Talk:Hate group/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC Dispute summary

The dispute is related to the section in this article named Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements and specifically the last paragraph in which it is stated, (with references) that an NRM labels its critics a hate group.

There are two views:

  • Keep the paragraph:
  1. it provides a counter point to the previous paragraphs related to critics of an NRM labeling the NRM a hate group;
  2. the NRM makes a substantial point of calling these critics a hate group, and includes documentation on their FAQs about these allegations;
  3. inclusion of this text falls within NPOV guidelines inasmuch as it is not claimed that these critics are a hate-group, but that the target of their criticism considers them a hate group;
  4. it is a pertinent example for the section about NRMs and hate groups in this article, in regard to the on-going contentious cloud of debate and legal actions between NRMs and their critics.
  5. removing this paragraph is a precendent for deletion of text from other controversial articles, on the basis that a certain group does not like what is written about them.
  • Delete the paragraph:
  1. critics consider this is a libelous accusation by the "cult" against them;
  2. critics consider the evidence publicized as the basis for being labeled a hate group, to be uncorroborated and not sufficient;
  3. critics see this as serious and offensive charge;
  4. it sets a dangerous precedent whereby any organization can claim its critics are a hate group, and have that claim repeated in this article. To be included in this article, a claim that a group is a hate group should be independently corroborated;
  5. it is more important to focus the article on real hate-groups.


(note to the usual contributors: unless you think that my summary is not correct, please leave this as is for the benefit of other wikipedians to understand the nature of the dispute and help during the RfC process. We can continue our discussions below. Thanks --Zappaz 02:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC))

  • Updated by John Brauns
  • Updated by --Zappaz 11:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Update by ≈ jossi ≈ 16:50, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Reserved for comments by fellow editors

It makes total sense that documenting the comments and opinions of one group about another or opposing group is in fact maintaining NPOV. To state otherwise would be censorship and would not allow the readers to make their own decision and have the entire picutre clearly presented to them. Readers, including myself, are not stupid and should be allowed to make up their own minds given all the facts. Accordingly, I reverted to Zapaz's previous edit. --Chuck 03:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My bias is known, but I hope my point is understood: if information is deleted from this article, because some people think that it does not belong in this article, then let's hear these reasons stated clearly. Then, if no agreement is reached, remove all the other reasons from the RfC summary and continue with a dispute resolution with clear and concise reasons for keep or delete. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:53, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


Move this discussion to USENET

The discussions and polemic around the ex-premie group and their characterization as a hate group would be better discussed in USENET than in here.

I therefore propose:

  1. To archive this discussion;
  2. To leave this page for discussing the further development this article.

--Zappaz 17:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what about moving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/Ex-PremiesPart2 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies and Ex-Premies to USENET too? Thomas h 18:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


To clarify my proposal.

  • To archive the whole discussion, including additional pages created during the discussion.
  • Anyone interested in continuing this discussion, to do it elsewhere.

Hope my proposal is now clear. --Zappaz 19:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, it's been about a week since the issue of inclusion of ex-premies in this article was submitted to RFC. No independent contributors have supported inclusion of ex-premies as a hate group, and considering it is a serious, and personally hurtful, accusation (even made in an NPOV manner), I propose ex-premies are removed from this article. Once this is done, I am happy for the supporting discussion to be removed as well. If you disagree, then we will have to escalate further. --John Brauns 19:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you are making a mistake. Escalation is never a good option in the long run. To remind you, the inclusion is not about the ex-premies as a hate group as you argue (that can continue to be debated in USENET as I proposed), but about the ex-premies being characterized as such by the target of their criticism. This is a documented fact and one that warrants its inclusion, together with other anti-cult groups and NRMs that are seen or labeled as hate groups by their critics. I really doubt that if you can convince any sensible editor in WP that these facts have to be removed. Please note that Modemac and others have assisted in adding more text to that section to balance it and explain the different points of view regarding such characterizations. Please re-read the complete section: Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements--Zappaz 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, the choice of escalation will be yours, as I will remove the references to ex-premies being a hate group, including the link to the anonymous hate site, one-reality.net. You fail to understand, that without including a rebuttal, the article will give the impression the EV's allegation is true. Including a rebuttal will reduce what should be a serious examination of dangerous groups to a squabble between supporters and critics of Prem Rawat. Even you must agree that EV have provided no evidence for any of their allegations, which means that any controversial organisation can label their critics a 'hate group' and get that allegation included in this article. If you cannot see this logic, we will need to escalate, but if you can, then please recognise that Wikipedia must not be used to propagate such unsupported allegations. From a personal point of view, although EV do not name me, it only requires a little research to identify me by name and address (I hide neither). The allegations against me on EV's websites, and on one-reality.net, are libellous, and had I the funding I would launch libel actions against all four sites immediately. Zappaz, I really don't understand why you, not a member of this cult, cares so much about this. --John Brauns 21:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, John. The choice is yours. --Zappaz 21:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I raised serious issues in my post. I am being accused of being a leading member of a hate group and you support repeating this allegation in this article. I deserve a more considered response than 'the choice is yours'. Please respond to the fact that if Wikipedia (i.e. we) allow a controversial organisation to label its critics as a hate group, and get that allegation included here, then any such organisation can do the same, and you wouldn't be able to argue against them. Please respond rationally to this very important point. --John Brauns 22:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will try to respond again: In reading the section in the article I cannot read anything about you or any other person being accussed of being a leader of a hate group. The only text I read is that an anti-Scientologist (Hein) considers Scientology a hate-group, that Elan Vital considers its critics a hate group as per Introvigne's article, and that other NRMs have seized upon the hostile acts of their critics and cite them as examples of persecution and bigotry. All these are facts with supported references. And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well. --Zappaz 00:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, the libel is on EV's sites and one-reality.net which this article link to. Contrary to your claim, there is no substance in EV's claims. There are clear lies (saying I am beyond the reach of law in Latvia, while having served me with papers claiming breach of copyright), and no supporting evidence for their claims. Antaeus understands this point - why can't you? A serious allegation that a group is a 'hate group' needs independent corroboration before inclusion in this article. Surely you can see that? --John Brauns 07:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right now over on VfD we're dealing with the debate about a chap named Sollog. His followers are very very very very vehement that Sollog is an amazing incredible wonderful guy who of course deserves an article saying how incredibly wonderful he is because he has made so many amazing predictions which came true of things like the September 11, 2001 attacks (which every one of his supporters refers to as "911") and the death of Princess Diana and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Now, this will give you an idea of the generality of Sollog's "predictions"; nevertheless he and his supporters make a "substantial point" of calling "911" and Diana's death and the Columbia disaster things that Sollog predicted.
Now, if we followed the precedent set by your post, we should be modifying the articles on 9/11 and Princess Diana and the Columbia to say "Oh, by the way, some guy named 'Sollog' says he predicted this beforehand." Never mind how poorly substantiated that claim is; according to the precedent you're arguing we should set here, Princess Diana has to be edited to include the claim that Sollog predicted her death, purely because he's making "a substantial point" of claiming that he did. And so can any two-bit "psychic", as soon as they realize that all they have to do to get Wikipedia to publicize an allegation regardless of its truth, is just to make "a substantial point" of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, I really do not understand what is the nature of your objection. In the first paragraph, entered by Anton Hein himself on Aug 17, he characterized Scientology as a hate group. Neither you or anyne else raised any objections to that at that time, because a) it is a fact that he labels them as such; b) he provides evidence in his website; and c) it is an important piece of information for anyone studying NRMs within the context of hate groups. In the same fashion, there is a paragraph about Elan Vital labeling the ex-premies as a hate group and they also provide evidence in their websites. Both these examples, together with the Introvigne article, paint a picture of the on going battle between NRMs and apostates, and provides context about the issue discussed above about verbal violence as a precursor to hate crimes.

Regarding your example of the Princess Diana article, and given the tremendous influence she had in popular culture before and after her tragic death, if there was a section labeled "Trivia about Diana", I would argue that items such as Sollog's predictions would be worthy of inclusion. If the article then will become too big to handle, you know the WP procedure: split. So back to this case, if after we complete writing the hate group article (and there is still a lot of work to do), and if the NRM and hate group section becomes unwieldy, we could consider splitting that section into its own article.--Zappaz 15:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly: my analogy was overgenerous. My analogy was "if Sollog is loud enough in making the claim that he predicted the death of Diana, are we obligated to include that information in Princess Diana?" A more accurate analogy would be "are we obligated to include that information in prediction?"
Secondly, I think Scientology should stay, not because Hate group should be a storehouse of information about anyone who has ever had the accusation of "Hate group!" thrown at them (which you seem to be arguing that it should be) but because the nature itself of the hate group concept is illuminated by the example of Scientology: Scientology has been extremely vocal with the accusation that those who oppose them constitute a hate group, but a close examination shows that it is Scientology itself which more closely fits the definition, since their doctrine, straight from Hubbard himself, contains such gems as "Setting himself up as a terror symbol, the psychiatrist kidnaps, tortures and murders without any slightest police interference or action by western security forces" and "A psychiatrist kills a young girl for sexual kicks, murders a dozen patients with an ice pick, castrates a hundred men" and "Crimes of extortion, mayhem and murder are done daily by these men in the name of 'practice' and 'treatment.' There is not one institutional psychiatrist alive who, by ordinary criminal law, could not be arraigned and convicted of extortion, mayhem and murder." This, to my mind, is the only reason to include Scientology as an example, because it is the best example to illustrate an important point: allegation that so-and-so is a "hate group" are even cheaper than talk is cheap in general; the mere fact that A has accused B of being a hate group does not count as proof or even evidence that B is a hate group -- or that A is not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I think you make a good point, in this case the situation is worse. Labeling a group of people or an organisation a hate group is a very serious charge. Including qualifiers like "alleged" or "is considered to be" will not alter that in the minds of many if not most readers. The association will stick, as I said earlier in my "Mary is a slut" example. As soon as word gets out, the list of "considered hate groups" will start to get really large I'm afraid. Already the ADL is being "considered" a hate group. If that is also to be included, than the article has been brought to the brink of absurdity.
I just took a look at the history of this article. All the way back on July 2, David Girard submitted what I think is a pretty NPOV version of this subtopic and devotes enough ink to it:
'Some advocates who regard certain fringe religious organizations, New religious movements or (controversially) "cults" as spurious, and condemn their methods, also call them "hate groups". In turn, some such organizations claim that ex-members (apostates) resort to tactics that may create a background favourable to extreme manifestations of discrimination and hate against individuals that belong to new religious movements, and thus refer to groups of ex-members as "anti-religious", "anti-cult" or "hate groups."'
Zappaz, as his absolute first contribution to this article on September 5, was the first person to bring in the ex-premie charge. He subsequently and oddly removed the link to Elan Vital made by someone else, which was merely as reference to the source of the charge. This leads me to suspect that he is well aware of my point of "guilty by association". It would seem that Zappaz is hell-bent on getting the ex-premies in this article, which I think he should explain. If he is only interested in NPOV, why is not fighting for the inclusion of the ADL under the same "considered" principle? -- Drapadi
Dant, it was me not Zappaz, I have to admit. I fully agree with Thomas when he told me yesterday that the article should state that some groups label other groups as hate groups as a propaganda tool. 09:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Either I don't know how to use the history function of this software or you are mistaken. I just looked again. At 15:50, 5 Sept 2004 there is an entry by Zappaz, where he adds ex-premies to the Operation Rescue and ALF sentence. I couldn't find this in any of your entries before that. Please look again and tell me what I am doing wrong if I am wrong. -- Drapadi


