyya (I sure don't--I'm not a Muslim of any sort, and my only
interest in this issue is administrative).

One of the main points of contention in the s.r.i.a discussion was over
whether Ahmadiyya was a subset of Islam, or a separate religion entirely.
Most Ahmadis seemed to believe that it was a type of Islam, and wanted the
proposed group to be named soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya. Most non-Ahmadis
seemed to believe that it was not a type of Islam, and wanted the group to
be named soc.religion.ahmadiyya, thus making no reference to Islam.

This illustrates a general problem, which I could easily imagine arising in
the case of other religions groups. Any group which believes itself to be a
part of a larger group, but which is disowned by the larger group, might
want to create a newsgroup. The subgroup might want the larger group's name
in the newsgroup name, whereas the larger group might insist that their name
not be associated with the subgroup. Possible examples might include
Messianic Jews or Mormons, but there are probably others.

I propose that it be standard Usenet policy to keep soc.religion.* flat.
Creating a hierarchy within soc.religion provides explicit support to the
idea that a subgroup is a part of a larger group, and thus makes a political
statement about the group. Because of this, when the proposed group is being
discussed in news.groups, this political issue must be discussed as well,
since those opposed to making such a statement will be opposed to the
creation of the group. However, their opposition will not be based on the
normal Usenet criteria for creating a new group, but merely on the political
implications of the name. This is undesirable for two reasons: first, it
diminishes the chances that a useful newsgroup will pass, since those in
support of or neutral to the newsgroup's existence, but politically opposed
to the name, will likely vote against it; second, it tends to generate
unwanted discussion in news.groups about the political implications of the
name.

It could be argued that proposers of such controversial groups would do well
to simply propose only non-hierarchical groups, since their proposals will
be more likely to pass. However, doing so might be seen as a political
statement in the opposite direction. In the case of s.r.i.a, for example, it
is my impression that the proposers were averse to calling the group s.r.a
because they feared that doing so would amount to an admission that their
religion is not a type of Islam.

Adopting a policy of keeping soc.religion.* flat relegates these questions
to the groups intended for their discussion. It says that news admins do not
care whether one religion is a subgroup of another, and that we will not
make any statement one way or the other in the creation of new groups. It
imposes neutrality where there would otherwise be controversy, and I contend
that this is a valuable result.

Procedurally, I'm not sure what I mean when I say "adopting a policy of
keeping soc.religion.* flat". It seems like an odd sort of things to append
to the Guidelines, which tend to be more general in their application. I
mostly want to encourage discussion about the policy at this point; if there
seems to be general agreement that it is a good policy, we can try to figure
out how to go about "adopting" it.

Thanks in advance for constructive comments. Flames will be ignored.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why
several of us died of tuberculosis." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy