Talk:Hate group/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Designated by Who"?

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

The Lede gives one definition to the phrase "hate group" in the 1st sentence, then gives a different definition in the 2nd sentence (which is the one that is claimed to be used by the FBI). And one difference between them is the clause "Designated sector of society".

First I don't recognize the metaphor of society being divided into "sectors". Where are these lines drawn, and who draws them. It injects the connotational "feel" of science and the air of scientific legitimacy into a weak phrase with an overbroad and therefore meaningless definition. (The definition requires that the word "hostility" mean the exact same thing as "hatred". I'll deconstruct that one if anyone wants to disagree. Second, if the article is going to use the word "designate", then there must be some person, agency or entity that does the "designating" and I'd expect the official "hate group designator" to be mentioned in the Lede, with some explanation as to why they are the official "hate group designator", else what prevents some other, non-official organization from claiming that it is also the official "hate group designator". Long story short, there is no official hate group designator, the word "designate" should not be used, the phrase "hate group" is virtually meaning less and it's primary purpose for existence is to be used to cast negative aspersions on certain political groups from other political groups, and using the Wikipedia Encyclopedia's voice in order to do it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this instance, to go to the extreme and use the most extreme language to label an entire group requires an equivalent ("extreme") level of substantiation besides "everyone says this", and "it just feels right", etc... Else, we could take this flabby and meaningless standard and start applying it to organizations that are typically believed to be "good" by the general public.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Too much reliance on the SPLC

Hi everyone,

This whole article seems too reliant upon the Southern Poverty Law Centre's definition of "hate group". I would recommend using a definition from more balanced sources rather than using the definition from a private organisation with no real mandate to label other organisation with political, highly emotional, and often misleading labels (as another user above mentioned). As this issue was brought up 3 years ago, I would have thought that by now something would have been done about it.

Thanks, Jonathan.

I agree, in principle. StAnselm (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It does rely far too much on them. I do not deny there are hate groups, but SPLC is hardly an "honest broker" to determine who they are. 2606:A000:7542:2600:3119:86:3C56:7306 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Beyond that, exactly what is SPLC's definition of a "hate group"? Is it published? Does SPLC make public the process by which they determine who is and is not a "hate group"?2605:6000:6942:F00:5503:5E62:775E:8CD8 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Circular Reasoning

Wouldn't groups that promote animosity towards, say, anti-multicultural organizations (often labeled as hate groups)... wouldn't they fall under the definition of a "hate group" themselves since they are advocating hostility towards a certain demographic of society because of their beliefs opposing multiculturalism?

The reasoning for identifying a "hate group" seems hopelessly circular, and in practice the use of the label seems highly subjective. I feel that the article would be more educational if it touched on the inherent logical problems with this term, and shed light on the reality that such labels may at times simply be used as political or rhetorical devices. 70.16.199.169 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We rely on what reliable sources say about a subject. We can't develop our own analyses. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Building a bit on Dougweller's comment: What you are proposing (essentially) is that we use a sourced definition for "hate group", compare that definition to the actions/statements of various groups and decide they are or are not hate groups. This is synthesis. No, we will not do that. Wikipedia is an aggregation of existing material. It is not a forum for the inevitable endless debates that would arise over who or what qualifies as a terrorist, murderer, despot, sexual predator, ruthless industrialist, heartless corporation, dictator, rogue state... - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can do JUST that. Choose to ignore the histrionics of certain organizations that have parlayed their "reliable source" status into being able to make spurious, unfounded, and unjustifiable statements, such as whatever organization that opposes their political agenda can then become a "hate group". How nice for them, to have been given the gift (by Wikipedia) to make up whatever charge they want, give no substatiation for that charge, and have Wikipedia blindly, stupidly and obediently rubber-stamp that charge into an official Wikpedia FACT.2605:6000:6942:F00:5503:5E62:775E:8CD8 (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

By the SPLC's own definition of a "hate group" - "The SPLC's definition of a "hate group" includes any group with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people" - the SPLC itself is hate group. Haresandhounds (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what we call original research. We don't use editors opinions in articles. Although maybe your post wasn't meant to be about this article but about the SPLC in which case it doesn't belong here. Doug Weller (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Internationalised the article by adding Australian religious hate groups