Drapadi, I have made my disclosures several times already. In my research, I am interested in the discourse of modern anti-cultists using the Internet as a method of amplifying their intolerance for emerging religions and their impact vis-a-vis their relevance. In researching for this article, I found many sources that demonstrate the danger of religious intolerance and the potential for verbal violence to develop into hate crimes. In the recent past, I have contributed substantially to the Prem Rawat and ancillary articles, based on my research of the subject for many months before the articles showed up in WP. WP offered me the platform to engage in further research about this subject, that I must say, I find fascinating.
In previous disclosures, I also made it very clear that I find the tactics and methods used by the ex-premie group (and that was well before reading the material posted by Seth), appalling. I am clearly not a sympathizer of their methods and raison d'être. You can call me, if you wish, a critic of the critics, a libertarian, a cult apologist, or any of these terms combined. :-) --Zappaz 17:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I would appreciate it if you could explain more e.g. on my user page why you hold this view. I simply cannot understand why you, while you are not a follower, can have such an opinion. Andries 00:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


when is see the list of seth, i remember somebody mentioning that context is ALL. But this guy doesn't seem to be around here, though he is using the same name. Serius Zappaz. Can you tell me which group besides Pram Rawat are you representing in your defense against religious intolerance? Although you keep your allegation as a defender for religious liberty as being general, i haven't seen anything that could convince me, that this is the case. As a libertarian IMO you should be aware of the danger of a group that has one such leader. Authoritarian Power is something a libertarian in my understanding should be opposed to. At least there should be a conflict in the heart of such a person between his wish to support liberty of belief and opposing structures of authoritarian power. i cannot recognize any sign of this with you. So i must say that i am sorry , but have difficulties to believe your mentioned intensions. Thomas h 17:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns, thomas, but let me remind you that each one of us here you, Andries, Gary, Antaeus, jossi, Modemac, John, Ed, etc., all have our POVs and in some cases very opposite POVs. And we are trying to write an article under the NPOV guidelines set forth by WP's founder. That's the beauty and the challenge of it. So I would appreciate moving on from personal characterizations about motive (as we all have our motives to support or oppose a specific stance in this debate), and concentrate on the issue at hand that is the discourse about the relevance of certain paragraphs about NRMs and hate groups to warrant an inclusion in this article. --Zappaz 17:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, you didn't answer Thomas's question which is "Can you tell me which group besides Pram Rawat are you representing in your defense against religious intolerance?". As this is your primary interest, and as Elan Vital is such an obscure NRM (although they deny being a religious movement), this is a very relevant question. My interest here is limited to preventing personally libellous statements being propagated on the internet. --John Brauns 01:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am trying to move on. That is why I made the suggestion of returning to the NPOV version of David Girard from 2 July. -- Drapadi
I do not belive that is possible, Drapadi. Doing so will open a huge can of worms here in WP. It will mean that the whole concept of NPOV is flawed and worst of all it will mean that any controversial subject in which one side does not like what they say about them will have the right to excise text from articles based on that alone. Not a happening thing IMHO. --Zappaz 21:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe that you are the worm can opener here. The article is about hate groups which is already a volatile subject and will be difficult to write just sticking to the facts. You offer the rather unusual supposition that the mere suggestion from any organisation, whether substantiated or not, that suggests that it's detractors are a hate group is worthy for inclusion in this article. This is opening the can of worms.
And if you are concerned about defending the rights of NRMs, why are you exclusively focussed on the ex-followers of a relatively insignificant NRM. Why don't you want to include ex-moonies, ex-mormons, ex-krishnas, ex-scientologists, ex-mormons, etc? And while we are at it, let's not forget the Democratic and Republican party and every other political party for that matter. They are certainly guilty of lots of dirty tricks to demonize their opponents. How about the Catholic Church? They are surely responsible for much of the mythology that is the foundation for modern day anti-semitism. Is this the kind of informative hate group article you are looking for? Or is just including the ex-premies enough to satisfy your "interest"? I'm sure the KKK will be very pleased with the result.
Personally I could care less about the ongoing battle on Wiki between premies and ex-premies as long as they keep it where it belongs – in NRM, cults and the particular headings. Letting that spread over to the hate group category has nothing to do with maintaining NPOV and is making a mockery of a vital subject.
Your excuse that reverting to an older version will mean that the whole concept of NPOV is flawed is rather melodramatic and specious. You have been trying to call the shots the whole time here as the great voice of NPOV authority. When Andries suggested that he could make a website saying that Wiki was a hate group and that it would need to be included, your response was that it has to be a group and not an individual. Is that a distinction in the Wiki bylaws or did you just make that up? What if Andries and I together make a website saying that Wiki is a hate group? Are we an organisation yet? How many members does Elan Vital have as an organisation? As I understand it almost none. I have a great idea. Let's ask them how many people work for EV and use that as the minimum criteria for a group claim to be included in the hate article. -- Drapadi
I have not seen one and I mean one contribution to this encyclopedia by you Drapadi. So please tone down your comments about the value of NPOV and about WP policy. --Zappaz 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should hope that others reading your words addressed to me will realize them for what they are. I have not said anything against the value of NPOV nor WP policy here. I have only criticized your continued attempts to fein NPOV posturing to suit your purposes. I would very much like to see some sense of NPOV here. And in response to your claim above and the request below for help with this article, I have already written a letter to a hate watch group asking for some guidelines about this as well as to provide Andries with the results of some preliminary research. I don't feel qualified to write the article myself, therefore I have rather taken to doing some background research and then providing what results I am able to get to Andries. By the way, the research I am doing focuses on the real subject of hate groups and not on this ex-premie obsession of yours. You are correct about one thing though. I am not normally a contributor to Wiki, but I would like to contribute to this article if that is okay with you.
Your help with this article will be much appreciated. From the way you write, you seem pretty eloquent to me ... so I would encourage you to get a user ID and contribute directly. It is more fun and fulfilling than to do this via a proxy. It may seem hard at first, but then you get hooked ... ask any wikipedian! --Zappaz 02:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Back to RfC

Your last response, Antaeus gives me no other option than to place this back in RfC. (I must say that I find your logic very hard to accept). My position, well presented several times here is that the NRM section in this article and its content his very relevant and merit inclusion, and that removing that text is contrary to NPOV.

I call upon current and previous editors contributing to this article can make their voice heard in this dispute. --Zappaz 00:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, your entry on RFC reads Talk:Hate_group - Should text regarding Hate groups and new religious movements be excised from the article?. No one is asking for this, so why have you phrased it so? Drapadi made a very reasonable suggestion - reverting to the generalised statement for this minor aspect of the the important topic of 'Hate Groups' without repeating Elan Vital's unsupported libellous allegation. --John Brauns 01:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The text in an RfC should be left as open as possible for editors to make up their minds and comment. And if you consider the topic of "Hate groups" important, please help me develop the article further. So far it seems that I am the lonely editor attempting to expand this article beyond that one paragraph in contention. --Zappaz 01:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I will be blunt. I do not believe you have any interest in the topic of Hate Groups. I believe your sole interest here is in defending and propagating Elan Vital's libellous attack on its critics, some of whom were senior members of the organisation. If you 'expanded the article' by focussing on universally recognised hate groups, your claims might have some credibility, but your focus has been from the start on discrediting ex-premies. I believe you are either a follower of Prem Rawat, or an experienced Wikipedia editor paid to defend him, and as such you have no credibility here. --John Brauns 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wrong, John I have contributed substantially to this article. In fact, most of the text in the NRM section is not mine. Check the history of this article. And your repeated, accussations against me by you and other ex-followers only goes to negate any credibility that you and your group may have. --Zappaz 02:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, could you explain then why you have apparently not contributed to any Wikipedia article unrelated to Prem Rawat, and why your contributions are always pro-Rawat and anti-ex-premies? --John Brauns 07:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
John. I have disclosed my reasons many times already over the last few months, last of which to Drapadi yesterday. (What makes you feel you have the right to question me in such manner?) Listen John: any futher attempts to spread conspiracy theories or any further allegations levelled at me by you or your friends here or in your discussion forum, will result in the only worthwile response in these cases: to totally ignore you and others from your group in these or other discussion in WP, period. And I mean it. --Zappaz 16:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, Thomas asked you a courteous question about which other cults you are interested in, and you didn't answer. I asked you why all your contributions as 'Zappaz' on Wikipedia were related to Prem Rawat and you haven't answered. I think given your focus on Prem Rawat, and your anti-ex-premie stance, my suspicions are well founded. All you have to do to allay these reasonable suspicions is to honestly answer the questions that have been put to you. I notice you are leaving this article to work on others. I will make a point of looking you up as I am interested in reading your contributions away from Prem Rawat. Of course, if you will be doing this under a different alias, I will naturally wonder why. --John Brauns 23:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
that gets my blood boiling. You may call me paranoid, or someone obsessed with conspiracy fantasies when i find certain exlpanations as non sufficient. BTW you have never precluded that there might be more than your POV involved, even if it might be on the line with your POV. If it is(which i do not know) you would probably consider it as your business not ours. Nobody can force you to unfold more of yourself than you want to. But to threaten a whole group of people to be handled as one, if one of the group, that you define, acts to your disapproval reminds me very much of the german term "Sippenhaftung", which points back into our unlucky past of massmanipulation and dictatorship. Thomas h 16:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If that gets your blood boiling, put yourself in my shoes and think how will you feel if you are accussed again and again by the same people because I do not share their POV, their tactics or their rational. I see your attemp to associate my response with nazism, obscene, appalling, and as part of the same effort. Consider this is the last straw. --Zappaz 17:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, i have repeatedly expressed my respect for your intelligence and skills at WP. I even feel that you could, if you wanted to, ease the waves between exes and current followers, but you have chosen not to. The main article Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat was a succesful story of collaboration of opposing positions. You didn't bother to wikiquote apostate, "hate group" in your replies to me and others, together with jossi and .140 as if it was a sport. so excuse me , i find that a bit snivelling. The comparison was groce, i agree, what i wanted to point out is , how easy it is to get into a hardening position, from which even worse may evolve. Thomas h 18:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
maybe it would help, if you considered yourself a complex personality that is extremely hard to figure out, and that this might be the reason why one could get a bit mad at you ;-) Thomas h 18:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You will have to do better than a wink, Thomas... You can help reduce the animosity by refraining from making these type of comments. I am now taking some time to work on other articles, as I am getting a bit tired of all this. --Zappaz 19:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll try, looking forward to see you again. Thomas h 19:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, Zappaz, I'm very sorry that you don't see any option besides opening another RfC. Of course, the way you describe it, you'd think you had actually tried other options of dispute resolution -- heck, from the way you describe the way I "give" you "no other option", one would think I had been obstinate and unyielding in my editing of the article, when in fact I have never edited the article at all. So, um, I guess my debating the points at issue on the article's talk page is what gives you no other option than to open an RfC? I'm sorry that someone who is so proud of "well present"ing their own opinion considers someone presenting a different opinion to be cause for an RfC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Antaeus, I should not have singled you out. Apologies. I have asked all previous contributors to the article to comment. Hope that this will help resolve this dispute.--Zappaz 02:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of ex-premies (again)

