Talk:Hate group: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:18, 2 May 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hate group article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 90 days

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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hate group. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hate group at the Reference desk.

Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

LGBT studies C‑class

	LGBT portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Is the JDL (Jewish Defense League) Considered a "Hate Group"?

If not, it's absence is worth noting in the Article, IMO. Or at least some effort on put into how it somehow does not meet the standard where other groups do. It's absence may indicate bias on the part of the ADL/SPLC.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that discusses this issue and we can use it. Our personal opinions aren't relevant. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Defense League article has some existing references that are highly suggestive, particularly the FBI one. I certainly would not rule it out... --DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as a "general" hate group by the SPLC.[1] TFD (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist hate groups missing: POV

1. See e.g. Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-left-is-consumed-with-hate-1537723198

2. Some sources claim that the SPLC is a hate group now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.a304a22fa6df

3. The symbols listed on top are only from the extreme right.

-》 Let us restore balance here. Zezen (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen: you aren't being very specific. I can't read the WSJ article, what left wing groups does Steele label as hate groups? As for the SPLC, I don't see it called a hate group in that article. I know some right wingers have made such an accusation, but that's irrelevant here. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to restore balance, because the concept is inherently unbalanced. The term is used and defined in such a way that only right-wing groups count as "hate groups". All violent leftist groups are love groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.121.120 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If one thinks that Jews or blacks or Muslims are threats, then exposing them is not hate. But reliable sources say they are not out to replace us. The SPLC is by the way not left-wing except from the perspective of the far right.

Furthermore, while the Left is not immune from hate, hatred on the basis of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation is generally a right-wing bias. Communists for example do not burn crosses or complain about Jews owning Hollywood. They're not leading the fight against same sex marriage either. TFD (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the hate speech concept