As per the WP:Globalize tag I have added an entry for mentioning the most prominent Australian anti-religious groups with some cites. Note that in one of the cites the reporter, John Safran, who is of jewish origin (see the Categories section in his article), is recognised by some rally participants and the subsequent hostility and hatred directed towards him at a Reclaim Australia rally. 5.56.31.175 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But this is only Safran's (and others') opinion that they are hate groups. That is not enough to allow us to say they are hate groups. StAnselm (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if Safran uses the term "hate group" with the same meaning. I also think the globalize template should go. Hate groups, although not hate, are rare in the rest of the world. TFD (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Intolerance" is not "Hate"

In the US, two private organizations that monitor intolerance and hate groups are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)[3] and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).[4]

I don't like how the word "intolerance" is shoe-horned in with hate. It's fair to say that the SPLC is "intolerant" of racial discrimination, does this mean that they are very close to being a "hate group" themselves. This sloppy leftist rhetoric makes Wikipedia appear obedient and stupid.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to describe what reliable sources say. It is not censored to pander thin-skinned hate groups. // Liftarn (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a reliable source.108.38.29.47 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

SPLC is a group whose opinions on hate groups are notable. We generally attribute statements and labels to SPLC themselves though and don't take their labeling as fact. They are reliable sources for statements about their own labels and analyses and those labels and analyses are generally notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And despite what some people claim, the SPLC still has a partnership relationship with the FBI. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPLC is in fact a reliable source and there research has been relied upon by news media, academics, police and courts. TFD (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. You entire argument is a logical fallacy. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You can take up that argument up at reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL! If that is the case, then Wikipedia's entire policy of reliable sources is based on logical fallacy. Thinking people, a subset of which are college professors and secondary school teachers (no disrespect meant to lower grade teachers, it is just that you don't assign research projects as much or in as great of depth - but I do include you in the realm of thinking people, rest assured) routinely tell their students to NOT cite Wikipedia. The reason is because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is quite ironic that Wikipedia uses an appeal to authority argument to justify its policy of reliable sources when actual teachers who assign research projects to the future of America take pains to steer their students away from Wikipedia! 108.38.29.47 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

#notallteachers. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. The reason many teachers say not to use it is because its authors are not experts necessarily. That too is an appeal to authority. We college teachers prefer students cite primary and secondary sources anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not research projects. We state as fact E = mc2 not because editors have tested the theory, but because that is what the scientific authorities say. If you do not like that, then you need to change the policy. And Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources not because the content policies are wrong (they are the same as for any other neutral reliable tertiary source), but because they are not always followed. TFD (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Eye of the beholder

I've run across a discussion where Wikipedia was quoted as supporting the claim that Anti-fa is a hate group. Specifically, this line [Scholars find it difficult to define the term hate group and "whether a particular group is to be classified as a hate group is sometimes in the eye of the beholder."] 1) Should this be in the lead, and 2) is this really a significant viewpoint that it should be covered at all?--v/r - TP 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Antifa are not a hate group because they do not practice discrimination against minority groups. Also, it is not a group. The quote comes from a text book,[1] but it appears misleading. Hate is clearly defined, but often groups may combine hate with other activities. The use in the lead implies that there are serious problems in identifying hate groups. TFD (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, I think it should be removed or at least moved lower in the article. It's not supported in the prose at all and therefore doesn't belong in the lead.--v/r - TP 23:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it. TFD (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