As two submissions to RFC have brought no indpendent support for inclusion of the mention of ex-premies in this article, I have removed such mention. Anyone who wishes to revert this, will need scholarly references, and not the unsupported claims of an obscure religious cult. --John Brauns 23:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two points of clarification:
  • The RfC was for the 'deletion of text from the article.
  • The second RfC was submitted during the weekend. Usually we wait a week before proceeding with changes based on the RfC.
--Zappaz 00:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've amended your text above to add the most important reason why mention of ex-premies should be removed, which I am surprised you omitted as it's been discussed here often enough. OK, I will wait one week from today, even though one RFC submission should have been enough. --John Brauns 06:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the amendment (I amended it further as well). You are under the wrong impression that the previous RfC (initiated by Andries) concluded in your favor. In fact, it wasn't. Clearly you and others were not satisfied with the modifications introduced during the previous RfC (edits by Modemac, Andries and myself), thus this second RfC was initiated by me. Nevertheless, if any of us is not satisfied with the results of this RfC, there are other options available to us via Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution as pointed out by Antaeus previously. --Zappaz 11:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I am judging the result of a request for comments by the comments on this page, not minor changes to the article. By your own rules, no one could remove the disputed text while the RFC was in progress. BTW, I've thought of another argument for removing the disputed text. The cult article makes no mention of Elan Vital although many websites, including ex-premie.org, claim they are a cult. Instead the article appears to be (I didn't read it all) a thoughtful analysis of the modern meaning of the word 'cult', which is quite clearly derogatory, as is 'hate group'. I do not advocate including Elan Vital in that article, even though the evidence for doing so is far greater than the evidence for including ex-premies in this article. By the same logic, I ask you to support not including ex-premies in this article. --John Brauns 22:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FYI, Elan Vital is listed in List of purported cults. I have added the text that ex-premies consider Elan Vital a cult. --Zappaz 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Jappaz. I didn't notice that purported cults were listed in a separate article, but the link from the cult article includes this important text:-
In order to maintain a neutral point of view towards controversial groups, a list of purported cults presents a listing of groups labelled as cults by various non-related, reasonably unbiased sources.
I am arguing for the same standard to be applied to purported hate groups, i.e., the labelling of a group as a hate group should be supported by non-related, reasonably unbiased sources. I have also removed your addition to the article as it clearly says that the list should only be supported by unbiased sources. Ex-premies are clearly not an unbiased source. --John Brauns 23:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "ex-premies" are not listed in the hate groups list in this article. If that was the case, I would certainly agree with you. The ex-premies are only mentioned in the section related to NRMs, and presented as examples of NRMs vs. critics using the term "hate group" to define their opponents according to rational provided by references.--Zappaz 00:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"List" or "Mention" doesn't change the principle, which is that without support from non-related, reasonably unbiased sources, ex-premies should not be in this article. If you think the article needs one example, why don't you provide one or more from your in-depth study of the behaviour of apostates from other cults? (Rhetorical question by the way - we both know why not.) Anyway, let's wait for other experienced Wiki contributors to comment. Anyone interested enough to do so? --John Brauns 15:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hereby declare John Brauns to be on my "ignore list" due to his ongoing accusations, innuendo, modus operandi and his inability to refrain from engaging in these behaviors after several requests I made. --Zappaz 16:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, So what? You have repeatedly failed to answer relevant questions, and your tantrum is clearly a tactic to avoid having to answer any future questions. The issues we are dealing with will not go away, regardless of your action. It's not nice being accused of wrongdoing is it, only in my case the accusations are untrue, and you want to spread them throughout Wikipedia. --John Brauns 01:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC completed with no comments

One week for this RfC has expired without any comments. I must say that this week of silence in this talk page was very refreshing, and quite enjoyed investing that time in more fruitful WP endeavors...  :)

As no other editors have contributed, other recourses for the ex-premies are available in wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Up to them to start that process if they wish.

I have removed the "under review" tag for that section. --Zappaz 04:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, your intervention in removing the disputed text is unilateral. Reverted. The RfC did not provide additional comments to remove the disputed text. --Zappaz 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly when and where was it determined that if no one stepped in to say anything, silence would equal confirmation that your way was the right way? The answer is, it wasn't. To remove that allegation is no more "unilateral" an action than inserting it in in the first place, or insistently reinserting it despite repeated opposition. You have had the allegation in the text for the whole week of the RfC while we who oppose the allegation patiently waited to see if your insistence on a second RfC would bring any support for your point of view, as the first one failed to do, would prove true. Now the RfC has ended and you are claiming that no support is all the support you need.
A rotound YES. The text in question is within NPOV. If you want to remove it, you have to gather support from other editors willing to support that removal. --Zappaz 23:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you are actually trying to argue that because you phrased the RfC "should [the] text be excised" and no one stepped up to say "yes, that text should be excised" that the silence is equivalent to "no, no one thinks it should be excised" then you were wrong and acted in bad faith. You were supposed to describe the RfC in neutral terms; if you are now describing it as so one-sided a statement that silence is clearly agreement with that side then either you failed in your duty to make the RfC neutral or you are willfully misinterpreting the results now. But we could always test your theory: we'll excise the allegations from the article, and then put up an RfC asking "Should allegations that there exists an organized hate group called "Ex-Premies" opposing Elan Vital be inserted into the article?" If your theory is right that no one answered the RfC at all because everyone who considered it thought the answer to your question should be "no" but neglected to actually voice their "no", then surely they'll come forward this time and say "yes." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fallacious argument. The text in question has been in the article for months. --Zappaz 23:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


With all due respect, your analysis of the situation is totally flawed. The text in question is within NPOV guidelines, and as such it should stay. Reverted. --Zappaz 22:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a matter of principle. Attribution to Elan Vital is given, and the text is in the context of the on-going battle between NRMs and anti-cultists and apostates. This is a fact and removal of these facts are against NPOV. If you are as you claim, a protector of NPOV then help me with this attemtp to censure factual information. --Zappaz 23:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Antaeus, I want to be honest with you: I find your intervention and support of this ex-followers group here very peculiar. This is a matter of principle, and I will take this up until I get a good explanation as for the reasons fdor supporting the excise this text from the article. So far the reasons given are not sufficient. --Zappaz 23:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the agreement on this issue was very clear - if no independent support for the very insulting, hurtful, and potentially libellous, claim by the recognised religious cult, Elan Vital, that Prem Rawat's former followers constitute a hate group, is produced within a week, then mention of the allegation goes. If you think it is fair and reasonable that mention of the allegation stays until we have reached the highest court in Wikipedia, then your own partiality in this matter is proven. If you think this issue is important enough for you to pursue, then please take it to the next stage of dispute resolution, but do not revert my changes while you do so. --John Brauns 23:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You have absolutely no clue.... and I am not talking to you. --Zappaz 23:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disgusted

I am thoroghuly disgusted with your behavior, Antaeus. Your siding with this group is appaling IMO and the sacrificing of NPOV is outrageous. I have moved the whole text of this section to its own article Hate groups and new religious movements. --Zappaz 23:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not too impressed with your strength of character either, Zappaz. As previously pointed out, you acted in bad faith either constructing the RfC to be a non-neutral summary of the dispute or in interpreting it as such after the fact and when that was pointed out, you switched your argument to "it's NPOV, therefore it stays" -- ignoring other factors that others have brought up to you before, such as that under your interpretation of what is "relevant" to an article, every single instance where "A says B is a C" would have to be added to the article on "C" merely because A said it. You never addressed the blatant impracticality of that proposition, you merely changed the subject; in fact, that was the point where you announced "Your last response, Antaeus gives me no other option than to place this back in RfC." And of course we've seen where that led to, it led to your presumption that since a week went by and no one stepped forward to take either side, that was clear approval for your side.
And now you're arguing that my behavior in "siding with this group" is "appaling" [sic]. Which group would that be, Zappaz? I hope you mean "the group of editors who have been arguing that a mere allegation of B being C doesn't demand inclusion in C's article", because that's the group I actually do belong to. I hope you're not meaning "siding with Ex-Premies", because a) it's quite untrue; I not only belong to or "side with" neither Elan Vital nor the purported organization of Ex-Premies, but know nothing about either save what I've seen alleged on Wikipedia, b) it shows that you've been approaching this all along as a matter of a justified group versus an "appaling" [sic] group and that pretenses of NPOV have been just that.
I'm mildly amused that bare hours after condemning my removal of text that has been so disputed it has been submitted for RfC twice as a "unilateral" move, you yourself took the highly unilateral move of removing the entire section from the article to become a new article. Why? Is that going to solve any of the problems with the disputed text? The only thing it could possibly do is to confuse the subject -- which, coincidentally, is the same effect that could be expected from switching the subject, say, from the impracticality of including everything that has ever been claimed to be a C in the article on C, to how someone's behavior (the identity of the someone later changing) "gives you no other choice" than to open an RfC. And you say you are thoroughly disgusted with my behavior? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"...every single instance where "A says B is a C" would have to be added to the article on "C" merely because A said it." Boy, that's sure gonna bloat up our article on Motherfucker...hmmm, Category:Motherfuckers ... (LOL) --Gary D 00:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
ROFL! --Zappaz 00:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it totally useless and a waste of my time to debate anything with you. I simply had enough of your twisted logic. I will keep the text in which you defend the inclusion of "Scientology as a hate group allegation" and at the same time support the deletion of "ex-premie as a hate group allegation" as an example of my reasons of being disgusted with your anti-NPOV attitude here. And please note that I find your following me around to "NPOV" my edits on other articles, quite obonoxious as well. --Zappaz 00:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it obnoxious that you make so many edits to so many articles which require others to come around and edit them back to NPOV again. Please, do go ahead and keep the text where I explain my reasoning for including accusations by and against Scientology and yet not including every single other allegation that gets made, purely because the allegation is made. Please, do keep it. I'm not ashamed of it, because I stand by my reasoning. If you were able to dispute my reasoning, you should have done so, but you didn't; you simply retreated to "I am thoroughly disgusted with your behavior" and "I find it totally useless and a waste of time to debate with you". How many of us are you planning to put in that category when you can't actually answer the questions we raise? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, you may want to look at the very latest edit, peformed by Zappaz today, and see if that changes anything for you. --Gary D 23:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
If you think that your words have upset me, Antaeus, you are very right. Let me tell you this: If you have a problem with my prolificacy , well, I am entitled to be as prolific as I want to be in this and any other articles, and as long as my edits have added valuable text hopefully these will remain. Can you show me your contributions to this article or any of the articles I have contributed to? Anything, good or bad? Any? Any at all? Or are you only interested in conducting endless debates in the talk pages and be so self-righteous about "editing them back to NPOV" [sic]? You definitively have a way to wrap poison in your sentences, Antaeus. You'd make a good sparring partner :).
Regarding my lack of interest in disputing your reasoning, I am simply tired of these endless debates about one sentence and prefer to work on the article itself (IMO, after this dispute is finished it could end up to be a good candidate for listing in Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever).
I trust that the WP community will either keep my edits in the articles I contribute to because these are substantial and valuable. If not, these will deservedly end up in the obscurity of the article history... --Zappaz 23:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A way to break the deadlock

