Talk:Hate group
|
|
|
This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. |
Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1
| Contents |
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 [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hate_group&oldid=8660237)); 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 Wikipedia 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)
- You know what, Antaeus :I take the above back, go ahead and do whatever you want.--Zappaz 03:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zappaz. I'm glad that you're willing to give other people's ideas a fair trial. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Richard_G at Hate Group
moved from User_talk:Zappaz
Do you really think, Richard's contribution is worth filling that article? MacGregor has hardly posted at Ex-Premie.org. Does his former coming out as a critical ex make him a member of the ex-premie group? If there is any? Where is the proof? Why blow this article up with more statements on Rawat and Elan Vital? I do not understand this. You probably have a different attitude of what an encyclopedia should be and different goals you combine here. Keep blowing. Gary D's "think of the reader" doesn't seem to be your business anyway.Thomas h 18:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC).
- The edits by Richard, that you deleted, and that I NPOVed later on, do not refer to a MacGregor, but to the person that signed an affidavit, and the content of the affidavit as filed with a Queensland court. I simply cleaned up the text and put it in a form that conforms with NPOV (rather than deleting the text as you did.)
- I will pass on commenting about your assessments about me. I have learned that it is not worth my time. --Zappaz 06:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As I said many time before, I think that more than one sentence on Elan Vital and the ex-premies is exaggerated. Now I want to give a rebuttal to what Richard_G wrote making it even longer. Andries 06:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Andries, i see it the same way. Zappaz loves to blow this up, he is working very close with Richard_G as if he owns him something. He saved even the ex-premies article that has been deleted for him and in his name, see [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richard_G./ex-premies). I once thought that he might have some interesting sides beyond the scope of cult/anticult, but i was wrong. Too bad.Thomas h 14:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Andries. I have tightened the text with info from the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Thomas: The information is extracted from official documents in which references to ex-premies as a hate group were made. As such, this account is highly relevant to this article. And yes, you are wrong about the scope of my interests that, by the way, are none of your business.--Zappaz 03:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Live by your own rules, Zappaz. You poked your nose into my business and pried and investigated so that you could announce that you understood my interests [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Ross&diff=prev&oldid=8510158) -- and of course later you declared that your conclusions about my "unsympathy" for a particular side were all the justification you needed to revert my changes. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic&diff=prev&oldid=9352635) So for you to claim that your interests are no business of anyone else's is of course rank hypocrisy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nope Antaeus, I will not reply to your remarks. Undeserving. -- Zappaz 03:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Of course not. Being caught in the act is embarrassing enough, isn't it?Thomas h 05:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Section merger
The section "Listing of hate groups" should be merged with List of purported hate groups. I don't see any point in having two lists which are out of sync with each other. -- Beland 03:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Very right. All these were already listed in List of purported hate groups. --Zappaz 03:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NRMs
The section titled, "Hate groups and new religious movements" is almost entirely duplicated in the article New religious movement. Therefore I'm going to delete the duplicate material from here, leaving a short summary. The material deals with NRMs (and their apostates) that are called "hate groups" by a few people. It would be more relevant for this article, I believe, to address hate groups which use the mantle of religion to cover their hate, for example, the Creativity Movement. -Willmcw 22:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it was supposed to be moved from there and leave a summary as agreed on a RfC. I have modified the summary using wording from the original material. --Zappaz 23:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this wording:
- Advocates who regard certain fringe religious organizations, new religious movements or (controversially) "cults" as spurious and condemn their methods, call them "hate groups".
- Someone does not have to believe a group is spurious in order to label it as a hate group. And why would it be more controversial to label a cult a hate group than a fringe religious organization? I think the version that I wrote is more NPOV, and more logical.
- Certain fringe religious organizations, new religious movements, and cults have been labelled "hate groups" by their critics and apostates.
- Can Zappaz provide evidence that to support the assertions in the other version? -Willmcw 00:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this wording:
Definition of hate group.
The definition has a few problems, it seems to me.
... advocates hate, hostility or violence towards ...[targets]... upon spurious grounds, despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others.
