Talk:Hate group/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Texture (revert - AntiDefemation League as a hate group? Jewish-Russian mafia?)

Yup, the ADL is a "hate group", as defined in your opening statement, as is the Jewish-Russian Mafia.

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

Hence, "David Gerard", in all of his POV reverts is both a "Jewish Supremacist" and a "lying hypocrite". What else isn't new?

Texture (revert more vandalism by same user) 

Vandalism? Since when is the NPOV truth, vandalism?

Only your own POV reverts are "vandalism".

Only the first paragraph has a NPOV.

If you want to "name" any "hate groups", then you must add ANY that actually fit the definition given in the opening statement.

The ADL, JDL, and the ethnically "Jewish-Russian" Mafia, all DO qualify, with any NPOV, under that exact same definition given in the opening paragraph or in that opening statement.

No, you can give examples that are clear and leave out what is disputed. - Texture 21:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am disputing "everything", whether you think the "examples" are "clear" or not. You must maintain a NPOV or ANYTHING goes that "fits" the definition!

Ahoerstemeier (Reverted edits by 24.45.99.191 to last version by Idril)

The article will continue to be reverted until and unless it is NPOV. If you do "name" some groups, then, you must allow others to "name" any others, in keeping with the WIKI NPOV.

---

How many accounts are you using to sustain this deletion of valid text? (and it is valid text despite your opinion) - Texture 22:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I notice that you are taking your rant to its own article: Racist hate speech. - It should be deleted. - Texture 22:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text is not valid because it does not maintain any NPOV. What kind of rant is Racist hate speech when I am only insisting upon the Wiki NPOV? Curious.

I can only say that your idea of NPOV seems to differ from that of the rest of us. Perhaps you should start your own encyclopedia? - Texture 18:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe what you mean by the "rest of us" is that all those that don't have to follow your own Wiki rules? Maybe I should fight to maintain what JIMBO wanted with NPOV, NO Selfishly Subjective and Egotistical Egoist CABALS controlling it?

When you get Jimbo to weigh in on your edits, let me know. So far, you have no support at all. - Texture 19:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You think so? If JIMBO himself doesn't believe in his own policy of NPOV, what is the point?

Please don't take my comments out of context. If you are unhappy with Jimbo or Wikipedia... - Texture 19:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Either you support the Wiki NPOV or you don't. Obviously, you don't, and that is hardly taking anything out of context.

Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

Vogel Vandalism???? What Mirv just removed was NOT vandalism. Actually, I think it was a quality edit. If you are going to persecute Mr. Vogel, I am going to have to ask you to do it carefully. It is unacceptable to revert a quality edit, and even worse to put an innaccurate, slanderous flame into the edit summary. Sam Spade 19:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He deleted valid information without explaining why he did so. That is vandalism. If you consider undoing his damage to be "persecution", well, I'm sorry. --No-One Jones 19:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider what he did to be "damage" I view it as a quality edit. What he removed was clearly (in my eyes) POV. What he did was make a quality, NPOV edit, IMO. You may disagree, but calling what he did vandalism was frankly not only innaccurate, but not a good sign for your case against him. I am looking into his case officially now, as a members advocate. If I continue to find examples such as this, rather than actual vandalism, I will become increasingly displeased. You may have a valid case against him, don't let this become a witch hunt. Nazi or no, he must be treated fairly. We cannot allow our pursuit of truth and justice to become mired in mere ideological conflict. Sam Spade 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Strange, because you also reverted the particular change Vogel made that you are now talking about. (i.e. him deleting "thereby assuring the ultimate demise of his Monistic Alliance.") And what does this have to do with Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made a revert, apparently an erroneous one. I did so based on numorous other edits thruout the article which were innaccurate (look to my edit summery). As to what this has to do w my being a members advocate, I assume you are contesting my role due to Paul not being a member. Unless you clarify, I am going to disregard the second question as spurious. Sam Spade 20:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Membership is open to anyone who wishes to help members who are faced with the quickly developing mediation and arbitration processes that are being implemented on Wikipedia in the last few months (since the fall of 2003)." There is no mediation or arbitration going on here, so why do you feel the need to point out the fact that you are "officially" looking into this in your role as a member of Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because I reccomended to Mirv elsewhere that he take his complainst to wikipedia:conflict resolution. Also, I don't see what you are quoting above as in any way limiting my abilities to be officially helpful in helping Paul. To be frank, I feel there is a valid case against Paul, but I also feel he is being treated unfairly, and is redeemable. Sam Spade 21:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edited article to maintain a Wiki NPOV verses any biased POV, against any particular organization or group.