I am going to suggest that we create a separate article, List of purported hate groups, just as we have separate articles for Cult and List of purported cults. The fact that Elan Vital alleges the existence of an organized hate group called "Ex-Premies" can go in that "List of purported..." article, as will many warnings that the list only means that someone, somewhere, made a claim, not that the claim was ever substantiated or should automatically be taken as credible. This article will focus on what a hate group is, how it is defined, what disputes there are over the definition, who watches hate groups. Individual purportings that this or that group is a hate group do not belong in the article unless they represent particular circumstances which illustrate the points under discussion. For instance, the fact that the NRM of Scientology considers its critics a "hate group" serves amply to demonstrate that NRMs often allege that their critics are hate groups; the fact that Scientology itself is the party whose doctrine states that such critics are without exception criminals who "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist ... may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" serves to demonstrate that the mere allegation of being a hate group can be nothing more than "black PR", allegations manufactured to discredit an enemy. Merely being an allegation that someone is a hate group will not automatically make an allegation significant enough to be in this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, I will support this if the same standards are applied that apply to the List of purported cults, and that is that the labelling of a group as a hate group should be supported by non-related, reasonably unbiased sources. I hope it is clear to you that Elan Vital does not come into this category, as its critics that they label a 'hate group' are former senior managers, instructors personally appointed by Rawat, including the North American director, and the former President of Elan Vital International. Also, surely Zappaz's tactic of splitting the article is against Wikipedia guidelines. The article was nowhere near the 32k required. How do we deal with this? --John Brauns 23:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the same standards should apply to both articles; I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that allegations that a group is a cult should be held to a different standard than allegations that a group is a hate group. I myself can't commment on whether the accusations against Elan Vital meet those standards, as I have no knowledge of Elan Vital or his critics save the second-hand knowledge picked up from here. However, even if a double standard were to be applied to the two articles (which of course would be opposed by anyone who actually cares about NPOV) addressing the allegation in a separate "List of ..." article would at least have the effect of putting them in a context which makes clear how relatively worthless the mere accusation of "hate group" is, especially when the accusation is only coming from certain sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That may work, although I do not have the inclination to work on such article (I have several projects in progress). Go ahead if you wish. Until then, I'll keep the text in Hate groups and new religious movements. --Zappaz 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, I support this intelligent and fair solution. Like Zappaz, I will probably not have the time to work on it. Andries 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carte blanche

I have observed this discussion from the sidelines and given the obvious success of the ex-premies in getting allegations of being a hate group out of this article, I will now proceed and delete allegations from the Criticism of Prem Rawat made by the ex-premie group using the same logic as per the RfC summary as follows:

  1. supporters consider these to be libelous accusation by the "hate group" against them;
  2. supporters consider the evidence publicized as the basis for these allegations to be uncorroborated and not sufficient;
  3. supporters see this as serious and offensive charge;
  4. it sets a dangerous precedent whereby any organization can make allegations and have these allegations claim repeated in WP article. To be included in WP article, allegations should be independently corroborated;

≈ jossi ≈ 00:58, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, many of the allegations against Prem Rawat are corroborated by independent sources, and where the sources may be considered biased, the allegations are given under their own names, and are corroborated by other former followers. Elan Vital's allegation, is (as you seem to now accept) not supported by any independent source, the accusers do not give their names, and in most cases the accused are not named directly. This is a big difference. I do hope you do not intend to carry out your threat after all the work we put into getting that article agreed. --John Brauns 22:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, whatever editing is done at Criticism of Prem Rawat will have to be done without me, since as I've said before, I have only second-hand knowledge of either group. But I ask you to keep in mind that the "ex-premies"' "success" in getting the allegations that they are a hate group out of this article may in fact be because it doesn't belong in this article, for reasons that you don't have to be a current premie or an ex-premie to see. I have said before, I'll say it again, if "A says B is a C" was sufficient justification for B to get listed in the article on C, we'd have to put every single entity that anyone had ever called a C into the article on C. I'd like to point out that the same logic does not transfer over to "All right, that means that if A says B is a C, I get to remove it from Things people have said about B."
And as a personal favor, I'd really like it if you could wait to talk about the "success" the "ex-premies" (a group in which you seem to be counting me, incorrectly as I've pointed out) have had in excising that allegation, until we have actually had some. You'll notice that it's still there in the article, in different wording but still there. You can hardly justify what you want to do by saying "well, they got to do it!" when in fact a simple look shows that it is still undone and that its "doing" is still being fought tooth and nail. If you think that's "carte blanche", I have to wonder what you think "obstruction" is! =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will wait to see the end of this dispute. Note that their position goes beyond "it does not belong to this article". If they succeed in removing the allegations against them based on the RfC summary, it will open the door for them and any other group to remove text they don't like from articles because, (sic) they see this as serious and offensive charge; the evidence publicized as the basis for these allegations to be uncorroborated and not sufficient; they consider these to be libelous accusations". ≈ jossi ≈ 15:41, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledging a distinction between those who do not think the allegations belong in this article, and those who do not think they belong in any WP article, and not taking whatever happens to the allegation in this article as a precedent for all allegations in all articles. If you think the RfC summary (the one which, ah, no one responded to) formally signifies that the reason for removing the allegation from this article is the relative credibility of the allegation, such that a successful removal would be used or usable as an automatic precedent, then please let me know, and I will add to the RfC summary why I think that specific allegations as a rule do not belong in this article unless they illuminate the subject, such as the allegations by and against Scientology, and the allegations by Rob Enderle that Linux supporters act as a hate group.
Just so you know, if we were discussing the inclusion of the allegation in an actually appropriate article, my inclination would be to say "Yes, include it -- along with the other details, such as exactly who is alleging it, who disputes it, whether any objective evidence has been verified by neutral third parties, et cetera." I agree that there has to be some standard that has to be met in order to justify including an allegation (Enderle's accusations, for instance, are unsupported by anyone but himself) but my own inclination is to set that bar pretty low -- if an allegation is flimsy, it's best that it be out in the open with its flimsiness exposed for all to see.
However, it's important -- more important than my inclination about where the bar should be set -- that we have consistency. I'm sure that everyone who is really trying for NPOV can agree that the same organization could not remove itself from List of purported cults saying "The allegations that we're a cult aren't credible enough; they all come from ex-members and we believe all ex-members have ulterior motives that make them untrustworthy" and at the same time put its critics on List of purported hate groups saying "Sure the allegation is credible! Just listen to the degree and intensity of the accusations being levelled against them! And it doesn't matter that the allegations are only coming from current members of our organization; surely no one could believe that that affects the credibility of the allegations!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, thank you for this:- "Just so you know, if we were discussing the inclusion of the allegation in an actually appropriate article, my inclination would be to say "Yes, include it -- along with the other details, such as exactly who is alleging it, who disputes it, whether any objective evidence has been verified by neutral third parties, et cetera." I agree 100%, which is why I didn't insist that Elan Vital's allegation should be removed from the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, as it was in context, with both sides fairly represented (at least in the agreed 'Baseline' version of the article). It certainly does not belong in this article, and I am about to remove it again. I'm still considering whether it belongs in the NRM article. --John Brauns 23:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well. I don't buy this at all. With your logic, the whole section needs to go. I have reverted your edit back to the simplified version I edited yesterday. I though that that was a good effort, but clearly you disagree. No concensus yet! --Zappaz 02:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The whole section needs to go? Hmmmm, probably a good idea. I'm sure that we can find something that actually covers the subject rather than being simplified down to just a listing of allegations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think there is an encyclopedic fact that can keep the NRM, SCO, and other "hate group" allegations in this article, but it is a linguistic one rather than a substantive one: the term "hate group" as an epithet slung against one's enemies has recently come to be used by a wide variety of people and groups outside the original racism area where the term arose. In fact, I think that sentence might make a fine topic sentence for that section. In illustrating the fact of this new and apparently growing linguistic use, examples from a wide variety of areas would be useful. We don't need them all, of course, but a short sampling from religion, business, politics would illustrate the breadth of the new linguistic practice. I know I joked about this earlier, but it actually is a kind of a parallel to explaining the ubiquitous use of "Motherfucker" as an epithet. And, the perfect capper to such a linguistic-use section is to finish with the reference that Wikipedia itself has been called a "hate group", and give a citation. --Gary D 19:44, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


Well, if I can, Gary, I'd like to suggest that this falls into two categories:
  • Use of "hate group" purely as an emotive emphasis, the way that "pornography" is appended to things with no sexual content to make loaded terms like "food pornography" and "political pornography", and
  • Use of "hate group" in a real attempt, no matter how misguided, to portray the named group as actually... well, a hate group, a group whose purpose, no matter what it is, must be looked at as the fanatical madness of bigots rather than as the legitimate protest of reasonable people with legitimate grievances.
I think both uses certainly deserve discussion, and I wouldn't see too much of a problem with including specific instances of the first. That would be parallel to your analogy of "motherfucker"; people call each other "motherfucker" all the time but no one ever seems to mean it or take it as a serious accusation of incest. That's clearly not the case with "hate group", and I would strongly resist, for all the reasons I've said before, to include any example that didn't earn its inclusion by very clearly illustrating some point under discussion. Even Rob Enderle really intended people to believe that to understand why anyone would dislike or oppose SCO, you had to understand the "Nuremberg experiments". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This seems all very theoretical for you Antaeus, just words, right?. Not for me and thousands of others harassed by these people for the simple fact that we believe in something they hate and obsess about [1]. Please inform yourself before making an assessment about them being or not being a hate group. From were I stand, I have no doubt they are. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Nice words, Jossi, but the fact is that you guys alternate between saying "you're advocating a course of action that favors them instead of us! You must be one of them, and since you're one of them, your words are suspect!" and "you're not part of this fight! You don't have a right to come in and start interfering!" In any case, you seem to be ignoring -- yet again -- that I have not made any statement about there existing or not existing an organization called "Ex-Premies", nor about that organization being or not being a hate group. What I have said, time and again, is that the allegation is not relevant enough to this article to justify its insistent insertion into this article. It does not in any way illuminate the subject of hate groups; it only tells us that someone thinks someone else is a hate group. You should know by now that I have been arguing that point all along; to suddenly pretend "you would change your mind if you knew how accurate our allegations are" is really nothing more than an attempt to change the subject, a tactic we've seen plenty of here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thousands harrassed?. Why not millions? Come on Jossi, i think you have lost your sense for reality. I don't think this is a healthy attitude for an encyclopedia. Prem Rawat has never expressed that he feels harassed, he mentioned his critics as "matches that didn't lit up" maybe, and his attitude, like an "elephant that moves on, between barking dogs" or something like that. That is no expression of somebody that feels harassed. Thomas h 05:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we draw the line between those really intending people to believe a group meets the definition of "hate group" and those merely hurling the term as vague invective, without us having to climb into the mind of the "epitheter." I don't know how to score the subjective sincerity or subjective analytical precision of Enderle or Elan Vital. Certainly anyone who uses the term wants others to think less of the target adversary, but I don't know how we can determine or discuss here whether they subjectively really intend or believe in a precise fit for that term, merely mean "motherfucker," or something inbetween. That's why I was proposing the article distinguish between orthodox and unorthodox uses of the term, because there we at least have some observable guidelines. Now the question is whether the distinction I have just drawn here has a practical impact on the article: I know I don't want the article spending space debating whether or not the ex-premies or SCO are truly a hate group;the only thing worth the cyber-ink is noting the fact that recently people have begun hurling this term around quite a bit for rhetorical/political advantage; groups like the ex-premies and SCO figure into that only as examples. That's why I urged Zappaz to slash down this section, but I can see a reason for it remaining in the article. --Gary D 07:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
FYI ,not SCO was the mentioned Hate Group, but "The Linux User Group", though it won't make much difference in this discussion ;-). We should maybe get something clear. Most of us are here on this "Hate Group" talkpage because of our involvement with the Rawat articles or being related to those. There is a direct line. I find it worrying that out of the disputes and confrontations between exers and current followers third articles are influenced by something that isn't maybe worth a footnote in world's history. This is so full of contradictions, like only a dozen hateful ex-followers are threatening thousands of students, that you really must consider what wikipedia shall be one day. Thomas h 10:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for setting my straight on which group it was, Thomas. I hope my error displays consistency with my overall approach to this issue as a tangential if encyclopedic addition to the article that doesn't really need deeper exploration, at least not here. I do appreciate that this article may be undergoing some "referred pain" from the Prem Rawat article disputes, much the way that a man having a heart attack feels it not in his heart but in his arm and jaw instead. I suppose this outcome at any rate goes along with the basic nature of Wikipedia, both as an openly editable medium and as one that draws upon the interest and enthusiasm of those closest to a topic to write about it. Powerful emotions and opinions lead to powerful wranglings. Still, I hope and believe articles like this one that are merely tangential to the main areas of interest and dispute may still benefit from the energy invested by motivated editors, even if their motivation arose in a different place or from a different direction, a phenomenon for which I, clever cuss that I am, will now coin the term, "referred motivation." --Gary D 22:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts

