Talk:Hate group

Edit revision

I literally made it clear the confederate flag is not a hate flag and an editor reverted my edit. Why is that? It's literally a Southern heritage flag my family used to fly all the time 66.215.90.113 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear that. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation in flags in symbols/shows only selected forms of hate.

Recommend to update the list of flags and symbols to more represented sample of it. E.g., to make it more diverse and show more existed forms of hate in this section (e.g., even pick more diverse pool from SPLC Hate groups watchlist: New Black Panther Party or Nation of Islam or whatever more 'inclusive') OR to delete it at all in current version.

I tried to delete the part shows a visual example of hate groups using misinformation of 'common flags and symbols'. Hate has no faces or borders (in North American context: races, colors, genders) but the ability to evolution and adaption, so it is dangerous to misinform it might 'commonly' exist (only) in old versions of Third Reich SS (not homogeneous national socialist group over time) or other related symbols. Don't know why, but changes were momentally reverted with false statment that I tried to delite all of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:54A:70CB:EB8:31EE (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Recommendation declined. Hate groups do have flags and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

* So may you argument your point of view to selection of this flags and whatnot? Now I see your point as 'hatred have faces, but I'will decide what faces it have'. Why have we moral right to have bias against sources we use and to pick only parts that prove our views when we edit the Free enciclopedia? Also, I negatively like the unhealthy point of view that 'hatred have faces and flags' and as well as ' links to 'phone memes' they saw somewhere in their informational space. Don't represent your biases, please. Hate haven't got faces, symbols or flags e.t.c, people who acquire ideals of hate have and produce it to identify himself. And, also recommend to avoid American chouvinism in your answers and articles at all. The hate is not only american feature or 'priviledge' at all, as the english language and wiki are. 2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

* I don't believe in credibility and truth in this local talks so made a Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination#Re-make_'Hate_group'_article_and_check_it_on_bias. Hope would not be deleted as all before. 2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Our #Wikipedia is not one's Political Instrument.

Rant: NOTAFORUM, RGW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The majority of Wiki community participants coming around adhere the view hate has faces, flags or other symbols (see [1] and comment [2] to 4 edits at history). Thus, according to the Southern poverty research center, 501(3)(k) (the most popular public source of a topic in the United States of America) and according to source on FBI provided here before (definition of hate group, more of hate crimes), I add a more diverse set of flags and symbols. Hope this improvement would not be declined in totalitarian-manner as it were made before. However, the text of the article still represents the biased and biased American view on a problem (I, as a person and researcher mixing several cultures and colors, still believes hate and hatred have no faces, as well as borders and symbols. But people who acquire and follow the ideals, ideas, and ideology of hate, have the attributes named before) and still avoid the representation of hatred exist elsewhere, not America (or Western world), the authors of the article or their sources were not seen or researched before. Update after 3 minutes: it was declined to biased and misleading version. And that is disgusting. Sign: #WikipediaNotPoliticalInstrument. The "Free" (no) Enciclopedia. The "Biased" (yes) Enciclopedia. Change log > 0: Summary of changes: 0: Recommend to update the list of flags and symbols to more represented sample of it. Deleted the part shows a visual example of hate groups using misinformation of 'common flags and symbols'. Hate has no faces or borders (in North American context: races, colors, genders) but the ability to evolution and adaption, so it is dangerous to misinform it might 'commonly' exist (only) in old versions of Third Reich SS (not homogeneous national socialist group over time) or other related symbols > 0: Answer (0): "Hate has no face or borders" or whatever kind of sounds like a variation of some phony memes that are floating around, but it's also completely inapplicable: hate groups do have faces and personas and flags. So stop, please. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC) > 1: Talks (Talk:Hate_group#Misinformation_in_flags_in_symbols/shows_only_selected_forms_of_hate.): Recommend to update the list of flags and symbols to more represented sample of it. E.g., to make it more diverse and show more existed forms of hate in this section (e.g., even pick more diverse pool from SPLC Hate groups watchlist: New Black Panther Party or Nation of Islam or whatever they classify) OR to delete it at all in current version. I tried to delete the part shows a visual example of hate groups using misinformation of 'common flags and symbols'. Hate has no faces or borders (in North American context: races, colors, genders) but the ability to evolution and adaption, so it is dangerous to misinform it might 'commonly' exist (only) in old versions of Third Reich SS (not homogeneous national socialist group over time) or other related symbols. Don't know why, but changes were momentally reverted with false statment that I tried to delite all of the article. > 1: Recommendation declined. Hate groups do have flags and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC) > 1: Also, I negativly like the unhealthy point of view that hataness have faces and flags and as well as responcible persons' links to 'phony memes' thay saw somewhere in their informational space. Hate haven't got faces, symbols or flags e.t.c, people who acquire ideals of hate have and produce it. And, also recommend to avoid American chouvinism in your answers and articles at all. The hate is not only american feature or 'priviledge' at all, as the english language and wiki are. (Hate exist everywhere) > 2: Summary of changes and article: (Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3) Expanded the view and removed biased misinformation (only one point of view was presented, in a misleading manner) on hate groups in the article. If the wiki community suppose hate have faces and symbols and whatnot, so the danger of hate in adaptiveness, diverse and inclusive. It still knows no borders. > 2: curprev 04:50, 22 August 2020‎ KH-1 talk contribs‎ 38,454 bytes -2,599‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk): Take it to the talk page (TW) Tag: Undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk)