Firstly the grounds do not need to be spurious, it seems to me (although they often are demonstrably so).
Secondly "wider consensus" risks being weasel words for "us right thinking Wikipedia editors and readers", unless we want to exclude the Nazis (for example) from the definition. For at the time (and at other times) , anti-semitism, racism and homophobia were by no means the preserve of a select few in Germany, or indeed in Europe or the West as a whole.
Thirdly the more modern groups certainly do not in general advocate hate hostility or violence (with the exception of vigilante gorups). They are more likely to indicate a perceived cause and effect relationship, and propose a "solution", both parts are likely to be percieved as advocating hate, and may indeed have that (or fear and resentment) as a subtext.
Comments?
Rich Farmbrough 15:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree somewhat. Nowadays the nuances are finer, and hate groups make big efforts to hide behind a façade of normalcy that is more scary than one of open hostility and violence. --Zappaz 16:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How about "whose policies are to a significant extent focussed upon taking action against one or more groups of people or organizations, based on ideological or pragmatic beliefs relating to the negative impact of the target group on society, or on fear and resentment fo the target group." (Still not happy with this, but for what it's worth.) Rich Farmbrough 19:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for making a suggestion for an improvement, but that wording is a bit too vague. "Taking action" is such a nice phrase that it could apply to any group, such as a consumer advocacy organization. Hate groups seem to be focussed more specifically on violence, either implied or explicit, and hateful speech. Since the ADL and SPLC are the primary hate group researchers, let me see what definitions they've got on their sites. Those may help serve as a basis for our definition. -Cheers, -Willmcw 00:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. The Center lists only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2003. Activities may include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites that appear to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included on the list. Listing here does not imply that a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
The terms hate violence and hate crimes first appeared in the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Racial, Ethnic, Religious and Minority Violence issued in April, 1986. It defined hate violence to be:
- Any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear or intimidation, or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law.
When hate violence is punishable under a criminal statute it is a hate crime. It should be noted that civil statutes (as opposed to criminal statutes) may provide relief for some types of hate violence.http://www.cahro.org/html/definition.html
Hate Group—An organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization, e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi Party. Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#hate
...[I]ndividuals or groups that, in the opinion of the author, advocate violence against, separation from, defamation of, deception about, or hostility towards others based upon race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. -http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm
White supremacist apologetics?
Hate_group#.22Hate_group.22_as_a_characterization Seems to be white supremacism apologetics by anon. Not so sure if it is (a) suitable, and (b) NPOV. Seems to me to as advocating to "normalize" obvious hate groups. --Zappaz 03:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Animal Liberation Front
Re: "Some advocates have applied [the term 'hate group'] to some radical activists who engage in questionable and often illegal methods to achieve their goals, such as ... the Animal Liberation Front." Could the editor who wrote this supply a reference, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, there are many references, SlimVirgin, just Google ecoterrorism, for example. Some examples: ADL [5] (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco), Other [6] (http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/War%20on%20terror%20ELF.htm), an FBI report [7] (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm), etc. --Zappaz 00:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- The citations listed do not directly refer to ALF as a hate group. They call it an extremist or terrorist group. Are those the same thing? -Willmcw 02:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I also can't see any reference to the ALF as a hate group. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I do not recall if I added that sentence, but I am certain I have read about mentions of the ALF and the ELF as hate groups. I think it was in a communication from the SPL (Southern Poverty Law Center a hate-group watch organization). I also remember a rebuttal from the ALF and some other apologetics. I will keep looking.. A reference for "Operation Rescue" (in the same sentence): [8] (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/or-hate.htm). --Zappaz 04:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the ALF until a credible source is found, and I added a link to skeptictank. Is that considered to be a credible source? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Cult awareness network
The article says,
- "The Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was sued out of existence after being found by a judge to be a hate group."
Can somebody provide references for this. I am aware that it went bankrupt because of its referrals to Rick Ross who deprogrammed/kidnapped people but I am not aware that the judge called it a hate group. Andries 15:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think until a source is found we should remove this. -Willmcw 02:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
This article is clearly partisan and might as well be written by the ADL.