On second thoughts, I have chosen to fight this one all the way. It is a matter of principle and I will not allow it. Revert if you wish and force the three-reverts rule. I have added the disputed tag as well. --Zappaz 01:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's a matter of principle, Zappaz, then why do you keep changing the subject away from the discussion of the principles involved? I have no doubt that you'll fight this one all the way, but not out of principle.
I am fighting or the principle of not allowing a one side conversation or one POV to be prevalent. There are NRMs that label their critics "hate groups" and there are crtitics that label NRMs hate groups. And the cloud of debate between these two, is worthy of inclusion. That simple. --Zappaz 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is the fact that Elan Vital alleges their detractors to be a hate group called "Ex-Premies" worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Sure. Is the fact that the people Elan Vital allege are members of that group dispute that there even is an organized group, let alone a hate group? Sure. Is the fact that Elan Vital claims to have all sorts of evidence demonstrating hateful doctrine and harassment plans worthy of inclusion? Sure. Is the fact that those whom Elan Vital is accusing of this doctrine and these plans allege that all the evidence is in fact manufactured worthy of inclusion? Sure.
It is just not worthy of inclusion here in this article. That point has been made over and over again; if you state that Wikipedia should include in the article for "Hate group" an allegation that ex-premies are a hate group just because it's the article on "Hate group", then you're trying to set a precedent for including in the article for C every single thing that has ever been alleged to be a C. Discuss the specific allegation in the article for the accuser; discuss it in the article for the accused, but if you insist on inserting it into the article for that which the accused is alleged to be, that is what dooms the article to be POV -- because there's no way you can keep it updated to include all allegations, and why should your one side that says this is one of the allegations important enough to go in the article be the one side represented? The idea that your proposal is the one supporting NPOV is laughable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


You keep missing the point again and again and again! The discourse has nothing to do with the ex-premies, the AFF or with Scientology. The fact that is worthy of inclusion in this article as a short mention with pertinent examples, as well as very worthy of inclusion on New religious movement and maybe Apostasy is that some NRMs have critics, specifically ex followers or Apostates, that in the NRM's view use tactics associated with hate groups against them. Same phenomenon exist in the anti-cultists battles against NRMs. Is it religous intolerance? Is it propaganda against valid criticism? Let the reader be the judge! --Zappaz 00:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolute bunkum, Zappaz, and now you're not even trying. I have never removed any text that states the fact that NRMs frequently accuse their critics of being hate groups, and I would fight the removal of such text. But that's not the text under contention! The part that you keep re-inserting is the fact that Elan Vital, specifically, accuses its critics of being an organized hate group called the Ex-Premies. You pretend this is because the very, very simple point "NRMs sometimes call their critics hate groups" cannot be understood unless you name specific names as your so-called "pertinent examples". I say bunkum; you have provided no reason why such a simple concept would need any examples to elaborate it, and you have reverted attempts to change the example to Scientology, which had already been mentioned in the article as an NRM alleged to be a hate group! It has everything to do with ex-premies, as evidenced by the fact that that is the only point on which you have retained consistency. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


With your logic, all mentions of Operation Rescue, the Animal Liberation Front, Scientology, Ex-premies and Linux Uzser group have to be removed from the article, simply because you don't need to provide examples and it is enough to say "some advocates", or "some organizations" or "some person" have levelled acussations of hate group against them. What kind of logic is that? How can you insist that that information is not valid and needs to be removed? ... And I can make the same argument against your deletion: that is the only point on which you have deleted consistently. --Zappaz 02:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Which, if you'll notice, is exactly what I've proposed, that this article be the article on what a hate group is, how it is defined and by whom, and that a separate article contain all the allegations about who is and who is not a hate group, and that the only exceptions should be those groups where the particular circumstances make it a particularly illuminating example, such as in the case of Rob Enderle accusing Linux users of being a hate group, or in the case of Scientology, where both sides are accusing each other of being hate groups. You tell me, what is so particularly illuminating about the accusations Elan Vital is throwing about?
How can you insist that that information is not valid and needs to be removed? Gee, I dunno, go ask someone who actually insisted it. And you know something? I would have removed all specific allegations of the kind you mention to List of purported hate groups already, except a) I was actually trying to establish that there was some consensus support for that breakout before going ahead with it, and b) you've made it difficult for any other editor to get in, with your churning up the article and your creation of a new article just so that you could include Elan Vital's accusation without breaking the 3RR. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I still think Wikipedia being called a hate group is a must-have example to end with. --Gary D 20:04, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

For those "occasional editors" not familiar with this rule, please read Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule. --Zappaz 01:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite familiar with it. Just see the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements to see how familiar I am with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was not referring to you, but to other less experienced editors. BTW, you made a mistake that I have clarified at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements . --Zappaz 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today's edit

This edit is based on some suggestions made by Gary D, to whom I asked for advise (see my Talk page).

  1. I have reduced the whole section to a postdata mention;
  2. The Scientology and ex-premie debate about being labelled hate groups to be moved to their respective articles;
  3. Moved most of the text as a new section of the New religious movement article.

--Zappaz 12:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could add to the misuse of the word hate group, the case of the "Linux User Group" too, as they have been accused so,by Robert Enderle from the Enderle Group, a supporter of SCO's line, in their legal case against IBM. Calling their opponents a "Hate Group" is not limited on NRMs and their counterparts. Thomas h 17:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Robert Enderle's comments added. --Zappaz 17:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
wow, that was fast, phew! Thomas h 20:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

American Family Foundation as a hate group

Isn't that crossing the line? They were referring to CAN in the first place and the they later retracted to a great extent their accusation that the AFF might possibly be a hate group. Only two persons say this. Same for SCO. It can not be taken seriously anymore. I mean, following the same standard we could say that Wikipedia commits hate crimes. SSee www.wikipediasucks.com according to Sollog. Andries 07:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

in the case of SCO i think the context may be wrong. This deserves an own chapter IMO.It is not about a hate group in a wider sense of course, but using this term to defame one's opponents, as a tactical weapon for public relation. "A wider sense" could imply that these may also be hate groups even if they are not officially listed. This is of course ridiculous,in the case of the "Linux User Group", because there is no, the "Linux User Group". The article may not only explain the meaning of Hate Group, but also the use of this term under certain conditions as well as in Motherfucker. The SCO thing is just an example of how this is done. Thomas h 06:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The word unreasonable is very important in the definition

I mean, when somebody kills a member of the group you are in to whom the whole group was close then the group will probably hate the killer. But the group is not a hate group because the group's hatred is not unreasonable. I reverted. Andries 19:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Criticism

the following paragraph should be revised or deleted:

"Criticism of the anti-Hate movement: Western civilization has been deeply influenced by the Christian belief and practice of charity or love. The greatest commandment is to love God with thy whole heart and love thy neighbor as thyself. This principle is deeply ingrain in all Western men, even if they are non-religious or anti-religious. Thus in the West, accusing a person of hate is accusing him of a damnable vice. History is replete with attacks by empowered groups against those it feels threaten them. From Roman time’s onward heretics, pagans, witches have had their day of infamy. Throughout the twentieth century government and other agencies have launched massive propaganda campaigns. Early in the century anti-German propaganda help the Wilson administration in WWI. At mid-century the anti-Communist fervor brought about McCarthyism and the blacklist. Late in the twentieth century the campaign against Hate took center stage. There are two differences from the anti-Hate crusade and those against heretics, witches, and Communists. One, there is no official court wherein one may defend oneself and demand that his accusers prove his guilt. Two, those who level the accusation are certainly guilty of practicing it; since those charge with the crime of hating can deny that they hate, but those making the charge cannot deny that they hate the Haters."

it is the last paragraph in the "How Hate Groups Work" section of this article. It lacks neutral POV, is too focused on christianity and its history, and sounds like a person's musing on the developement of hate crimes. 202.216.124.18 11:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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:

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 [3]. 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 [4] -- 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. [5] 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)
You are right, Will. That sentence works better. I have replaced it, added some wikilinks and tidied it up just a tad. --Zappaz 04:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:16, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

Given the wide definition, isn't the Simon Wiesenthal Center a hate group?124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree. I think the KKK is still a hate group and that the phrase "during Reconstruction" should be removed. -Mihir

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 [6], Other [7], an FBI report [8], 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): [9]. --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.

Hate rock and paganism

In the last 20 years, white supremacists were attracted to a particular kind of pagan religion known as Odinism. The religion originated from tribal myths and theology of the pre-Christian Germanic and Scandinavian tribes, once had a cult devoted to Odin or Wotan, the god of war, hate and death.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, German nationalists and rightists experimented with Odinism and entered the National Socialist Party (later known as Nazis) in the 1920's and 30s. Prominent Nazi leaders like Erick Ludenknopf, Alfred Rosenberg and the infamous Heinrich Himmler are pagan adherents.

The Nazi-pagan connection reappeared in the 1970's by American practitioners Steven McNallen and David Lane, also a self-claimed neo-Nazi helped create a racially divisive version of the pagan faith by the 1980's.

During the "pagan revival" across Europe from the 1960's to the early 1990's, while most pagan adherents observed a more pacifist, counter-cultural faith, came a development of morbid ultra-violent and fascist-inspired Odinists, mainly centered in Norway.

In 1993, a music genre by the Norwegian rock band Burzum combined gothic, satanic, death and black metals that contained racist (as in tribal, primal or viking themes) and anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anarchist lyrics.

Later that year, thousands of Burzum followers rioted across Scandinavia and burned down churches, police stations and Jewish owned properties, in part to Burzum's anti-social, racial pagan messages. Burzum's lead singer Varg Vikernes was charged for a murder and imprisoned in 1994 after brief worldwide attention and he remains in a Norway jail.

European countries guarantee the freedom of religion, but are restrictive of the type of music Burzum produces as racist, criminal, and anti-Christian, as Norway passed laws banned that music genre (the sale of, not private ownership of those recordings).

In the U.S. this racial variety of pagan faiths thrive in the state and federal prisons, as in the Odinic Rite Ministry serves 500 inmates in 10 states. Prison guards are deeply concerned on the activities of Odinists may become hostile with white supremacist prison gangs.