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

Page protection

While nobody probably wants to protect hate groups themselves, at least let's not trash the article. If someone wants to include the POV that:

• one group sometimes falsely labels another as a hate group just to get it into trouble

...then what's wrong with that? --Uncle Ed 22:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Point of view

The methods of some fringe religious organizations (often classified as cults) have resulted in these groups also being called "hate groups" by their critics.

However, usually, those that frequently do label other groups as being "Hate Groups" are often the real "haters", and thus, are just being lying hypocrites to actually do so.

Let's find of way of incorporating this text without biting the newbie or compromising the NPOV. --Uncle Ed 22:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, no, the real "fuss" was that Paul Vogel linked here from a talk page, discovered it wasn't what he thought it was and spewed semi-coherently to cover it up. When he realised others were reverting the spew, he removed the original link. - David Gerard 22:40, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Not really. David Gerard only reverts this truthful version here: Hate group (Revision as of 22:18, 2 Apr 2004)

---

The term hate group is commonly used to describe an organization that works to achieve its goals using fear, hate, and intimidation as its modus operandi (or commonly used methods).

The methods of some fringe religious organizations (often classified as cults) have resulted in these groups also being called "hate groups" by their critics.

However, usually, those that frequently do label other groups as being "Hate Groups" are often the real "haters", and thus, are just being lying hypocrites to actually do so.

and Gerard always makes a "fuss" when an alternative and NPOV is asserted. -PV

Page Unprotection

I glanced at this talk page and so no reason to protect the article. So I unlocked it. --Uncle Ed 11:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This version looks good to me - David Gerard 12:21, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

What about the anonymous snippet, which kept getting reverted?

However, usually, those that frequently do label other groups as being "Hate Groups" are often the real "haters", and thus, are just being lying hypocrites to actually do so.

Is there an accurate and neutral way to describe this idea? --Uncle Ed 13:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dunno, but if you can come up with a version that doesn't sound like a small child going "no I'm not, you are!" and provides any substantiation rather than the bald assertion, feel free ... - David Gerard 14:06, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

No, I can't, but you can! :-) --Uncle Ed 15:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Considering its qualities as delineated above, there really isn't much to work with. At least a droplet of substantiation would be a good start - David Gerard 15:23, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Violent Anti-cult as hate groups

Gerard, your post denotes bias against believers of non-traditional religions or beliefs. If one is violently and persistently threatened by an organized group of ex-followers, just because of your belief, the term hate-group applies IMHO. This is your edit:

New religious movements (or, controversially, cults) claim that ex-members (apostates) resort to tactics that may create a background favourable to extreme manifestations of discrimination and hate, and thus refer to groups of ex-members as "hate groups."

My edit, on the other hand is more neutral, leaving the innuendo out of it:

Apostates of new religion movements often resort to tactics that may create a background favourable to extreme (and occasionally violent) manifestations of discrimination and hate (see anti cult), thus some of anti-religious or anti-cult groups are often called "hate groups".

There is plenty of literature that substantiates the application of hate-group to violent anti-eligion or anti-cult groups. --Jossifresco 20:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard, your last revision (13:07, 2 Jul 2004) is clearly biased. Maybe your bias against non-conventional religions or beliefs is unconscious. The fact is that if a clearly identified group of people declare as their mission to harass, threaten, vituperate and degrade another clearly identified group of people, its is a NPOV to declare that the former is a hate group. I am reverting to previous version. If you want to propose alternative wording, please substantiate it in this page..--jossi 15:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Erm ... you don't substantiate any of it. The CoS asserts this but doesn't substantiate it either. Where have these alleged first groups declared their mission to be to "harass, threaten, vituperate and degrade"? In those words, since those are the words you use.