Why will you guys not allow a section criticizing the concept of hate speech? It's a hyperpartisan concept. I've carefully laid out the problems with it, citing a large number of my claims along the way. I put together a well-written, carefully researched section. Not only that, I worked earnestly to incrementally improve it after I put it up. Now I am being accused of edit warring or something? I don't see how simply deleting everything I've written is good faith editing. It seems to me the very essence of bad faith. Thus, I do not see myself as the bad actor here. All I'm trying to do is create a quality section critiquing the concept, nothing more. I've stated repeatedly that if some language appears partisan or unbalanced I'm more than willing to remove it or modify it. I'm also quite open to others improving the language so that it appears more balanced. That's editing. Deleting the whole segment is not editing, it is censorship and/or bowdlerization. I'm not trying to maintain my "preferred" edition at all, I'm just trying to prevent partisans & ideologues with ulterior motives from completely deleting a quality contribution. There is no justifiable reason to completely delete the section. None. The section is capable of and worthy of simple reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.121.120 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, having two thirds of the article devoted to criticism is not neutral and criticism should not be in a separate section but incorporated into the rest of the article. Your criticism is basically a summary of fringe views yet you present it as mainstream. The definition of hate is clearly established and although there are no hate speech laws in the U.S., the concept is included in the definition of violent hate crimes. I suggest you read WP:WEIGHT. Articles are supposed to balance toward views that are generally accepted and provide less weight to fringe views. TFD (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 :For one thing, having two thirds of the article devoted to criticism is not neutral and criticism should not be in a separate section but incorporated into the rest of the article. Your criticism is basically a summary of fringe views yet you present it as mainstream. The definition of hate is clearly established and although there are no hate speech laws in the U.S., the concept is included in the definition of violent hate crimes. I suggest you read [[WP:WEIGHT]]. Articles are supposed to balance toward views that are generally accepted and provide less weight to fringe views. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
-) There is a whole lot to criticize in the perfectly inane “hate group” concept. That explains the length of my section entirely, namely how ripe it is for critique. If other contributors have not contributed heavily to the rest of the article, that is not my fault. You can add information and credence to this glorious concept by contributing to the rest of the article. Don’t abolish my section because you haven’t the imagination to add content to the other sections.
-) Criticism of the “hate group” concept is not “fringe”, at all. Even many liberal & politically centrist scholars have criticized the “hate” concept, rather extensively.
-) The definition of “hate” is clearly established. It most certainly is. “Hate” is anything partisans on the political left decide it is. That’s all it is. It’s a purely political concept. It has no intellectual merit whatsoever. The standard/cited definition of the term could apply to any number of leftist organizations, but it never is applied to those organizations by the powers that be. Because it’s not a serious intellectual concept. It is about the Cultural Marxist western power structure throwing its weight around and crushing dissent by making up propaganda terms to delegitimize perfectly legitimate democratic activity.
-) The views expressed in the criticism section I have put forth are perfectly mainstream on the political right. They are the opinions of virtually every right-leaning person you will ever meet. That is if you’ve ever met an actual right-leaning person, which I’m beginning to doubt.
-) I think your definition of “mainstream” and “fringe” is whatever the US power structure and pundit class declares “mainstream” and “fringe”. Thus, if a borderline communist organization like the SPLC is declared “mainstream” by the liars in the press, that makes it so. However, the reality is, 90%+ of people on the political right consider the SPLC fringe, far, far left, and completely unreliable/incredible. Yet you claim it is mainstream. Well, if the SPLC is mainstream, despite being almost uniformly considered a radical, quasi-communist propaganda outlet by the entire political right, simply because it is considered credible by the political left and the US power class, then the same rules should apply to my criticisms. Just because you don’t personally approve of my critique of the concept, doesn’t mean those criticisms aren’t perfectly mainstream on the political right, the views of hyperpartisans on the political left notwithstanding. Despite my being dead-center politically (according to multiple political compasses), Western politics have shifted so far left that my only allies and confederates are those on the political right. Thus, I have no choice but to mingle with righties. As such, I think I’m in a much better position than you to determine what is “mainstream” on the right, and what isn’t.
-) Mark Potok has conceded on numerous occasions that the SPLC is a fundamentally leftist organization. All of its founders were extreme leftist democrats. If you can name even one right-leaning person associated with the organization, I’d be shocked. One of its founders described the Tea Party Movement as “the taliban wing of American politics”. Yet you hold it up as some sort of apolitical, neutral organization. It is nothing of the sort. If the US media is in agreement with you regarding the SPLC (that it is "neutral" or apolitical), that reveals the utter mendacity of the mainstream media, and its own political biases, little more. Calling the SPLC anything other than a leftist organization is simply madness and dishonest to the nth.
-) If you’re just going to let propagandists in the mainstream media (who speak for the government, for gigantic corporations, and for entrenched left-wing special interests) determine what is true and what is false, which views are acceptable and which aren’t, and what is fringe and what is mainstream, and you refuse to publish anything that they don't endorse, then you’ve turned Wikipedia into nothing more than a propaganda outlet, a mouthpiece for powerful interests. That’s frankly deplorable. That’s not the role of an encyclopedia at all, or any source that purports to be unbiased, independent, and apolitical. Perhaps we should change the name of Wikipedia to “Wikipravda”?
-) You should just come out and admit that your opposition to a section criticizing the “hate group” concept is purely political on your part and has nothing whatsoever to do with the neutrality of the segment. You strongly support the “hate group” concept on account of the fact that it advances your political agenda, and anyone who doesn’t should simply be censored. It’s that simple. Yours is an exercise in raw power, a power you are clearly not fit to wield.
-) I’m extremely open to reforming the section. I’ve repeatedly stated that if you have a problem with the apparent neutrality of any claim in the article or anything else, you are free to modify it. Indeed, I welcome such modification with open arms. I welcome good faith input and criticism, just as I welcome unfettered debate, free speech and free inquiry. Nevertheless, you don’t want to modify the section, you don’t want to refine it or render it more neutral. What you want to do is pretend that is your real opposition to the section, when it isn’t really. I’ve made numerous good faith efforts to render it more neutral. It is quite clear that I want to render it more neutral. You don’t. What you want is to erase it. You want to scrub it from the internet entirely, like a good little Stalinista. The impulse behind your actions is a fundamentally totalitarian one. You don’t want anyone anywhere to be able to entertain the notion, for even a split second, that maybe, just maybe, the “hate group” concept is pure ideology-driven, hyperpartisan, Marxist bullshit, which it is, of course.