The anti-cult movement affiliated with neo-Nazis and hate groups seem to accepted Odinism, Theodism, and Arianism (although unrelated to paganism), a revived early Christian movement of the Roman Empire has declared Jesus Christ not entirely a god, but of man.

Paganism can be a harmless alternative for some persons with deep feelings to nature and pre-modernity of a time before Christianity arrived in Europe, but the particular type (Odinism or Wotanism) is growing and arose from the underground as a new hate group. + 207.200.116.13 03:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

SPLW as "white supremacist group"

'Several white supremacist groups have founded Web sites dedicated to attacking their perceived enemies, such as Ken McVay, founder of the Nizkor Project; or Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center. These web sites, which gather "dirt" on their targets and claim to reveal the "truth," have been known to resort to slander and libel to attack their foes.'

Contraversial methods aside, isn't it incorrect to label the SPLW as a "white supremacist group"?

It sounds to me as if Nizkor and SPLC are being described as perceived enemies of white supremacist groups. But the phrasing is not great .... --FOo 17:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

al-Qaeda

I removed the following sentence:

Sometimes Al-Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist organization, is classified as a hate group.[10]

because the citation does not support the assertion. While the title of the linked article is "Hate Club", the text of the piece nowhere uses the term "hate group", or even the word "hate". This sentence cannot stand with such specious backing; if it's to go back in it needs to cite something that explicitly makes the point being claimed. (It should also go in a more appropriate section, perhaps #Hate group" as a characterization, instead of being jammed randomly between two unrelated sentences in the first section.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League

Duh. The article lists ADL as an org fighting hate groups. That may have been true some eons ago. The ADL has been a zionist-fundie hate group since at least 1968.

Yeah, ask them if Arabs should have equal rights in Israel. Haha.

Also check out tolerance.org and SPLcenter.org, both web pages are operated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, experts of hate groups and the white power movement. Since 1965, the SPLC fought racism, discrimination, violence and intimidation of African Americans in the Southern U.S. and other racial or social minorities across the nation. The SPLC and ADL contacts the federal and state governments to inform the latest on hate incidents. + 207.200.116.13 09:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither the SPLC nor the ADL should be said to be "fighting" hate groups: that is what they purport to do. Many credible sources see it differently. BulldogPete 11:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Name them. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vdare for one.[11]

Kevin Michael Grace:

"In Morris Dees’ America, night is always falling. It is a nation of ceaseless cross-burnings and lynchings, where minorities cower endlessly in fear, waiting helplessly for the next assault from the Klan, skinheads, the League of the South, Thomas Fleming, Samuel Francis and Chronicles, Peter Brimelow and VDare.com, David Horowitz and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, the American Enterprise Institute . . . The American Enterprise Institute? Surely there must be some mistake. Not at all..."

Steve Sailor:

Which is no doubt intentional on the part of people like Morris Dees who profit by terrifying elderly and out-of-touch liberals in the suburbs of the big blue cities into donating to his money machine.[12]

[13]:

"It's a Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker operation," says Millard Farmer, former partner of Morris Dees, speaking of Dees' SPLC fundraising methods "You'd read his letters and you'd think he was on his last penny." (5) But the SPLC, which has amassed coffers approaching $100 million, was ranked "the fourth least-needy charity in the country" in 1993, according to the American Institute for Philantropy.(6) In February of 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser, in a series of articles, called into question the fundraising tactics of the SPLC. Some criticized Morris Dees, calling him a "phony," the "television evangelist of civil rights who misleads donors."(7) According to Stephen Bright of Atlanta's Southern Center for Human Rights, Morris Dees of the SPLC is "...a fraud who has milked a lot of wonderful, well-intentioned people".(8)
The ADL, with an annual budget of over $34 million, also finds alarmism profitable. "Anti-Semitic" incidents reported by the ADL include verbal harassment and graffiti which, while alarming, are hardly the stuff of "domestic terrorism." Furthermore, while attempting to justify its agenda and raise money the ADL actually gathers reports of such anti-Semitism by soliciting its own mailing list - hardly a scientific and disinterested polling practice.

antiwar.com:

In the vanguard of this rhetorical shift is the veteran witch-hunter and professional character assassin Morris Dees, whose Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)...Dees has constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory in which virtually all of the groups and individuals to the right of William F. Buckley, Jr., are part of some vast interconnected network of cells, a "leaderless resistance" ...The SPLC peddles a brand of conspiracism just as garbled and elaborately wrongheaded as some of the wackos they "investigate," and in this sense the group is a scam, a fundraising machine that pays Dees an exorbitant salary. As his former partner, Millard Farmer, put it to the Progressive: "I thought he was sincere. I thought the Southern Poverty Law Center raised money to do good for poor people, not simply to accumulate wealth." In another sense, however, the SPLC is deadly dangerous, a private spy agency that runs an "intelligence project" aimed at political dissent.[14]

Washington Times:

When a hate crime is something to love
Nobody manipulates this...better than Morris Dees. Few do it as well.
Racism in America has become big business, real and otherwise, which is no doubt why Bill Clinton, who got caught several years ago peddling a phony story about church-burning in Arkansas, says he'll be getting into it from his $700,000-a-year offices in midtown Manhattan. The appetite for sensation, even when it is half-baked sensation, is insatiable, and Morris Dees could show him how to profit from it...White guilt can be manipulated with black pain, but it has to be done carefully. It's a sordid scam. Some people would call what Morris Dees does a hate crime, but it's a living, and a very good one.[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a8384576ae3.htm]

Sorry, but the SPLC does NOT fight hate crimes and list hate groups: it CLAIMS to do these things. Many view it otherwise. Stop removing my NPOV tag until this fact is addressed. BulldogPete 11:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide credible sources; these blogs don't count. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. vDare and the Washington Times are not "blogs," and are at least as credible as the SPLC. What is your basis for declaring vDare not credible? BulldogPete 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

VDARE is a radical anti-immigration website. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought we were looking for "credible" sources. Pretty sure your personal and far from neutral opinions don't count.

JoAnn Wypijewski, The Nation, February 26, 2001

"What is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing…? Mostly making money…In 1999 it spent $2.4 million on litigation and $5.7' million on fundraising, meanwhile taking in more than $44 million--$27 million from fundraising, the rest from investments…On the subject of 'hate groups' …No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of such groups than the center's millionaire huckster, Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging letter, 'Dear Friend, The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.”…With…a salary close to $300,000 putting him among the top 2 percent of Americans, Dees needn't worry about 'fitting in' with the masses of Montgomery [SPLC headquarters]."

Ken Silverstein, Harper's Magazine, November 2000 [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm]

Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. "He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement," renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, "though I don!t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.”…Dees's compensation alone amounts to one quarter the annual budget of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which handles several dozen death-penalty cases a year. "You are a fraud and a conman," the Southern Center's director, Stephen Bright, wrote in a 1996 letter to Dees, and proceeded to list his many reasons for thinking so, which included "your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly."

The Fairfax Journal, December 2003 [15]

... give your hard-earned dollars to a real charity, not (the SPLC) a bunch of slick, parasitic hucksters who live high on the hog by raising money on behalf of needy people who never see a dime of it.

Again: The SPLC does NOT fight hate crimes and list hate groups: it CLAIMS to do these things. Many view it otherwise.BulldogPete 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Hate

I hear this a lot, "I hate hate groups". What the Hell is this? Hypocritical. Personally I hate religion, So I'm in a hate group. If you hate me, are you not in a hate group for saying I'm wrong for my beliefs?

"Hate group" does not mean a set of people who happen to hate something. It means an organization advocating open hostility toward some sector of the populace. So, for instance, if you simply detest religion, you aren't "in a hate group". If you join with others to burn churches down or go around chasing religious people out of the public square, you might be.
Likewise, if you express detestation for hate groups by not joining any, you aren't "in a hate group" against hate groups. If you get together with your pals and lynch all the Klansmen in town, you might be. --FOo 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Almost all the groups identified in this article as hate groups are right wing. Yet there are just as many left wing hate groups. Shouldn't there be some balance here?124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Shouldn't there be some balance here?" Yes, the article is comically unbalanced. I followed a link from the Black Panthers wikipedia page to this page, yet there is no mention of the Black Panthers in the 'Hate Group' article. According to the Black Panthers article, both the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers have been labeled 'hate groups', the Panthers by the FBI and the New Panthers by SPLC and ADL.

That leads to 2 key questions: Can the 'hate group' label be used to suppress free speech? Can that suppression mechanism cut both ways (right and left)? In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (per curiam) that the First Amendment protects hate speech. The plaintiff in Brandenburg was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The Court went out of its way to rule that vague claims of 'advocating violence' cannot justify the suppression of political dissent. The per curiam opinion upholding the free speech rights of the Ku Klux Klan included some of the most liberal judges in history, including Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the Supreme Court, as well as arch-liberals William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, and William Brennan. Though the Brandenburg plaintiff was ultra-right-wing, the Court rejected the 'advocating violence' smear tactic that was used in the 'clear and present danger' cases to convict members of the Communist Party. The Court saw the 'hate group' label as a double-edged blade used to suppress political dissent on both the right and the left.Ten-K (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edited article

The article reaks with POV. How is "These groups work by feeding on the ignorant" a non POV? Ignorant according to who? You? Please work to comply with NPOV policy.

  • We're not likely to listen to such admonitions from editors who say Jewish Zionists do control the mainstream media in their edit comments, y'know. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

put up NPOV disclaimer

These groups have hate hotlines, Internet websites and chatrooms, and hate propaganda distribution networks designed to transform the fears of the economically challenged, the paranoid and the ignorant into violence, and to brutalize minorities and vandalize their property

There are so many things wrong with the whole page let along this part of the article. Anyone who joined the KKK is economically challenged, paranoid and ignorant? Do you know that Presidents and Senators belonged to the KKK and at one point in time had 5 million official members? IF anyone is ignorant I think it is the person who wrote this article.

71.131.245.179 02:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oddly, Wikipedia treats hate groups as if they are a bad thing. That's fairly non-neutral, I'll admit. It's not going to change, though; "hate is bad" seems to trump some other principles here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If this article is not resolved to a more balanced viewpoint I am going to raise hell. Please lets find a solution that everyone can agree upon without sacrificing the credibility of wikipedia by shoving ignorant opinions down peoples throats. Lets present the article in a respectable way.

Jerry Jones 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not likely we're going to find a "solution that everyone can agree upon" when "everyone" includes racists and anti-semites. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is very biased against hate groups, and should be revised. ATD 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, hate groups will receive negative attention and public opinion unfavorable to them. Some love the attention that gets the hate groups bigger or stronger. Historically, the KKK (the second version thrived in the early 1920's) influenced state politics in Oregon, Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma, until politicans fought them out of power through anti-corruption probes. + 207.200.116.13 09:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Racism in the Republican party" OR Cults of Hate Personality

This link: "Racism in the Republican party", was unrelated, biased, and flat out misleading. The title was the worst/most offensive part, but the article itself is irrelevent as well. Deleted it. This was the article, if you're curious: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html 68.166.38.31 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OR

What about cults of hate peronsality, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? They should be included, not under the Republican umbrella, but for their radio shows and ranting against gays, liberals and minorities.