Don't be naive... show me a racist group that wil speak in these words. You will not.--jossi 18:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please provide decent third-party references for your claims of violence or threatened violence or similar. You have so far completely failed to do so.

References--jossi 18:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC):

• Freedom forum.org [1]

This reference does not address your point in any way.

• Anti-cult terror via the Internet[2]

CESNUR is not a 'third party' - Introvigne and Melton are both directly funded by the Church of Scientology. Find a reference that is not involved - David Gerard 19:19, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a third party refrence that these two scholars are indeed funded by the COS as you assert.--jossi 19:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia entry for CESNUR. According to it your assertion is incorrect.--jossi 22:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, in that it's not just Scientology paying them. To start you off: here is a Usenet post by Anton Hein (Apologetics Index) on the murkiness of the funding arrangements of CESNUR and of the academic study of NRMs in general. Follow and read the links therein. CESNUR are essentially paid public relations for the groups they write about. (Compare with Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the tobacco industry.) A reference supported by a study from CESNUR cannot reasonably be considered more than a press release with foot notes - David Gerard 00:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry David, that Usenet post does not susbtantiate your assertion about CESNUR funding, quite the contrary. You will need to do better than that. Otherwise I will revert your edit.--jossi 00:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That reference does not prove that CESNUR is funded by (among others) Scientology. This must be the first time that I agree with Jossi. :-) Andries 12:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At least I've fostered agreement then :-D I will try to spend some time attempting some proper work on CESNUR as well - David Gerard 13:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thans Andries. COuld you revent the edit of that paragraph then, untile David does his research? Thanks.--jossi 21:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You may note Andries has already removed the mention of CESNUR. However, your previous version makes an assertion (thus making an editorial statement), rather than attributing the assertion. What's wrong with Andries' new version?

What about quoting from the CESNUR article to show the other side's opinion? The paragrah as it stands now is biased.--jossi 21:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you removed [3] the reference of the Church of Scientology after I labeled it [4] (not removed, you'll note, but just labeled its source). Why would you put a reference in and then remove it just because its source was given? I'd really like to know that - David Gerard 18:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That was a honest mistake--jossi 18:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Where are the references for the checklist?

Somebody changed them without any references and explanation. The checklist needs to be referenced or removed. I changed them back. Andries 17:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your reference: http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/hate.html

And explain why did you remove the text about apostates and hate.

You ask for references but on the other had you delete text that is contray to your POV. That, in my book is a dishonest use of WP. --64.81.88.140 02:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

.140, I do not see a checklist there that supports your version. Andries 16:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please explain why your changes are appropriate to this article. - Tεxτurε 03:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The aspect of hate groups claiming to be a minority that speaks for a silent majority is a proper and known characterization of hate groups. For example. white supremacists claim to speak for the majority of white people that are, in their view, afraid to say what think. Same phenomenon applies to apostates of NRMs. All of them claim to spek on behalf of a silent majority. See Criticism of Prem Rawat for a good example. BTW, that is why they are included in this article. --64.81.88.140 04:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