Running a campaign of some kind as you're attempting here is not a sensible way to discuss changes to the content of Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This editor is not only incompetent at expressing themselves, writing, grammar, and spelling, which -- I believe -- justifies a WP:CIR block, but they are clearly here to WP:Right great wrongs, and not to edit and improve our encyclopedia, which justifies a WP:NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Guys, I recommend you to read Talk:Hate_group#Misinformation_in_flags_in_symbols/shows_only_selected_forms_of_hate. to see that today's version of article neither represent today's sources nor represent non-biased point. Why? a) it uses only a selected 'ideologies', as SPLC who are the main advocate of this idea in the U.S. call it, or b) it uses only selected words from FBI definition. Whereas the bunch of people who 'censor' who've occupied this article since 2017 do not agree with this. That's cool that some people like to propagate their own political views here, but why not to propagate truth and source-conforming to at least referenced? That is not question right or left, that is question of truth or manipulation 2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many things I could say in response to the things you have said, but here are just a few of them.

• Don't keep posting the same message to multiple pages. See WP:FORUMSHOP.
• In writing to me you said "whatever you 'Americans' like to use". I have no idea why you assume I am American. I have certainly never said on Wikipedia that I am. You have said the same to other editors. Are they all Americans? Do you actually know they are? Or have you just assumed they are? If you go around making unsubstantiated assumptions about other editors you may find that causes problems for you.
• You are 100% right that the article is heavily America-centric, and it needs substantial rewriting to correct that. However, far from removing such a limited perspective, your editing retained a substantially American point of view, and made it even more restricted and less global by for some reason giving the point of view of the Southern Poverty Law Center as a definition, as though somehow that organisation's point of view counts more than any point of view from anyone else. I find it impossible to understand how you can do that while decrying a bias towards a US view of things as opposed to a global view.
• You are more likely to succeed in getting movement towards what you want if you come across to other editors as cooperative, and as suggesting ways you and they together could improve things, rather than as being angry about the way you think they have done things. At times your comments about other editors come close to personal attacks on them, which will not help to get you support, even if you believe that the attacks are justified. In some ways the article is badly written, and it needs improvement. If you had come along in a different frame of mind, and constructively suggested ways that the article could be improved, you might well have had more success than you have had by rushing in, making wholesale changes without consultation, and when you found that those changes were considered unsuitable, responding by a combination of (1) repeatedly trying to force your changes through and (2) ranting about how unreasonable you think other editors are. JBW (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above and tried to make from my first edit there, when I've removed current misleading or not enough generalized flags and symbols, the article have main issue: it assumes hate have face and the face is certantly old white nazis. It make two problems: 1) assume, it is American-chouvenistic, but it's still biased even by visuals and text context and use of sources; in america there is not only nazis propogate hate and do orginized hate crimes, in americathere is more credible sources to hate crimes and hate thatn SPLC OR 2) assume, it is tries to see on hate as a global problem, but that is still biased by context because neither nazist nor SPLC and even FBI are enough to represent the context. You see the main problem it is still bias, but it is biased a lot of because american or, Global West, perspective and current political interests, not objective defenition of hate and hate crimes. I recommend to a) add the 'biased' or 'need to be re-made' title to current version of the article, b) either immediatly remove current visuals or make it more divers, and c) remove SPLC-centrism at all, or d) delete page at all. FBI as well the Department of Justice as well the OSCE have a bit less personal interests then some research center in U.S. someone before us started to use at article. Hate is not only right or only left, as polarized americans and other westerns try to show. It is non-partisan and human-related, even SPLC state it, as well FBI defenition or related UN genocides defenition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9e01:740:448c:3dc0:8562:ccf9 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

HATE

Hate is an emotion/feeling all humans are enabled to have. Humans can harbor secret hate, and humanity can be in denial of the hatred it holds and has not considered. The governmental wings, bureaus and departments, as well as the SPLC are not reliable sources to who hates and who does not.

WIKIPEDIA PRETENSE

You can get further with Wikipedia if you pretend to cooperate