Hate group as a label section

There isn't a source for the statement "In turn, a number of nrms..." so I changed the sentence to reflect the one nrm's claim, and changed the link for Ex-premies to the external website because the internal link to "Ex-premies" is the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, not an article about ex-premies as the main subject. I'm open to discussing this change. Sylviecyn 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I note the revision of my revision. Here's the sentence:
A number of new religious movements have used the term hate group to label critics: for example, Elan Vital, the organization supporting Prem Rawat refers thusly to its vocal critics, the "ex-premies", as does the Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities, associated with the Adidam NRM [7].
There's no source that backs up that "a number of nrms..." are labeled that way. If other NRMs do label critics as hate-groups, then they should be listed with a source. Also, I couldn't find any mention on FIRM that supports the statement concerning ex-premies: "as does Foundation against..." If I can't find it on their website, then the casual reader definitely won't be able to find it -- I searched the website yesterday. Please provide the actual citation (webpage) to substantiate the claim, otherwise, the sentence will have to be revised to reflect that only one NRM calls ex-premies a hate-group, and the FIRM reference will have to go, too. Thanks Sylviecyn 12:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
FIRM does not refer to ex-premies. It refers to the persecution of practicioners of new religious movements by apostates and anti-cultists. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have clarified this in my last edit. I have restored the wikilink to "Ex-premies", as it it pertinent. If your opinion is that the "ex-premies" is not the main subject of the article to which it redirects, you can request a Redirect for deletion WP:RFD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You started the article "Criticism of Prem Rawat" by using the title "Ex-premies" and it was changed to the more general "Criticism of Prem Rawat. But, back this is sentence. My main concern right now is that this sentence is still quite awkward, vague, and not adequately sourced. You have not provided a clear source that backs up "A number of NRMs..." by using the name of at least one other NRM that labels it's critics "hate-group," and/or a specific, appropriate source that does the same. Otherwise, it should read "One NRM...Elan Vital..." In addition, there are hundreds of articles and links on the firmstand.org site. Which page on that website specifically mentions critics of NRMs being called hate-group by the NRM? There isn't even a mention of the word "hate" in Adidam article. It's not enough to direct the reader only to the main page of Adidam's Firmstand website based on your phrasing and expect the reader to do all the work. Where does this group make that claim? This needn't turn into a revert war over my simple request for cites and more specificity, especially if they're available, as you state. Sylviecyn 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I checked their site and FIRM does not use the terms "hate group" specifically, although they describe the "prejudice, both overt and subtle, that are currently being practiced openly against many religious minorities" as well as what they considere discrimination and religious persecution by apostates and anti-cultitsts. I have removed the text related to FIRM and made some additional edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What about commies?

Communist and far-left parties shall be listed here too. Instead of providing a real solution to the economic gap, Marxism promotes '''''hate''''' between the rich and the poor, or those who consider themselves and others as such. So, it's easy for frustrated and lazy people to disguise their own envy and make it appear as a desire for equality. Commies promote revenge, (a pretty absurd one) but they call it "social justice" They, in fact, do the same things the article lists:

"Dehumanizing or demonizing the target" Call the target "rich people", "imperialism", "bureaucracy" or what ever you want (the target is so flexible that may adapt to anyone's needs)it is the enemy that does not allow Mankind become the "new man"

"Conspiracy theories, possibly not well backed up or referenced" Everything's is capitalism's fault, it's the worst disgrace, the root fo all evil

"Claiming to be a minority that speaks for a silent majority" That's the way every single communist party defines itself

The demonstration is, hence, quite clear.

So you define what these communist groups advocate and attack your own assumptions, sounds like a straw man to me. - Quirk 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Elan Vital removed

I have removed the reference to Elan Vital calling Prem Rawat's critics a 'Hate Group' as Elan Vital is not a reputable source for Hate Groups. Keeping the reference would allow anyone to set up a website, refer to some other group as a 'Hate Group', and qualify for inclusion in this article.--John Brauns 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton Hein is not a reliable source

Hein is not a reliable source to be quoted per WP:RS. His opinions appear only on his self published website and nowhere else in the press or scholarly literature on any subject. If there is some reason someone thinks he somehow qualifies as a WP:RS, please explain on this page before reverting.BabyDweezil 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil unblocked

My blocking of User:BabyDweezil for 3RR violation was unfortunatelly premature, as pointed out by User:JustAnother. It's been a long time since I've blocked anyone at all (I think the last one was a Barbara Schwarz IP more than a year ago), and I'd forgotten the details of Wikipedia:3RR. I've requested an unblock. --Modemac 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

"If the group continues to increase in membership, and at the same time increase their power and popularity in Stage 7, they may then be classified as a terrorist group, which is when the hate group has the ability to control the political climate. As terrorism is defined as using violent acts to achieve one's goal using fear, some hate groups have now increased to having that ability, and they become terror groups. These groups are typically characterized as being increasingly dangerous and extremist. Alleged terror groups such as the Nazi Party in Germany from 1933 to 1945 began as small groups that followed the steps of the typical hate group."

What are the sources of this information?66.57.188.0 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalize

I have added the {{globalize}} tag to this article because it not only omits discussion of hate groups outside of the United States, but references US law without noting its specificity. If the term hate group is used only in an American context, which I think may be the case, this should be clearly stated in the article. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hate organization

I've created this stub, than realized it may be just a fork of this article. Comments? Should we merge my stub here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Self Contradictory and Unsourced

The fundamental premise of this article is self-contradictory.

To summarize the definition given here:

A "hate group" is a group of people with an ideology that expresses opposition to other people with a particular characteristic, practice or belief system.

People who define "hate groups" as ethically bad and which should be opposed or suppressed, are themselves a "hate group", since by their own definition they are opposed to groups of people with a certain ideology, and often advocate government suppression of hate groups via the criminal code.

The recent coining and popularization of the term "hate group" is a propaganda device using "highly charged words" used by one ideological group to demonize a group holding an opposite ideology.

Note, for example the Anti Defamation League mentioned on this page. ADL is a group dedicated to the defense of Jewish people and culture, and has often worked to pass laws to suppress anti-Jewish ideological groups. The KKK promotes "white people" against Jews and Blacks. Arab and Muslim groups, on the other hand, refer to the ADL as a "hate group" while themselves advocating the abolition of the State of Israel, etc. Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam promotes black Muslims in opposition to whites. By the definition used in this article all of these are hate groups, with minor variations on whether they promote individual violence, revolution or state-sanctioned violence against the groups they are opposed to.

Likewise, opinions about sexual practices are highly polarized, with pro-homosexual groups promoting state suppression of the expression of the idea that homosexual practices are immoral, and on the other side religions that advocate criminalization homosexuality and other sexual practices.

Groups on both sides of the ideological issue tend to advocate state suppression of the other and use "hate group" as a propaganda device to demonize their opponents.

Additionally the definition of hate group used here is not properly sourced.

In the pursuit of NPOV, it would be better to write this article about the use of the term "hate group" as a propaganda device, rather than allow Wikipedia to become a conduit of such propaganda. If WIkepedia allows itself to become a conduit for this kind of propaganda its crediblity will be severely damaged over the long term.69.19.14.35 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No legal definition of "Hate Group"

Who came up with this definition? It wasn't the FBI or any other law enforcement agency because they have no legal definition of the term. Once a group breaks the law then, and only then, can they be charged with a crime, and possibly a hate crime.

This definition is meaningless. It's one person's opinion only. Under this description people with "Go Red Sox" bumper stickers would be classified a "hate group" for advocating hostility toward Yankees fans, etc.

And what does "organized" mean? Three guys talking on a street corner? Dues-paying membership?

The Southern Poverty Law Center's spurious definition of a hate group is no better for the very same reason.

In March 2008, the SPLC's PR Director Mark Potok summed up their definition of what exactly constituted a “hate” group by stating that …a “hate group” has nothing to do with criminality… [or] potential for violence... Rather, as Potok put it, It’s all about ideology.

(http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=301)

And do the authors really suggest that criticizing SPLC founder Morris Dees is somehow "hate speech"?

The SPLC is a private fund raising organization. It has no authority, legal, moral or otherwise, to designate anyone as a "hate group". It does so solely on the whim of Mr. Dees and solely for disagreeing with his ideology. These are your experts?

The Better Business Bureau criticizes the SPLC and no longer accredits them as a charity due to a lack of commitment to transparency. (http://us.bbb.org). Has the BBB now joined the ranks of the KKK?

Bulldog Pete has cited numerous other legitimate criticisms of Dees and his organization.

Here is a link to the SPLC's most recent IRS Form 990, which documents their financial state. http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLC990_2007.pdf

Note the fact that the SPLC now has over $150 MILLION donor dollars in its "Endowment Fund". That's not worthy of legitimate criticism?

Check out the top ten officers on pages 11 and 40 and note that, other than a couple of unpaid token advisers, NONE of the SPLC's top management are minorities. That's not worthy of legitimate criticism?

Note also that the three top officers, Dees, Cohen and Levin, split the first million donor dollars a year between them, and that does not include speaking fees. Mr. Dees current charges $10,000 a pop for his speeches and that money does not appear on the Form 990. That's not worthy of legitimate criticism?

http://www.mlive.com/news/chronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1231154119210980.xml&coll=8

Until a legal definition of "hate group" appears, which seems unlikely, all other definitions are strictly personal opinions and not worthy of Wikipedia. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

Should there be a list of any Feminist groups on this page. Since most people view all forms of feminisism as Hate groups, not only threw gender but also threw race. 09/10/10

64.7.166.43

64.7.166.43 made an addition I thought was not needed, perhaps soapboxy, so I reverted. He reverted my revert. So I went to his Talk page and left a very polite message about WP:BRD. His talk page was notable for all the warnings about bad editing on it. I was the only one who did not leave a warning. Anyway, he responded with personal attack. Therefore, I am bringing this matter to the talk page here. Setting aside any procedural violations, his substantive edit is not appropriate for this article. Will someone please look into this and act accordingly? Thanks. I'll be practicing 1RR for a while so I won't revert it myself. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why harp on the contents of my talk page here? And what personal attack? Jesus. This is the talk page for this article. Leave my talk page out of it. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.43 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Being ANONYMOUS and telling a USER with an ACCOUNT what they should do is far enough out of line in any situation. It doesn't matter if you disagree with him, take his advice instead of doing exactly what he suggested not to do, because his point is certainly more valid than yours. As for your edit, it looks legit, but still, someone obviously has a different opinion. Suck it up. Cheerio. ProudlyAnon (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So hate groups only exist in the USA?

Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.150.103 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged it for globalisation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

is hate a great soical network will find it very amuzing to be here on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.41.113 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is if you only have one source -- the SPLC. 2606:A000:7542:2600:3119:86:3C56:7306 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been quite some time and this article is still incredibly Americentric. Anyway of drawing attention to fixing it up? 129.215.124.139 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It is tagged for worldview. As a volunteer project, we do not have a way to "assign" anyone. There IS a way, however, for you to have someone "fix" it right now: Do it yourself. You are "someone". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope of definition

  • includes those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people

Does this include churches which say that homosexuality is sinful, based on the church's interpretation of scripture? I mean, do SCLC or others assert that holding the view that homosexuality is sinful constitutes an "attack" on all homosexuals, or a "belief which maligns" all homosexuals? And does such an assertion depend on which side the asserter takes in the contorversy over whether homosexuality is immutable? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? The SPLC site says
  • All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.[16]
The text above appears to be an accurate summary of the source. It's beyond the scope of this talk page to figure out how or why they arrive at these designations. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If there are more sources we can add to the mix then all the better. But I dn't see any problem with the text as written.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
More details can be found at [17] and the various links off of that site. My read is that the SPLC makes a distinction between groups (i.e. established religions) that make a biblical interpretation that homosexuality is a sin and primarily target their congregations versus those fringe groups that actively propagate their views in the political arena, using extremist language and proposals such as deportation and criminalization, while relying on myths such as those at [18] that go well beyond simply "because God said so". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt answers. That will help me, as I contribute to this article (or related articles). --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition given in this article is subjective and based on erroneous material from private fund-raising organizations. The wording, in particular, is imprecise and subjective:

"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, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society."