68.81.88.140 Okay, I should have explained that. I read and studied the article by Introvigne and I think that my version is more accurate. I think the previous version distorted what Introvigne had written. Andries 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Texture, the fact that anon .140 is posting from an IP, does not means that his edits are not welcomed. Both his points above are substantive for inclusion. --Zappaz 04:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Texture and Zappaz, anon .140 seems to care little about intellectual honesty when he defends Prem Rawat. Andries 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, look at yourself. Colluding with a hate group to push your POV in WP.... what do you call that? Minutae edits, adding no value to articles, just pushing your POV. Reverting good edits because you don't like them. What do you call that? --64.81.88.140 16:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you did not give a detailed rebuttal on the arguments on the talk page. I still hope that you will rebut me so others will see that you are right and I am wrong. Andries 16:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits, Andries. The previous version was much better. ----Zappaz 20:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, have you read the article by Introvigne? Compare my summary with the old summary. I think the checklist has to be removed because it is unreferenced. And Elan Vital must be mentioned because it shows up very quickly on google when searching for hate group. Andries 20:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries. The Google thing is not eough to warrant inclusion. I am removing it. If you intend to add it again, we will need to go for request for comments. Same about the checklist. Not every comma in WP needs to be referenced. I am adding the checklist back. Again, if you do not agree, let's bring other editors to take a look, OK? --Zappaz 20:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I agree with asking other editors for advice. I just wrote to texture. But to say that the checklist does not need to be referenced is totally against my understanding of Wikipedia. And when we have a section regarding New Religious Movements then it is logical to mention the main examples i.e. Scientology and Elan Vital. Andries 20:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That checklist has been there formmonths. If you want to remove it, you need to provide a good reason for doing so. --Zappaz 20:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, in Wikipedia the burden of proof is on the person making a statement, at least when the statement is disputed. And I only realized that the checklist was unreferenced when .140 started to change it. What is wrong with cleaning up old mess from Wikipedia? Andries 20:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Besides, I have read a lot about NRMs and I do not know other examples than Elan Vital and Scientology who say that their critics belong to hate groups. In the case of Scientology it is mutual. Andries 21:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did a google check on "hate group" and I noticed that the hits nr. 11, 31, 32, 34, 37, 57 (I went until there) are related to Elan Vital. [5]Andries 21:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That may be the case in the Dutch version of Google. In the English version of Google there is one single match on position 44. hardly relevant for inclusion in this article.--64.81.88.140 22:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I use google.com There is link that says "Go to Google Nederland"Andries 22:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I disagree with you about the checklist. There is no need for a reference for that checklist. Following your logic, we will need also a reference for the first paragraph, the scond paragraph and so on. You are again, mistaken. --64.81.88.140 22:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Checklist

I do not oppose a checklist but there should be a good scholarly reference for a checklist. Not just one that can be made up and changed at will. Thanks Andries 20:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a proposal for a downsized checklist

1. demonizing the opponent
2. sometimes using conspiracy theories without evidence

I can not seriously doubt these two points though they remain unreferenced. Andries 23:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There must be a checklist somewhere ... there must be something referable if the term means something - David Gerard 23:55, 16 Sep 2004

(UTC)

ehh, yes, but the other side of the story is that I think it is okay to use common sense, which is not the same as original research. My common sense can not seriously doubt these two points. If there is anybody who disagrees to include then please let it know here soon. I do have strong doubts about the other two points that are now in the article. Andries 00:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not see a reason to reduce the checklist. All these four treats are characteristics of hate groups. The fourth one was used (and is still used) bvy white supremacists. The third one is pervasively used by most hate groups. --≈ jossi ≈ 02:08, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe it and there is no reference for what you assert so it is original research, which is not allowed. So that is why I think the checklist should be made smaller. Andries 08:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's face it... there is a lack of concensus... I woud suggest to bring this issue up in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comments so that we can hear from other editors. --Zappaz 18:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

done I added the article on request for comments. I hoped that we could have done without it. Andries 08:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No value edits

I do not know what were you thinking, Andries when doing these edits. Maybe you care to explain how these edits add value to the article and how readers benefit from these? My assessment of these edits:

1. These edits add zero value to this article
2. These are minuteae edits with the purpose of obfuscation.
3. By adding Gubler's website you are opening a can of worms. Do you want me to publish the affidavit in which Gubler declares that ex-premies are a hate group?

≈ jossi ≈ 15:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think the edits to the checklist/elements are important. They were an attempt at dispute resolution. I would agree that the article becomes more complex by my edits, which I think you would classify as obfuscation, but I can not help it that reality is more complex than you may think. If you think that my edits are minutiae then why do you care to write comments about them? Andries 15:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Passive voice is to be avoided according to style manual

Besides opinion should be attributed as much as possible according to the guidelines. I will change the sentence about Elan Vital back into active voice. Andries 16:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 09:45, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Can the disputed fact and neutrality tag get removed?

I do not have a problems with facts and neutrality anymore though I can not say that I like the current version. Andries 18:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)