World perspective

I've opened this thread to attempt to collect sources which give a world view of hate groups. Let's try to source first then edit. I've noticed in a couple of instances that people are trying to address the issue of the America-centric tag, by simply removing the word "America" from the article's text. The problem with doing this is that in many cases the sources cited only support studies or research carried out on America in order to investigate this issue from an American perspective. To remove the word America to make it seem like these studies apply internationally is original research. Let's therefore take the less simplistic, but more robust approach of first finding studies which either a) deal with this subject in another country, or even better b) address this topic in a general sense at an international level. We can then use these sources to replace existing text. Edaham (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Edaham, sorry to take so long to respond. I think this is largely a U.S. thing. The far right in the U.S. has historically been studied separately from other countries, it has a history of single issue groups and allows hate speech. So for example the Family Research Council has a Canadian branch that avoids any language that is considered hate speech under the Criminal Code of Canada. And the major Islaophobic group in the UK, the EDL, is seen as far right, rather than as a hate group. TFD (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hate group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307005258/https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/overview.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/overview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717214828/https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html to https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1999_181.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314154401/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=3 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ibiblio.org/nmediac/summer2012/Articles/obama_facebook.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818015515/http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2003-pdfs/mar03leb.pdf/at_download/file to https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2003-pdfs/mar03leb.pdf/at_download/file

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Is ADL a hate group?

I have read many articles about the ADL (Anti Defamation League), which is listed as one of only two groups that monitor hate groups in the United States. It seems that they are against any anti-semitic articles (as am I), but have no problem with Islamophobic points of view or even hate speech against their fellow Jews if they happen to be Maghrebi (African born Jews). I have edited the "Hate Group" page several times citing several credible sources regarding the ADL, in an effort to portray them more accurately. But each time it is taken down within minutes, courteousy of the ADL or AIPAC who are in the business of suppressing factual information that would shine a negative light upon them. What are your thoughts? Wkretz86 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

My thought is that statements like "But each time it is taken down within minutes, courteousy of the ADL or AIPAC who are in the business of suppressing factual information that would shine a negative light upon them." will get you no where. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note the FBI definition in the lead: a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice...." Assuming what you said was correct, it would not fit the criteria and also we would need to show that this classification had some support in reliable sources, which it does not. TFD (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If User:Wkretz86 doesn't recognised that his source Veterans Today is a hate site, there isn't any discussion possible. The other source in their edit summary doesn't seem to even mention the ADL. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

How is ADL chosen for the lead?

Putting aside the specifics of the section above, what is the context for including the ADL? SPLC is very well known for tracking hate groups. ADL is well known for fighting hate, and antisemitism in particular, but is there a similarly well-known effort to specifically track hate groups, broadly? (Asking because I'm not sure). If it's a single kind of hate group, that seems different, and probably appropriate for inclusion, but not for placing on par with SPLC in the lead.

Regardless, right now it's only mentioned in the lead, and not the body, and is only supported by its own site. Adding to the body is easily fixed, but it's WP:UNDUE without introducing some good secondary sources. After all, there are many organizations that track "hate". ProPublica is one. The Simon Wiesenthal Center is another. Both are pretty well documented for this... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Symbols of hate

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why not include Pepe? How about the crescent moon and star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.207.49 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC) What about the hammer and sickle? What about the clenched fist? What about Che Guevara? What about stylized AK47s? Or did those communists murder 100,000,000 people in a century because they loved and tolerated them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.163.178 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is listed as a "general" hate group by the SPLC.[2] TFD (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Communist burned and crucified people. Thousands of them: Cambodia Killing Fields are but an example. Often they based it on race and nationality: Holodomor.

Was this remark a sick joke? Zezen (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ping TFD added.

Sample RS: The Hate Speech in the Communist Press https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=496798 Zezen (talk)

The word hate in this context has a specific definition. The FBI for example describes it as "bias against such characteristics as race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation."[3] Your source on the other hand uses it in a n on-standard way to describe the "feeling of hate towards the people they used to call “class enemies” - capitalists, the middle class, and the imperialists." Furthermore, the term hate group is reserved for groups whose primary purpose is the expression of hate. The SPLC does not for example classify the Republican Party of the United States as a hate group because of speech by its leader that has been seen as racist, islamophobic, homophobic or sexist. The term is not even used to describe the major U.S. political parties when it were openly racist, instead reserving the term for groups such as the Ku Klux Klan whose main goal was promoting racism and religious bigotry. TFD (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Islamic terrorist groups?

Can you classify Islamic terrorist groups as hate groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:80B:7840:A570:A7CE:9E44:2338 (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We can classify them as hate groups if reliable sources call them hate groups. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)