What does "organized" mean? How many members make up such an organization? Does the group need to hold meetings, pay dues, have a charter? "Hatred" and "hostility" are similarly subjective. If a New York Yankees fan has a "Beat the Red Sox" bumper sticker on his car has he "advocated hatred, hostility and/or violence"? Since the Yankees are organized, does this make them a "hate group" too?

Who exactly "designates" the protected sectors of society?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a private fund-raising organization which is subject to no external oversight and has no mandate, legal or moral, to designate anyone as anything. If you're going to hold up the SPLC as some sort of experts on "hate groups," you might want to know what they actually have to say on the topic. The SPLC's Public Relations man Mark Potok states that:

“…a “hate group” has nothing to do with criminality… [or] potential for violence…” Rather, as Potok put it, “It’s all about ideology.” This pretty much negates the opening definition of this article.

On May 17, 2002, Mr. Potok told USA Today, “The FBI does not monitor groups just because they have “hateful” ideology. There must be some evidence of criminal wrongdoing.“

The FBI website says, "Investigations are conducted only when a threat or advocacy of force is made; when the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and when the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law."

There's nothing here concerning ideology.

As mentioned in the article, Mr. Potok states that “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.” Other than "criminal acts," all of the other activities are Constitutionally protected rights, whether we agree with the content or not. Just because the SPLC doesn't like what you have to say does not in any way give them authority to designate anyone as anything.

On March 25, 2009, Potok was quoted in the San Luis Obispo Tribune, “Potok says inclusion on the list might come from a minor presence, such as a post office box.” Is THIS the scrupulously high standard of "organized"? A PO box?

This entire article needs to be rewritten in objective and factual terms, not someone's opinion of what a "hate group" should be, and certainly not based on the spurious fund-raising propaganda of the SPLC, which uses this kind of subjective language to garner tens of millions of donor-dollars a year. Richardkeefe57 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SPLC's opinion on what is and is not a "hate group" is not credible. They use that label to solicit donations and push their agenda. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24][25] [26] [27] Of course, this is Wikipedia, so they're going to be cited as "proof" anyway. -- Glynth (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Obama Hate Groups"? Facebook Hate groups?

Um, I'm calling WP:UNDUE on the "Obama Hate Groups" section that was added about a month ago. Firstly, as it is, this article is already US-centric enough, secondly only one source is used (conveniently cited twice), thirdly it mentions that some groups hate Obama because of his race, sexual orientation (um, ok...), and diet (again, wtf?). discounting the latter two, as they really do not apply to him, it is essentially a race-based issue, so this should be dealt with in the context of racial hate groups. Fourthly, and this is a bit more personal opinion, it seems to be holding Obama up on in a politically-motivated way. I'm sure I'll get partisan hate or get called a racist for bringing all this up, but whatever. Calling a spade a spade.

Also, and I think this is a lot less controversial, "Facebook hate groups" can easily be folded into "Internet hate groups". --L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole page is bogus, generally only using SPLC as the only source, and they think nearly everyone is a hate-monger who doesn't see things as they do. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur. 2606:A000:7542:2600:3119:86:3C56:7306 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Tax exemption

I belive that there should be a section on the Tax exemption status of hate groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thea10 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Student edits to begin on psychology section only

Greta Munger (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to the Psychopathology of Hate Groups

--Juwatkins (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing the following general outline and plan to elaborate with support from the articles below, each of which I have summarized briefly.

Theoretical frameworks

  • The 7-stage hate model
  • In-groups vs. outgroups
  • Realistic group conflict theory (Sherif 1961, mentioned in Cheng)
  • Integrated threat theory (Stephan 2000, mentioned in Cheng)
  • Terror management theory (Greenberg 1986, mentioned in Cheng)

Advent of technology and its effects on hate groups

Relationship between hate groups and acts of violence

  • Violent vs. non-violent hate groups
  • Terrorism

Hate groups directed at particular minority populations

  • Race (esp. hate speech directed towards)
  • Religion
  • Sexual orientation
  • Disability

Recommendations for combatting hate


Sources:

Cheng, W., Ickes, W., & Kenworthy, J.B. (2013). The phenomenon of hate crimes in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 761-794. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12004

  • Uses FBI data to examine hate crimes in the U.S. from 1996-2008, exploring the the number of incidences of hate crimes committed towards particular groups of people who are minorities of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Chermak, S., Freilich, J., & Suttmoeller, M. (2013). The organizational dynamics of far-right hate groups in the United States: comparing violent to nonviolent organizations. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 36, 193-218. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2013.755912

  • Examines 4 categories of factors that influence hate groups, with particular attention to what distinguishes violent from non-violent hate groups. The factors are 1. organizational capacity 2. organizations constituency 3. strategic connectivity 4. structural arrangements

Cowan, G. & Hodge, C. (1996). Judgments of hate speech: the effects of target group, publicness, and behavioral responses of the target. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 355-371. No doi given.

  • Examines hate speech in terms of people's judgments of its offensiveness and the accountability of those who exhibit it, looking at speech directed at particular minority groups. This study explores the importance of context of hate speech (who says it, to whom, in what setting, etc) to how an observer perceives the speech.

Deloughery, K., King, R.D., & Asal, V. (2012). Close cousins or distant relatives?: the relationship between terrorism and hate crime. Crime and Delinquency, 58, 663-688. doi: 10.1177/0011128712452956

  • Compares hate crimes and acts of terrorism, focusing on the notion that hate crimes typically involve persecution of a minority group by a majority group, whereas terrorism involves the opposite. The authors explore potential causal relationships between the two by examining data on hate crimes and terrorism from 1992-2008.

Denmark, F.L. (2010). Prejudice and discrimination. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi: 10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0700

Fiske, Susan. (2009). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Hove, Great Britain: Psychology Press.

  • Contains theoretical frameworks for prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination and references prejudices against specific minority groups.

Halevy, N., Weisel, O., & Bornstein, G. (2012). "In-group love" and "out-group hate" in repeated interaction between groups. Journal of behavioral decision making, 25, 188-195. doi: 10.1002/bdm.726

  • Explores individual participation in intergroup conflict as motivated by love of one's in-group vs. an aggressive or competitive motivation to hurt an out-group. The study showed that people much preferred to cooperate with their group rather than competing against an out-group; however, with time, people became less patiently cooperative and more competitive.

Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). "In-group love" and "out-group hate" as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict. Psychological Science, 19, 405-411. No doi given.

  • Examines whether altruistic desires to help one's in-group or competitive drives to hurt the out-group motivate self-sacrificial behavior in intergroup conflicts. Also examines the role that communication plays in intragroup and intergroup conflict.

Kleg, M. (1993). Hate, prejudice, and racism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

  • Includes a chapter on hate groups and haters that explores theoretical frameworks, etc.

Leader, T., Mullen, B., & Rice, D. (2009). Complexity and valence in ethnophaulisms and exclusion of ethnic out-groups: what puts the "hate" into hate speech?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 170-182. doi: 10.1037/a0013066

  • Explores the effects of the complexity/quality of ethnophaulisms (words used as ethnic slurs to refer to out-groups in hate speech) on the exclusion of ethnic groups from majority societies.

McMahon, B.T., West, S.L., Lewis, A.N., Armstrong, A.J., & Conway, J.P. (2004). Hate crimes and disability in America. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47, 66-75. No doi given.

  • Uses data collected on hate crimes to outline theoretical bases for bias motivation and their implications for hate crimes against Americans with disabilites, comparing them to those of other minority groups.

McNamee, L.G., Peterson, B.L., & Pena, J. (2010). A call to educate, participate, invoke, and indict: understanding the communication of online hate groups. Communication Monographs, 77, 257-280, doi: 10.1080/03637751003758227

  • Analyzes the messages in hate group websites by focusing on 4 themes: 1. education of members and external publics 2. participation within the group and in the public realm 3. invocation of divine calling and privilege 4. indictment of external groups including the government, media, and entertainment industries, and other extremist sects

Parker, M.T. & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2013). Lessons from morality-based social identity: the power of outgroup "hate," not just ingroup "love." Social Justice Research, 26, 81-96. doi: 10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6

  • Finds an interdependent relationship between ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity for social groups based in morality.

Schafer, J.R. (2006). The seven-stage hate model: the psychopathology of hate groups. Cultic Studies Review, 5, 73-86. No doi given.

  • Explains a model of hate groups that proposes ideas regarding how hate groups define themselves, how they target and taunt their victims, and how they attack their victims with or without weapons.

Sternberg, R.J. (2005). The psychology of hate. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

  • This book attempts to answer the following questions: How is hate conceptualized and what evidence is there for this conceptualization? What is the role of hate in terrorism, massacres, and genocides? How can hate be assessed?; It also explores possible ways to combat hate.


Sources look good, and the outline sections make sense. Are all 5 of the theories you list about hate groups still current? Does the Fiske (2009) indicate a couple that seem to have more empirical support?
  • Organization: remember that people hop around in reading Wikipedia articles, so make each little section as independent as you can
  • Methods: what kind of research supports these theories? Some sections will need more method details than others, helpful to keep in mind these descriptions: 3 research methods (experiments vs correlation vs descriptive); 2 data-collection (self-report vs observation); 2 research settings (lab vs field)
  • Figures and tables: be thoughtful an careful with this topic. Wikicommons has lots of pictures that might be useful. You cannot copy directly from journal articles (copyright violation), but you can recreate a figure and then donate it yourself. Greta Munger (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Julia, I really like what you’ve proposed! The original page is lacking in scientific exploration of hate group mentality and theories for how they are formed so I think it’s great that you are going to start out by highlighting the different theoretical frameworks.

One thing that popped out at me after reading previous comments on this talk page was trying to somehow make the article less “US-centric” than it currently is. Maybe seeing if there are a few cross-cultural journal articles on psychinfo or international references to hate groups? You might be able to tie this in to your “terrorism” section.

I think it’s very smart to have a section aimed at hate groups targeting minorities since both the WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject LGBT studies have flagged it as a page they’re interested in!

I’m using the Social psych textbook online as a source and found this topic that might be helpful to you: (http://psypress.co.uk/smithandmackie/resources/topic.asp?topic=ch13-tp-02) It’s a chapter on aggression and has a subsection on intergroup conflict. This made me think of how you could talk about in-group vs. out-group problems that could escalate to form hate groups!

After finishing, you should be able to tag a lot of other wiki links in the “see also” section at the very end. There might be a terrorism page, an in-group/out-group page, a non-violent hate group page, etc. that you can link to.

Can't wait to see the finished thing! Good luck, Sarahay (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Sarah

Are groups that promote hostility towards pro-Heterosexuality organizations, hate groups? 70.16.199.169 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see responses to your question below. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hate_group/Archive_4&oldid=1089888595"